By Justin Martin

In The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity (2021), anthropologist David Graeber and Archeologist David Wengrow set out to offer a new way of thinking about the human origins of social complexity that is more in line with relatively recent scholarship and the preponderance of evidence as a whole. While exploring said complexity is beyond this essay’s scope, a foundational piece of their argument is particularly relevant for the discussion that follows. They argue that collectively, research on early human societies in vastly different parts of the world tends to converge on three fundamental human freedoms: the freedom to move, the freedom to disobey, and the freedom to reorganize social relations. Viewing our origins of social complexity through this three-part lens, they contend, enables us to construe many of our ancestors’ social history for the dynamic, multifaceted, and intellectually-informative relations they are.

 If these are in fact fundamental freedoms going back (at least as far as what is documented/evidence) to our ancestors’ earliest decisions to form and interact with communities and societies, then constraints on or violations of these freedoms have important implications for what it means to be human. Implications born out in season two of the acclaimed police drama Blue Lights (2023-) in a manner that parallels Jesus’ ministry as recorded and recalled in the gospels. In season two we follow the story of Lee Thompson, an army veteran who decides he has had enough of his neighborhood being controlled by warring gangs and the police not doing enough to stop them. Enlisting the help of some fellow veterans, Lee decides to bypass traditional law enforcement and rid the neighborhood of the gangs. One such gangster is Davy Hamill, who has wreaked havoc on his community in myriad ways, as the exchange below indicates. The theological implications of Lee defying authority and breaking the law to better his community notwithstanding, the essay focuses on a rarely-featured member of his community. Specifically, I argue how an exchange between the season’s main “villain” protagonists, Lee, and someone facing insurmountable debt (episode five, “Where I Want to Be”), Stacey, highlights the nature of insurmountable debt and the affordances of nature. And does so in a manner that parallels Jesus’ ministry.

The Freedom to Move

Lee: How much do you owe Davy Hamill?

Stacey: It’s a lot, Lee. They came up to me at the food bank. Asked if I needed a few quid for Christmas. You know, for the kids presents and that. And I said okay.

Lee: How much is it?

Stacey: 900, but I’ve paid that off three months ago.

Lee (looking down, writing): And you’re paying?

Stacey: 100 a month.

Lee (looking down, writing): How much have you still to pay?

Stacey: 1,000.

For Graeber and Wengrow, the freedom to move is evidenced by the various reasons early communities chose to relocate, including, but not limited to, crop availability, and personal preference. In their view, the records to-date indicate that amongst early human communities, immense value was placed on one’s ability to move to different places and regions. This could not be farther from Stavey’s reality in Blue Lights. Since she lives in a neighborhood controlled by violent criminals to whom she “owes” money while struggling to provide for her kids, she does not have the means to just pack up and move to another neighborhood, city, etc. And she most likely would not feel safe doing so if she could.

There are many parallels in scripture to choose from, but I will focus on two encounters with Jesus in John, one of an adulteress (8:1-11) and one of a blind man (9). In the former, Jesus saves a woman from being stoned in accordance with Mosaic law by imploring her would-be stoners to cast away if they are without sin. Once the crowd drops the stones and disperses, he tells her to go and sin no more. In the latter, Jesus heals a blind man, and due to their skepticism of the healing and their concern with it taking place on the Sabbath, the Pharisees conduct a thorough investigation of the healing–speaking with the man multiple times, his parents, and eventually, Jesus.

Given the close association between social status and one’s ability to go and do as one pleases, one does not have to squint too hard to see parallels between these events and Stacey’s situation when it comes to the freedom to move. For good reason, Stacey felt that her movements were constrained by Davy, at least until she paid off her debt. Similarly, during Jesus’ ministry, those who were blind and women–especially women deemed sinful–were near or at the bottom of the social hierarchy. A status that inevitably meant there were limits or constraints on their ability to move and do as they pleased, and these limits or constraints were often enforced by those higher up or atop of said hierarchy. Literally and/or figuratively, these individuals accrued a certain insurmountable “debt” of a social nature (e.g., being viewed as less than within the social hierarchy because of their physical characteristics) on top of the sin debt we inherited as a result of humanity’s fall (Genesis 3).  By saving the woman and healing the blind man physically and offering them abundant life spiritually, in a way he also afforded them the opportunity to live different lives and occupy different social spaces. Spaces that, if they chose, would move them up the social hierarchy. In this way, Jesus opened their eyes (no pun intended) to the possibilities of having both debts wiped away.

The Freedom to Disobey

Stacey: It’s the interest, like…I just–I can’t.

Lee: Not anymore.

Stacey: Lee, I can’t afford anymore. We can’t even put gas on the meter. The kids, they are freezing in the house.

Another fundamental freedom Graeber and Wengrow believe is born out by the evidence is the freedom to disobey. As with their presentation of evidence in support of the freedom to move, they list multiple reasons for disobedience, including, but not limited to, dissatisfaction with an authority figures’ actions or as part of a societal agreement or understanding whereby individuals choose to have an authority figure regulate (certain) aspects of their lives during certain times of the year but not during other times. On balance, they suggest, the evidence supports the idea that disobedience was not only ubiquitous among early societies; it also seemed to be an important feature of social stability and when deemed necessary, social evolution.

