What's the Most Horrific Story You Can Imagine?
go4tli
Consider a story from three thousand years ago. Nathan contrives this
story in an attempt to show King David that he has done wrong. He has
to show the king *just how evil he is*.
So he tells a story about a rich man stealing from a poor man. The
rich man, who has more than he needs to live, takes from the poor man
who already has less than he needs to live.
And he doesn't need to explain how despicable this is. He assumed the
king would get it. And the author of 2 Samuel 12 assumed that readers
would get it. The description of that act was enough for everyone to
know that this man was the very definition of evil. The king himself
wastes no time in declaring that a man who exhibits that sort of evil
*should not even be allowed to live*.
Given that, when Nathan reveals the king to be guilty of the same
crime, it's natural for David, a man after God's own heart, to
completely lose his emotional composure and repent.
At least, it *used to be* natural. Our ideas about good and evil have
changed remarkably.
Now, when a rich man steals from a poor man, he is likely to be
celebrated for his success at doing so. At best, it's grudgingly
conceded to be kind of almost unethical -- it's certainly not seen as
*reprehensible*, not as bad as some *other* acts. Accuse someone of
having an affair(1), or of killing someone, and they'll vigorously
deny it. Accuse a rich man of stealing from the poor and he'll excuse
it by saying that he's earned his money and that if the poor want some
so badly, they can just follow his example.
Nathan's story *wouldn't even work* today. That's how different our
view of God has become.
When did capitalism stop being a system we adopted because it seems
less dangerous than many other options? When did capitalism become a
*virtue*, rather than an imperfect system?
"There are Elders in this Church who would take the widow's last cow,
for five dollars, and then kneel down and thank God for the fine
bargain they had made." Brigham Young said that, but how often do our
actions really differ?
Bring up the rich who steal from the poor, or people who are
defrauding others for gain, and there's no shortage of "kings" who
will flash some hot-button issue and tell you that there are much more
important things for Christians to be spending their energy on.
I find it interesting to contemplate what kind of story Nathan would
have to tell *today* to get people to think he was the definition of
despicable evil, and to see how well that lines up -- not with
politics or whatever hot-button issues you might hear about on
Christian talk radio or from Christian parachurch organizations, but
with the picture of God we have in the Bible.
----------
(1) Unless he, you know, signs an anti-adultery pledge or something.
Then it's okay.
Steve Smith
What this brings to mind is Ezekiel 16:49 in speaking about the sin of Jerusalem, the prophet speaks the word of the Lord about Sodom:
go4tli
> our view of God.
Strictly speaking, you're right, of course. I tend to think of God
and goodness as inseparable. It's not just that God *acts* good, or
that his behavior is *consistent with* good; goodness is, in some way,
the very nature of God. And evil is not. Therefore, how we see good
and evil directly impact how we see God, and vice versa.
You can differ with me on this, of course; I think of it this way
because it avoids several thorny problems(1). But at minimum, can't
you grant me that how we see evil (and, by extension, good) impacts
how we think we ought to act when we follow God and ostensibly become
more like Him?
> I agree, when I read the old testament one of the most basic definitions of
> evil is ignoring the outcry of the poor. This is what stirs up Gods wrath
> against Israel over and over again. This concerns me when I look across the
> landscape of our country today. I see the poor crying out for justice, and
> as you pointed out there are many cases where the rich are stealing from
> the poor, and we just shrug our shoulders and move along.
>
> What this brings to mind is Ezekiel 16:49 in speaking about the sin of
> Jerusalem, the prophet speaks the word of the Lord about Sodom:
> “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were
> arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy..."
> Ezekiel 16:49 NIV (biblegateway)
Indeed. Over and over again, God identifies *Himself* with the poor
(Proverbs 14:31,19:17; Matthew 25:31-46; 2 Corinthians 8:9), and shows
us that they're always on His mind (Deuteronomy 26:5-9; Luke
4:16-21,6:20-21; Psalm 10:14,140:12; Isaiah 25:4,41:17; James 2:5).
We are unquestionably called to *serve* the poor (Deuteronomy
15:7,26:12; Leviticus 19:19ff; Proverbs 31:8ff; Isaiah 58:66ff;
Jeremiah 2:3; Luke 3:11,12:33; Matthew 5:42). He promises to bless
those who do this (Matthew 13:20ff; Luke 12:44,14:12-14; Isaiah 58:10;
Jeremiah 7:5-7,22:16; Proverbs 19:17,22:9; Deuteronomy 15:10). And He
calls out willful ignorance of the plight of the poor as one of the
worst things a society can do (Luke 1:52,6:24,16:19-25; Isaiah 10:1-3;
Jeremiah 5:28; Ezekiel 22:29,31). Scripture kind of assumes that
believers will automatically share this concern (Proverbs 29:4; 1 John
3:17; Leviticus 19:15; Luke 6:33ff; Matthew 6:2-4,24; 2 Corinthians
9:7; Acts 2:44,4:32-35; 1 Timothy 6:10; Ephesians 4:28). And and and
and and.
