Sam,
First, I want to comment on something that I brought up in a previous post. I said that evil is both a force (also an intention or disposition) and the act that makes this force known or able to be seen. I said that it would become important in a future chapter. Chapter 5,"The Hermit's Tale" was that chapter. I feel chills when I read this story. I also feel disgust, disdain, and sadness for the lonely man living in the cabin. What kind of person secretly violates dolls in this way, and what else is he capable of? But then I read the Morrow's alternate explanation. What if this was a story of evil (as in the force of evil or disposition to evil) resisted? Even with Morrow's explanation, there was deep sin wrapped tightely around this man's soul (as well as around the soul's of all of those people around him who thought him weird but never considered trying to meet him or get to know him) that made him feel such a deep urge to find sexual satisfaction with children. But if Morrow's explanation is true, that this man was using dolls to resist the temptation to hurt real children, then, although sin is no doubt there, evil was resisted. The force of evil was never joined with its ultimate manifestation in reality and therefore it did not materialize. There may have been another way to resist this evil, but maybe not if this guy had to do it by himself. In Morrow's explanation, I think the Hermit felt the best way he could affirm the "light" in the world was to separate himself from the world in order not to spread more darkness.
On to some of your comments...you start out with an explanation for how some of our modes of thinking and perceptions are formed. I agree with this. I think the fact that we learn and develop in this way in connected to God's call to His people to live in community. The Church as a community is meant to be apart of this socialization process and to pass down the stories and memories of what God has done and is doing so that we can be formed by them. This is no doubt an imperfect process.
I like your Newbigin quote; it is very relevant here. Sometimes we don't realize how our lives point to starting points for understanding that are far from the Gospel. You seem to be struggling with how to shed the influences of this world in order to have the "eyes and heart" of Christ. Please keep struggling. The first step in opening up to God is the recognition that you are struggling with shedding the influences of this world. I am not trying to be an elitest even though this may sound like I am, but most people never take this step. And if they do it takes a major life event or tragedy for them to do it. Most people stay comfortably immersed in the deception of their own cultural conditioning. In some ways we choose to stay immersed and in other ways we are so blind that we stay immersed without even knowing it. This is another reason why I think much truth can be discovered in serving the "least of these." I believe there are two reasons for this. One, it is countercultural (in almost any culture) to serve people who are different than me and to do it via the sharing of my own material resources. Second, in serving the poor in the way that Jesus calls us to, we are to serve the whole person, building relationships and sharing experiences. This allows for the one who is serving to learn from the one being served and to catch a glimpse of life from a perspective that otherwise would be unattainable. This too is countercultural to think that someone who is not as "successful" has much to teach me about life.
One way to look at your Newbigin quote is to think about the attributes of the Kindgom of God and that it is available now, since this is the Gospel message. How are we a reflection of the Kingdom's ways and its reality with our lives? I have no doubt that this can lead us closer to this "new starting point for all human understanding of the world." In what ways do we forgive endlessly, in what ways do we treat the last as though they are first (in what ways do we define "last" and "first"), in what ways are we generous beyond our means, in what ways do we pray to God on behalf of those we dislike (or hate), in what ways do we seek justice on behalf of the oppressed, in what ways do we confess our own sins before we condemn the sins of others, in what ways do we recognize that people (or "flesh and blood" as the Bible words it) are never our enemies but instead our enemies are dark spiritual forces, the principalities and powers, in what ways do we affirm the value of this creation and God's promised restoration of it, in what ways do we truly worship and lift up the name of the Lord every day...
Your discussion of hope is a good point. Morrow does not articulate much here. But I would say that since Morrow is affirming that existence of evil it is simply not possible to avoid affirming the existence of absolute good. Even though he does not articulate the hope he alludes to, for the purposes of his essay, the opposite of evil is all he wants to say about the thing that he claims hope in. Hoping for diminished evil or even its absence is not necessarily the same as the many false hopes that exist in the world.
You wrote: "True hope, in a world embodied with evil, is beyond an intellectual concept, spiritual idea, or a human existence..." I agree, but honestly acknowledging the existence of evil can be the first step to recognizing Christian hope.
