LOST with the Others

2nd in the LOST in Theology Series. (1st)

This is about gaps–not logical gaps, lacunae–but about questions the story creates and then doesn’t answer.  Case in point: in LOST, who the heck are the Others?  What do they want with children, you know, Walt?  There are more of these gaps, and from having watched all the episodes consecutively in a short time, they stand out more.  Now, this could be a blog about pondering who the Others are, picking out pieces of evidence and making hypothoses based upon that evidence.  But that’s exactly the kind of thinking that I try to guard against on this blog.  Rather, I want to take this opportunity to turn the analytical eye back on the LOST viewer.  How do the Others play on LOST viewers?

For me, Seasons 1-3 drove me to ask the question: Who are the others?  In many ways, the genre of Lost (a serialed, weekly thriller) demands that it has constant unanswered questions, most of which are answered as new questions are posed during Season transitions.  It is a form used to a lesser extent by Dickens and Dostoyevsky, but still directed by market forces.  The genre structure keeps you watching, like an addictive chemical that makes you crave for it nightly.  But if such a driving question of the narrative is never answered, it is fair then to ask its function.

Narratives are primarily functional, somewhat rhetorical, and rarely ontological (concerned with the true nature of things, like Systematic Theology or Creedal statments).  They lead the audience through doors that they choose, passing other doors by.  The identity of the Others is one of those unopened doors, simply because the author, the narrative, enters into another door.  Then why include them at all?  The answer, I believe is functional, and a clue lies in the wisdom of Locke again:

LOCKE: He is one of them. To Rousseau, we’re all Others. I guess it’s all relative, huh? (One of Them, S2.14)

We are all others.  The Others fuction as a backdrop, so we can see the shapes and true colors of the 815ers, and we (the viewers) can engage and reflect on the 815ers’ moral choices.  We do this in real life, locating those we disagree with the most (GOP, Democrats, Muslims, etc.) and defining our own identities and morals against the backdrop of those ‘others.’  But in real life, those views are not always challenged.  But narratives often help us to see the moral complexity in others–most of Literature has this purpose.  In LOST, we encounter touching back stories of Juliet and Benjamin Linus.  We wrestle with Benjamin Linus, his betrayal, his tyranny, his redemtion, his further betrayal, his further redemption, and in the end we are no longer left with the burning curiosity of who the Others are, nor why they needed children.  That door is left closed.

As a Bible teacher, I’m often asked a question that shows me that when many people read the Bible, they are looking for ontological answers, rather than reading a functional narrative: “When did Jesus realize he was God?” (for other face-palming questions, look here.)  Truth is, there’s little (read: nothing) of Jesus’ divinity in the first three Gospels, so… But in John, we are given four statements that equate Jesus (or the Word) with God (1.1; 5.18; 8.58; 10.30).  However, in none of these statments does Jesus explicitly say that he is God.  In fact, Jesus’ suggested divinity is one of those doors closed by John’s narrative.  We glance at it as we pass it by, but we are more concerned with other things: Jesus’ farewell speech, his clash with Pilate, his call to feed his sheep.  As responsible readers/viewers, we must let the narratives take us where it leads, asking good questions along the way, but letting them linger as they do in the narrative.

What other unanswered questions are in LOST?  In what other ways to Christians skip the narrative to find theological answers?

Are you “one of them”?

LOST in Determinism

1st in the LOST in Theology series.

I was fascinated with the Free-Will/Predestination debate as a young Christian, but now I see it as silly and trivial. (I conflate a lot of ideas here intentionally, namely Determinism, Fatalism, Predeterminism, and Predestination.  Wiki them.  I will use ‘fate’ and ‘determinism’ interchangeably for brevity’s sake, except when I talk about ‘Social Determinism’.) But the debate between Free Will and Determinism is popular, used in many pop cultural medium, specifically in our case, LOST.  In short, it’s a highly marketable theme.

Locke is the biggest proponent of ‘fate’:

“We were brought here for a purpose, for a reason, all of us. Each one of us was brought here for a reason.”

Locke’s fate helps open the hatch.  Locke’s destiny blows up the submarine.  Locke returns to the mainland to convince the Oceanic 6 that it is their fate to return to the island.  In the end, within the story, it appears that Locke was correct, for Jacob had indeed ‘fated’ them all to the island.  But herein lies our problem, the gap between story and life.  Stories have ends, but in life, ‘the end’ is a relative and moveable marker, somewhat determined by one’s religious views.  So while fate is internally verifiable within a narrative, fate is scientifically unverifiable, because there is no last word in life.  None of us know to what extent our actions are fated or determined, nor to what extent we have free-will.

Free Will too is problematic, and a bit misunderstood.  One is free to will as one pleases, but this is not the same as the freedom to choose, nor to act.  And while one may be free to will, how one’s preferences are determined is up for debate, and certainly they are not created in a vacuum within an individual.  And at the moment of choice, choices are manipulated and limited by forces external to the individual.  Locke can will to remain on the island and will to have others stay with him.  But when he meets the group of survivors by the radio tower, he cannot simply choose those options.  The whole community of survivors is there limiting him from carrying out his will (although he does kill Naomi in his strongest enactment of his free will), and this limitation is a form of social determinism, a category of invisible social forces that press back against the will of the individual, evidenced by advertising, herding, market engineering, etc. So, it appears that neither Free Will nor Fate/Determinism have much to do with the lived experience of everyday life.   

A better way to think, in my opinion, is this: if a scientifically unverifiable faith claim is stated (i.e. ‘We were brought here for a purpose), then its function (rhetorical force) is far more important than the so-called “truth” of the statement.  Locke vs. Jack, Fate vs. Free Will: what is important is not which side is correct or more truthful, but that the competing claims force us to choose.  The survivors are consistently forced to choose between Locke and Jack, it drives the early narrative.  So forget about the Fate/Free Will debate, and ask yourself what each side is fighting for: there you will find the real argument.

The irony is this though: in making competing claims between Fate and Free Will, and forcing individuals to choose, one is actually participating in a form of persuasion that is akin to social determinism.  The competing claims are part of a social framework that limits the choices of an individual.  Was Locke meant to remain on the island–then why did he leave?  Was Peter destined to deny Jesus?  Judas to betray him?  Pilate to kill him?  What are the real motivations that drive those questions?

Questions that we are fated to find definitive answers for?

Destiny calls.