For Stacey, such a freedom, at least when it comes to her debtor, is absent. She cannot choose to disregard the debt and move on with her life out of fear of retribution towards her, kids, or both. Such an act would be disobedience. And right now, Davy appears to be the main authority figure in her life, evidenced by the interest he added that exceeds the original amount, and the fact that trying to make monthly payments toward the debt has affected her living conditions and children. 

Stacey’s situation highlights two features of debt that have parallels with Jesus’ ministry. Just as the amount she owes increases beyond her control (and she is unable to prevent further increase), sin can operate similarly, getting to the point where our own efforts, minus the work of the Trinity (God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit), are insufficient to prevent its increase. Second, just as the debt has started affecting her kids (they are freezing in the house), we cannot control our sin’s “radius,” or the amount of people potentially impacted by our sinful actions.

As illustrated in Jesus’ teachings concerning the law of the Old Testament, He calls us into a relationship with Him in order to address both. A relationship that sees us no longer bound by the debts of sin or the incomplete fulfillment of OT law. During Jesus’s time, the OT law, and the religious teachers enforcing it, were significant sources of authority dictating many aspects of people’s lives. In Matt. 5: 17-48, he shows the crowd how the correct orientation toward the law aligns its letter with its spirit. For instance, the law focuses on (1) murder but we must also control our anger, (2) adultery but we must also guard against lust, and (3) reactive reciprocity (e.g., eye for an eye) but instead we should embrace proactive reciprocity (e.g., putting others before ourselves).

Although it was not part of Mosaic law, Jesus also pushes back against the prevailing social norm of loving neighbors and hating enemies by imploring the crowd to also love enemies. Regarding other matters of OT law, Jesus clashed with religious teachers after breaking certain laws for ministry purposes, again pointing to prioritizing the spirit over the letter of the law and bringing the two into alignment (Mark 2). On balance, then, Jesus’ teachings concerning the fulfillment of law highlight a certain freedom that comes from no longer being bound by strict adherence to the letter of the law in a manner that parallels the type of freedom Graeber and Wengrow found so common amongst our human ancestors.

The Freedom to Reorganize Social Relations

Lee: I mean no more payments.

Stacey: What?

Lee: Your debts are forgiven. It’s wiped, Stacey. You can forget about it.

Stacey: Seriously?

The third freedom they discuss is the freedom to reorganize social relations. From traditional and theatrical performances where individuals occupy different social roles to various forms of social experimentation with leadership structures and decision-making procedures, many early human societies were characterized, at least in part, with social reorganization.  In Blue Lights, Stacey is in no position to relate to Davy in a manner that suggests they are equals, as the sense we get from the conversation is that this debt, in some form or another, is perpetual. Which means that the current configuration of their social relationship is fixed, with her as the indebted with no agency, recourse, or conceptual space to imagine anything different. It is though the nature of the debt prevents her from being fully human. Through her facial expectations, posture, and expectation that this arrangement is likely permanent, Stacey’s desperation is clear to see. So one could imagine what was going through her mind when her debt was wiped clean.

When viewed through the lens of this third fundamental freedom, Jesus’ actions mentioned above take on an additional meaning. Through healing the blind man and telling the adulteress she is not condemned, he affords them the opportunity to re-enter their social relations. Undoubtedly, they are now perceived differently by some, given the stigmas associated with being blind and condemned by the law during the times. Now free from those constraints, what social possibilities might they actualize? The same question can be posed for those–regular townspeople and religious teachers alike–who heeds Jesus’ call to act in (1) true fulfillment of the OT law by prioritizing its spirit, even if doing so sometimes comes at the expense of the letter (such as “disobeying” the letter of the law by helping someone on the Sabbath) and (2) counter to the prevailing social norm of hating one’s enemies, or both.

Debt-Free

Lee: Here’s 200.

[Stacey looks at the envelope somewhat pensively.]

Lee: Put it on the gas and the electric.

Stacey: What…what is it that you want?

Lee (Leaning in closer): I want things to go back to the way they used to be around here.

After telling Stacey her debt is wiped clean, he gives her a monetary gift with no strings attached. Still not fully convinced she is free of this kind of bondage, she expects that Lee, too, may exploit her. But all Lee wants is to restore a sense of normal social relations in his neighborhood. One where, as long as they are not harming others, residents are free to move, disobey, and reorganize social relations. The gospel, too, gives us something new after erasing something old. In addition to debt erasure, we are offered a new life–across psychological (e.g., altering our thoughts and attitudes), social (e.g., altering our relationships) and spiritual (e.g., citizenship in God’s Kingdom) dimensions.

And like Lee’s actions, the gospel affords us the opportunity to move, disobey, and reorganize social relations in a manner consistent with our God-bearing image, albeit in different, or at least scripturally consistent ways. To the extent we choose places to live and spend our time, scriptures such as Matthew 5 encourage us to redefine what neighbor and community means, and live alongside others in ways that put them first. To the extent we decide when to follow authority (a person, law, or powerful social norm) and when to question or defy it, scriptures like Matthew 5 and Mark 2 remind us to follow Christ’s example and do so for the sake of the Kingdom and not ourselves. Lastly, to the extent we advocate for and initiate relations with others that are more humane, just, and selfless, scriptures like John 8 and 9 remind us to do so holistically, accounting for individuals’ physical, social, and spiritual needs. When we do these, we are, in a sense, actualizing these fundamental freedoms in a manner consistent with our God-bearing image.