The pace is fine. No worries about that.
Blessings,
Nathan
Monday, July 23, 2007
Evil 2.3
Sam,
First, your thoughts on dogma are interesting. CS Lewis makes some similar comments in some of his writings. I especially appreciated when you wrote that an "individual’s perception over time can become so conditioned by principles and rules that they are unable to see the greater fullness of that truth they originally sought to understand." This is something I have thought about in different ways for quite some time, but I don't know that I have ever put it so concisely. You are right on, the Truth is Jesus himself. Truth is not a series of propositions about him, as important as they are. One thing, however that I often come back to, no matter how nuanced I want to be in my view of the world in terms of culture, politics, crime, interpersonal relationships, etc., sometimes black and white and right and wrong emerge; sometimes they exist no matter how sophisticated (or honest) our understanding is. Its just that whenever we venture into the territory of making assertions that an action, an issue, an event, an idea, and so on, is black and white or right and wrong, it is in these moments that we must hope and pray the most fervently for humility and openness to the Spirit.
You wrote: "Christians fall so often into the trap of striving to live life by the Law – spiritual and behavioral disciplines – in order to attain intimacy with Christ." Sometimes I wonder if trying to attain intimacy with Christ for my own sake is like seeking to be happy. Happiness cannot be attained by seeking it directly, because true happiness comes from living a life that is worthwhile (laughing with children, spending time with the lonely, serving the poor, diligence in your work, investing in friendships, caring for family members, loving your wife and kids, etc.). I know this can be overdone because in some senses, seeking my intimacy with Christ is good for its own sake. But it is worth considering why God says to a king in Jeremiah, "caring for the poor and lonely, that is what it is to know Me." And Jesus echoes this in Matthew when He says, "whatever you have done for the least of these, you have done for Me."
You wrote: "As self recognized sinners, and believers of the redemptive power of Christ’s blood, scripture says that the Spirit of God indwells in us. As such, do we have an innate spiritual response to evil that others (non-believers) fail to have? If we do have an innate spiritual response, then how is it we are able to separate ourselves from any cultural conditioning (or even dogmatic conditioning) on how we perceive the evil in this world?" -- This is a very difficult question and one that there is no great answer to. But I have some thoughts. First, just because those who confess the name of Christ are given God's Spirit to "indwell" us, this does not mean that we are forced to be responsive to this Spirit. It is difficult and requires much of us to begin to shed the cultural lenses with which we see the world in order to see the world through the lense of Christianity. I do think that being formed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the whole narrative of Scripture gives us a sensitivity to evil that others do not possess, maybe in part because they give us a sensitivity toward the Spirit of God living in us. But it must be remembered that transformation out of our sinful nature into even the palest reflection of Christ is participatory on our part with God and is lifelong. It does not happen in a moment of becoming "born again" as some Christians may seem to imply. And this means that even with God's Spirit, some of us may still lack the sensitivity to perceive evil when it rears its head.
Nathan
First, your thoughts on dogma are interesting. CS Lewis makes some similar comments in some of his writings. I especially appreciated when you wrote that an "individual’s perception over time can become so conditioned by principles and rules that they are unable to see the greater fullness of that truth they originally sought to understand." This is something I have thought about in different ways for quite some time, but I don't know that I have ever put it so concisely. You are right on, the Truth is Jesus himself. Truth is not a series of propositions about him, as important as they are. One thing, however that I often come back to, no matter how nuanced I want to be in my view of the world in terms of culture, politics, crime, interpersonal relationships, etc., sometimes black and white and right and wrong emerge; sometimes they exist no matter how sophisticated (or honest) our understanding is. Its just that whenever we venture into the territory of making assertions that an action, an issue, an event, an idea, and so on, is black and white or right and wrong, it is in these moments that we must hope and pray the most fervently for humility and openness to the Spirit.
