Nathan -
I find myself agreeing somewhat with Morrow’s description of evil embodying a “wandering fluid quality” making it difficult to identify. There is an amount of cultural bias that serves as the basis for our perception of “what is good” and “what is bad”. Even as I read through his writings I find myself wanting to replace the word “evil” with the word “sin.” Not that this may not be accurate substitution, or isn’t what I believe, but just that it is so automatic. I ask myself if this is a result of deep conviction and faith, or just the byproduct of dogmatic conditioning from a young age.
Dogmatic conditioning appears to subconsciously align itself with evil, not only in the modern age, but also throughout history. The crusades, holocaust, and jihad are just a few examples where ideals have been blinded by greed, selfishness, and a desire for power driving humans to do unimaginable acts. Evil will infiltrate into a subculture where it will momentarily coexist with its surroundings. As a parasite latches onto a host, so evil invades the apparent innocence of a community and feeds off the naivety, ignorance, and blindness of its inhabitants. When that parasite is finally brought into the light the host has been infected with the deadly disease it was carrying, not to forget others indirectly infected during the parasites concealed reign.
When viewed from this perspective, evil is not defined by an action, but embodies an existence of its own; a presence that influences our thinking and acting. It would serve true that passage in Job where “The Lord said to Satan, ‘Where have you come from? Satan answered the Lord, ‘From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it.’” (Job 1:7)
Sam
3 comments:
Sam,
Thank you for these opening remarks; very insightful. First, to your comments on using the terms "evil" and "sin". Language develops in a culture and is used by people to point to the "thing" itself and the language is less important than the "thing" itself. The term "Becky" refers to your wife and the word "kind" or "gracious" might capture apart of her personality, but they are merely tools to communicate about your wife. The worst expressions of personal and/or systematic human activiy must have language assigned to it (of course there is some discussion on how to define the word "worst"). The way I see it, sin casts a broad net and evil is a sub-category of sin, the worst expressions of human sin. Cultural bias definitely plays apart in how we see what is good and what is bad, but I think that evil is transcultural even though the way we talk about it is culturally conditioned in many ways. We have to remember that evil is not just defined by the collective consiousness of a particular society. Some things are evil whether we regard them that way or not (in a similar way that God exists and is good whether anyone confesses it to be true or not). I see Morrow's use of the word "evil" as referring to the worst of human sin.
Elaborate more on your thoughts on "dogmatic conditioning". Dogmas are not always bad, but when they used for evil they can be utterly deadly. It sounds like you have more to say on this.
I too like Morrow's insight on evil as a force that infects people and societies at moments and times in history. But I would not go so far as to say that evil is "not defined by an action, but embodies an existence of its own." I don't think this is quite what Morrow is saying. I think he is saying that evil is manifest in the confluence of the "force" of evil and the subsequent action. Evil is manifest in the intention to do an evil act and the execution of that act. In a later chapter we'll see why this distinction might be important.
On page 17 I think there is a very interesting passage. Morrow talks about evil as opportunistic, an electrical current, wandering like an infection, taking up residence from time to time--all of which distances used to dampen, but not in a globalized world (globalization has contributed to the reunion of micro evil (e.g. rape, murder) and macro evil (e.g. genocide), personal and systemic evil). Morrow goes on to say that evil flows from place to place through channels of least resistance. I think this is a fascinating thought on how the forces of globalization (multilayered networks facilitating the mass movement of ideas, people, and goods at global distances) can change the manner in which evil shows itself. I think there is a lot of interesting speculation that could be done on this idea, but Morrow might be onto something.
Finally, in chapter 2 on page 25 Morrow talks about the "universal joke" in human communities around the world. The joke is always about the "other", making a caricature of them, making fun (at best) of those not in "our group". I just had one thought on this. The Gospel of the Kingdom of God (or said another way, the Gospel is the message of the Kingdom of God being at hand) says that there is no "other"--"Jew and Greek" are both invited to kneel at the foot of the Cross; Jesus made no distinction between people; the only people He condemned were the people who claimed that they were the "in-group" (pharisees) and that all others were the "other". The universal joke indicates a very real, though evil truth, about our world; people seem to gravitate towards dividing ourselves into "us" and the "other". Jesus radically abolishes this and calls His people to pay particular attention to those who are the worst victims of this vile pattern of human communities. This is one reason why His Church is meant to be particularly attentive to the poor and oppressed.
Let me know your thougts. I look forward chapters 3 and 4.
Blessings Brother,
Nathan
Sam,
I think the first question that Morrow asks in chapter 3 is interesting and worth thinking more about. Why do we still question the existence of evil, and additionally, why are we not immobilized by its overwhelming prevalence? It seems sometimes that evil is the only thing that is certain in life. Some thoughts come to mind. I don't want to explain away why we are not more horrified by the evil in our world. But in song I really like the singer says,"...and all the death in the world, if you sat it next to life, I believe it would barely fill a cup..." This is said in Scripture several different ways. Part of the reason we are not overwhelmed by the evil in the world is probably because it hurts so much to really face it or because we don't want to pay the price that it would cost to draw near to it. But another reason is that the most authentic facets of "the life that is truly life" given to us by God, in His common grace, overshadow the evil. Its kind of like evil has no life or being of its own; it can only exist in the context of its being the opposite of life and goodness. The truth of this may resonate with people so deeply because we are creatures of a good God. Maybe at our deepest level we realize that evil never has the last word, and is never final or ultimate. Maybe this is enough to keep the mass evil of our world (including that committed by us) from becoming all we see.
On page 32 Morrow writes, "Perhaps the concept of evil is aesthetic rather than moral or philosophical or social." The word "aesthetic" is defined by the following:
–adjective
1.
pertaining to a sense of the beautiful or to the science of aesthetics.
2.
having a sense of the beautiful; characterized by a love of beauty.
3.
pertaining to, involving, or concerned with pure emotion and sensation as opposed to pure intellectuality.
Essentially, Morrow seems to be saying that the concept of evil might better be understood as something we sense or feel at a level that does not involve abstract theoretical thought which involves crafting models to capture characteristics of evil. Still on page 32 Morrow goes onto say that "We recognize evil sometimes without formulating an articulate case against it." But Morrow then says that this "instinctive judgment may be entirely wrong..." I like the idea suggested by Morrow that we intrinsically can sense what is good and beautiful and therefore can sense the opposite, i.e. the presence of evil. But as Christians we have to ask how sin may skew our intrinsic nature and our sensibility to "recognize" evil. Morrow addresses this problem by saying that our "instinctive judgment may be entirely wrong". My point is that we should not view the concept of evil as aesthetic rather than moral or philosophical because thinking in moral terms using the tools of philosophy can help us discover the presence of evil even at times when our social conditioning and personal experiences may blind us to naming something as evil.
For example, a kid with a broken family surrounded by gangs and violence and retribution killings between gangs may join a gang. He may become immersed into the life of this gang and all its patterns. His affinity for his gang may draw him to participate in the murder of members of another gang and to see this kind of activity as right and just or at least the best way to function in this environment. In any case, this gang member certainly would not see this murder as evil. What he should sense in his very being as evil he resists or ignores because of the sin in his person and in the social structure of his community. Philosophical and moral reflection can lead us to look beyond our social conditioning because this type of reflection can lead us to ultimate questions about reality, about what constitutes human nature, about what's wrong with the world, and if we're honestly reflecting, it leads us to questions about the nature of God. We might feel evil through our aesthetic senses but we might "turn off" our perception of those senses. Of course, we must hope for God's guidance in our philosophical reflection too. I guess we can also "turn off" our ability to be intellectually honest.
Chapter 4 is a great chapter in my opinion. Morrow discusses on page 35 that some people have concieved of evil in two categories: 1. natural evil 2. moral evil. I disagree with this. I think a key aspect of evil is intentionality. This makes human agency or participation integral to the existence of evil. Horrible things happen like illness, natural disasters, and devastating accidents. These things are not evil in my mind. Our indifference to people facing such things, that is evil because now there is intentionality involved. Tragedy and evil are not the same thing. This idea of intentionality also addresses the other idea introduced on this page about how pre-determined hard wiring in the brain or God's decree may cause certain people to do evil. This idea would seem to eliminate intentionality and is absurd. Morrow writes, still on page 35, "No one has managed to reconcile divine determination and personal responsibility...Maybe the dilemma is precise proof of the duality...of all life. Each thing has its shadow and contradiction." This idea of creation consisting of a duality is compelling. It also helps me reconcile the idea of a good God creating a world that has potential to act in ways so contradictory to those of God's, i.e. to commit great evil. The very existence of "good" demands that its opposite exists or has the potential to exist. When God created all things and ordered everything in such a way that love is the ultimate "law" of the universe He took the potential for God's eternal opposite and provided a medium for it to develop. Since expressions of love can only be extended freely (or they cease to be love), the related choice necessitates the potential for love’s opposite, evil (this is one reason why I think a necessary component of evil is intentionality, that it is freely chosen). The idea of creation having a dual nature helps us as Christians really catch a glimpse of how God can be good and sovereign and yet His creation can be so evil and disobedient. God's goodness requires love to be the highest order of the universe, and love as the highest order requires freedom, and freedom of human beings requires that we be allowed to choose darkness, destruction, violence, deceit, indifference..., and evil. The Sam Harper that cheats on his wife, abuses her, and utterly disregards her well-being in every way must have the potential to exist for their to be any meaning and authenticity in the Sam Harper that is unequivocally committed to his wife, shows her unending kindness, and regards her well-being before his own as one of his primary responsibilities in his life.
Finally, Morrow says on page 37 that "Evil is the imitation of God..." This really struck me as making perfect sense. Evil tries to shed all constraints and to operate in utter autonomy. Evil promotes its ways for its own sake and for its own glorification. This is imitating God. Its just that God created the world and prescribed love as its ordering principle whereas evil is just a parasite, requiring another's creation and existence to exist and be manifest. Why do we so often choose the imitation and its ways and why did we in the first place? This final question has often left me with no answer whatsoever. Even though it makes sense to me that the existence of goodness necessitates the potential for the existence of evil, why did the first volitional beings (an angel who became Satan or Adam and Eve in the garden) choose to realize this potential evil in the first place instead of perpetually choosing goodness in all His fullness as they lived in His presence? Pride is always the answer that is given. It’s a good answer, but why be prideful before God?
Let me know if I am posting in the way you had in mind using the comments section. I look forward to your thoughts.
Shalom,
Nathan
Good post.
Post a Comment