You wrote: "Christians fall so often into the trap of striving to live life by the Law – spiritual and behavioral disciplines – in order to attain intimacy with Christ." Sometimes I wonder if trying to attain intimacy with Christ for my own sake is like seeking to be happy. Happiness cannot be attained by seeking it directly, because true happiness comes from living a life that is worthwhile (laughing with children, spending time with the lonely, serving the poor, diligence in your work, investing in friendships, caring for family members, loving your wife and kids, etc.). I know this can be overdone because in some senses, seeking my intimacy with Christ is good for its own sake. But it is worth considering why God says to a king in Jeremiah, "caring for the poor and lonely, that is what it is to know Me." And Jesus echoes this in Matthew when He says, "whatever you have done for the least of these, you have done for Me."
You wrote: "As self recognized sinners, and believers of the redemptive power of Christ’s blood, scripture says that the Spirit of God indwells in us. As such, do we have an innate spiritual response to evil that others (non-believers) fail to have? If we do have an innate spiritual response, then how is it we are able to separate ourselves from any cultural conditioning (or even dogmatic conditioning) on how we perceive the evil in this world?" -- This is a very difficult question and one that there is no great answer to. But I have some thoughts. First, just because those who confess the name of Christ are given God's Spirit to "indwell" us, this does not mean that we are forced to be responsive to this Spirit. It is difficult and requires much of us to begin to shed the cultural lenses with which we see the world in order to see the world through the lense of Christianity. I do think that being formed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the whole narrative of Scripture gives us a sensitivity to evil that others do not possess, maybe in part because they give us a sensitivity toward the Spirit of God living in us. But it must be remembered that transformation out of our sinful nature into even the palest reflection of Christ is participatory on our part with God and is lifelong. It does not happen in a moment of becoming "born again" as some Christians may seem to imply. And this means that even with God's Spirit, some of us may still lack the sensitivity to perceive evil when it rears its head.
Nathan
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Evil 3.1
Nathan,
As we live our lives in the physical realm, our senses allow us to perceive various objects and actions of this world. The moment we enter this world as infants our minds and bodies are constantly engaged with the lights and textures, smells and sounds of our immediate environment formulating our perceptual understanding of this world. Once internalized our perceptions, paired with the influence of other’s perceptions, consequently serve as primary building blocks that influence our rational and overall understanding of this physical world. In theory, the more we experience, the more we perceive the more we grow.
Morrow’s story of the hermit in chapter 5, and the description of his altered perception of the hermit, drove me to wonder how often my own perception of this world is skewed by the philosophies of this world, rather than the teachings of Christ. How often I seem to fall way to popular perceptions of this world due perhaps to insecurities, fears, and a desire for comfort, that I fail to see people, experiences and this life through the eyes of Christ. In reference to the gospel, Leslie Newbigin wrote, “At the heart of the Christian message…God had acted in a way that, if believed, must henceforth determine all our ways of thinking. It could not merely fit into existing ways of understanding the world…it provided…a new starting point for all human understanding of the world.” As Christians our perception of this world, and more specifically of people in all walks of life, must begin with the message of the cross.
I am left with the question, however, of how does one separate himself from the influences of this world that inhibit our ability to perceive as Christ did? Christ did not call us to live lives as hermits, cut off from the world, in order to separate ourselves from the evil of the world. Quite the contrary he called us to take the light, His light, into the dark corners of this world through love, service, and sacrifice.
Morrow concludes the chapter stating, “but it is important to have hope.” The presence of evil in our world pushes humanity to hope for something better, however I often wonder what people find hope in; hope in an idea, a theory, an existence? I am sure that in a pluralistic, multicultural world, you could pole 100 people on individual hope, and get nearly 100 different answers. I think one would find however, that many, if not most answers lack the believable conviction from which true hope is manifested. Morrow’s tone in the final words of the chapter even lacked the conviction that the hermit was not the child molester that the rest of the community perceived him to be.
True hope, in a world embodied with evil, is beyond an intellectual concept, spiritual idea, or a human existence, but is deeply rooted in a faith in something that is not contained by the philosophies and theories of this world.
Hopefully I will get to Chapter 6 this weekend. I know that the pace of our dialogue has been slower than we intended. Let me know if this is frustrating you at all.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Shalom aleichem
Sam
As we live our lives in the physical realm, our senses allow us to perceive various objects and actions of this world. The moment we enter this world as infants our minds and bodies are constantly engaged with the lights and textures, smells and sounds of our immediate environment formulating our perceptual understanding of this world. Once internalized our perceptions, paired with the influence of other’s perceptions, consequently serve as primary building blocks that influence our rational and overall understanding of this physical world. In theory, the more we experience, the more we perceive the more we grow.
Morrow’s story of the hermit in chapter 5, and the description of his altered perception of the hermit, drove me to wonder how often my own perception of this world is skewed by the philosophies of this world, rather than the teachings of Christ. How often I seem to fall way to popular perceptions of this world due perhaps to insecurities, fears, and a desire for comfort, that I fail to see people, experiences and this life through the eyes of Christ. In reference to the gospel, Leslie Newbigin wrote, “At the heart of the Christian message…God had acted in a way that, if believed, must henceforth determine all our ways of thinking. It could not merely fit into existing ways of understanding the world…it provided…a new starting point for all human understanding of the world.” As Christians our perception of this world, and more specifically of people in all walks of life, must begin with the message of the cross.
I am left with the question, however, of how does one separate himself from the influences of this world that inhibit our ability to perceive as Christ did? Christ did not call us to live lives as hermits, cut off from the world, in order to separate ourselves from the evil of the world. Quite the contrary he called us to take the light, His light, into the dark corners of this world through love, service, and sacrifice.
Morrow concludes the chapter stating, “but it is important to have hope.” The presence of evil in our world pushes humanity to hope for something better, however I often wonder what people find hope in; hope in an idea, a theory, an existence? I am sure that in a pluralistic, multicultural world, you could pole 100 people on individual hope, and get nearly 100 different answers. I think one would find however, that many, if not most answers lack the believable conviction from which true hope is manifested. Morrow’s tone in the final words of the chapter even lacked the conviction that the hermit was not the child molester that the rest of the community perceived him to be.
True hope, in a world embodied with evil, is beyond an intellectual concept, spiritual idea, or a human existence, but is deeply rooted in a faith in something that is not contained by the philosophies and theories of this world.
Hopefully I will get to Chapter 6 this weekend. I know that the pace of our dialogue has been slower than we intended. Let me know if this is frustrating you at all.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Shalom aleichem
Sam
Friday, July 6, 2007
Evil 2.2
Nathan,
I apologize about the delay in response.
To begin with, you have asked me to elaborate on my thoughts from an earlier post regarding dogmatic conditioning. Dogma is defined as “a principle, or set of principles, laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.” One who dedicates himself to a particular dogma, embodies these principles in their life as guides to live by in search for truth. In doing so, that individual’s perception over time can become so conditioned by principles and rules that they are unable to see the greater fullness of that truth they originally sought to understand. The world to them is perceived as black and whites, right and wrongs; they have become rigid in their belief. Consequently destruction, whether spiritually, physically, or both, will occur in that individual’s life as well as the lives of those around him.
Christians fall so often into the trap of striving to live life by the Law – spiritual and behavioral disciplines – in order to attain intimacy with Christ. It is a conditioning personified within the Evangelical church. I battled with this burden personally for many years and it is only recently have I really begun to understand, and still striving to embody, that such a life is impossible to live. Christ came to this world, not just to die the death we deserve, but to live the life we are unable to live. He was not our example, but our representative.
Moving onto Chapter 3:
I too find Morrow’s initial question provocative. In the face of evil atrocities humanity as a whole continues to move forward pressing on toward a hope that results in a common good. Embodied within each soul appears to be an optimistic desire for what is right and good for all. I believe this is reflective and evident to the fact that we are creatures made in the image of a holy and righteous God. Unfortunately, even more evident, is the curse of sin that encapsulates this world that we are born into. It is this curse that provides a pathway for the existence of evil not only in the world, but also in our own lives, prohibiting us from attaining a common good.
Perhaps it is through attempted suppression of such an existence by way of “denial”, as Morrow suggest on page 27, that some ignorantly perceive the ability of attaining a common good as a reality. Whether it is the methodology of denial, or another, by attempting to bring the root of evil (not money…) into the definitions and descriptions of the physical and natural world, mankind is able to deal with it. As long as evil sits in the realm of the metaphysical, or supernatural, it is beyond the cures of this world; it is dependent on something, or someone, greater than this world to save us, who are in the physical world, from it.
I agreed with your response to Morrow’s comment about evil as an aesthetic. Evil cannot be depicted solely on an emotional response, but must be identified through use of dialogue and rational thought. However, to take it one step further, which is beyond the thinking of this book, but applicable to our lives as Christians. As self recognized sinners, and believers of the redemptive power of Christ’s blood, scripture says that the Spirit of God indwells in us. As such, do we have an innate spiritual response to evil that others (non-believers) fail to have? If we do have an innate spiritual response, then how is it we are able to separate ourselves from any cultural conditioning (or even dogmatic conditioning) on how we perceive the evil in this world?
Let me know your thoughts on this and anything else I wrote. Sometimes I have difficulty in communicating via the written word.
Shalom Aleichem
Sam
I apologize about the delay in response.
To begin with, you have asked me to elaborate on my thoughts from an earlier post regarding dogmatic conditioning. Dogma is defined as “a principle, or set of principles, laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.” One who dedicates himself to a particular dogma, embodies these principles in their life as guides to live by in search for truth. In doing so, that individual’s perception over time can become so conditioned by principles and rules that they are unable to see the greater fullness of that truth they originally sought to understand. The world to them is perceived as black and whites, right and wrongs; they have become rigid in their belief. Consequently destruction, whether spiritually, physically, or both, will occur in that individual’s life as well as the lives of those around him.
Christians fall so often into the trap of striving to live life by the Law – spiritual and behavioral disciplines – in order to attain intimacy with Christ. It is a conditioning personified within the Evangelical church. I battled with this burden personally for many years and it is only recently have I really begun to understand, and still striving to embody, that such a life is impossible to live. Christ came to this world, not just to die the death we deserve, but to live the life we are unable to live. He was not our example, but our representative.
Moving onto Chapter 3:
I too find Morrow’s initial question provocative. In the face of evil atrocities humanity as a whole continues to move forward pressing on toward a hope that results in a common good. Embodied within each soul appears to be an optimistic desire for what is right and good for all. I believe this is reflective and evident to the fact that we are creatures made in the image of a holy and righteous God. Unfortunately, even more evident, is the curse of sin that encapsulates this world that we are born into. It is this curse that provides a pathway for the existence of evil not only in the world, but also in our own lives, prohibiting us from attaining a common good.
Perhaps it is through attempted suppression of such an existence by way of “denial”, as Morrow suggest on page 27, that some ignorantly perceive the ability of attaining a common good as a reality. Whether it is the methodology of denial, or another, by attempting to bring the root of evil (not money…) into the definitions and descriptions of the physical and natural world, mankind is able to deal with it. As long as evil sits in the realm of the metaphysical, or supernatural, it is beyond the cures of this world; it is dependent on something, or someone, greater than this world to save us, who are in the physical world, from it.
I agreed with your response to Morrow’s comment about evil as an aesthetic. Evil cannot be depicted solely on an emotional response, but must be identified through use of dialogue and rational thought. However, to take it one step further, which is beyond the thinking of this book, but applicable to our lives as Christians. As self recognized sinners, and believers of the redemptive power of Christ’s blood, scripture says that the Spirit of God indwells in us. As such, do we have an innate spiritual response to evil that others (non-believers) fail to have? If we do have an innate spiritual response, then how is it we are able to separate ourselves from any cultural conditioning (or even dogmatic conditioning) on how we perceive the evil in this world?
Let me know your thoughts on this and anything else I wrote. Sometimes I have difficulty in communicating via the written word.
Shalom Aleichem
Sam
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Evil 2.1
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
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
Evil 1.2
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)