It's in the Epistles; it's in the Gospels; it's in the Prophets; it's
in the Psalms; it's in the Law. And there are no caveats, provisions,
or loopholes. God's position on the poor is not hard to understand.
It's just hard to *act in accordance with this*.
> As Americans, are we guilty of being "arrogant, overfed and
> unconcerned?" Is the opposite of this "humble, hungry and
> compassionate?" Is it that we need to be taking care of the poor, the
> widow, and the fatherless (yes this means single mothers with children out
> of wedlock, not just the orphan) in such a way that all who do evil will be
> ashamed of their behavior and repent?
Yes, I think so, based on this verse that I mentioned in a different
missive:
Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is
this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep
oneself unstained by the world.
-- James 1:27 (NASB)
I think we too easily shrug off the plight of the poor -- and worse, I
sense that there are philosophies and political forces that want to
make this shrugging off seem like the *right* and *Christian* thing to
do. (Or if not this directly, then we are encouraged to overlook this
characteristic in others with power if they say certain *other* things
that Christians observe as part of the tribal lingo.)
I admit, to my shame, that I once thought this way. One day, God
decided to hit me with the revelation that He is generous -- so why
shouldn't I, as someone who claims to want to follow Him, exhibit the
same personality trait? And since then, it's been humbling and
frightening to see just how deep my own greed goes, how thick and
tough I'd allowed the callouses to get without even noticing.
(That, and truth generally. I used to subconsciously think of fraud
as the *victim's fault*. Truth, especially in teaching, is also a
thing very important to God. I think our corporate willingness to let
those who have been deceived slide into destruction has made us blind
to false teaching in our own ranks -- that, and we tend to ignore bad
teachers if *other* things they say comfort us or are politically
expedient. In both cases, it seems we've become very adept at helping
who we consider to be *our* sort of people, and at ignoring those who
are *not*... and I can't see that sitting well with God.)
----------
(1) For example: If God merely *acts* good, then why does He choose to
act this way? Is there some ideal higher than God, something that
holds God Himself in its thrall, that we ought to ascribe to? On the
other hand, if things are good because God does them -- sort of a
declaration of good and evil by the Ultimate Dictator -- then what
happens when He acts differently? Is it possible for what was once
good to become evil later and vice versa? (If God can't change how He
acts in response to something, then how can we say He has a will?)
It's easier for me to assert that goodness is in the nature of how a
being like God would behave, much as "personality" is in the nature of
how a human would behave. That raises a whole host of *other*
questions, though, so I don't think I'm even close to figuring this
out (nor do I really expect that I'll ever get there... but the
exploring is fun!, and I honestly think it honors Him).
Steve Smith
> I think here we're talking about how our view of *evil* has changed, notStrictly speaking, you're right, of course. I tend to think of God
> our view of God.
and goodness as inseparable. It's not just that God *acts* good, or
that his behavior is *consistent with* good; goodness is, in some way,
the very nature of God. And evil is not. Therefore, how we see good
and evil directly impact how we see God, and vice versa.
You can differ with me on this, of course; I think of it this way
because it avoids several thorny problems(1). But at minimum, can't
you grant me that how we see evil (and, by extension, good) impacts
how we think we ought to act when we follow God and ostensibly become
more like Him?
I agree with you here. I think that our understanding of the nature of God impacts how we see good and evil. The two are intricately entwined. I wanted to set this aside for a second to discuss our view of evil, compared to what God has revealed in the Bible. There are some harsh issues when our view of evil has become calloused. By extension our view of God is diminished, if not consciously, then on an unconscious level. If then what Nathan used as an illustration of evil to King David is lost on us because of our callousness, then perhaps our understanding of the Lord is not as complete as we imagine.
go4tli
> I
> wanted to set this aside for a second to discuss our view of evil, compared
> to what God has revealed in the Bible. There are some harsh issues when our
> view of evil has become calloused. By extension our view of God is
> diminished, if not consciously, then on an unconscious level. If then what
> Nathan used as an illustration of evil to King David is lost on us because
> of our callousness, then perhaps our understanding of the Lord is not as
> complete as we imagine.
Sure. That was the main point I was hoping to get to in the first
place. :) And if our picture of God is *demonstrably* incomplete or
distorted, it seems that we (who call ourselves His followers) should
be especially keen on trying to restore our vision to clarity -- or,
at least, bring it to as much clarity as possible (1 Corinthians
13:12).
Let me point out another aspect of this account that shows how skewed
our understanding of evil is: The idea that a powerful person would
repent out of sorrow is alien to us. (Or, perhaps more accurately,
that he would feel genuine sorrow *and* repent in a way that would
likely diminish his reputation.)
There are several reasons why this might be so. Here are some that
might provide fodder for discussion -- though I invite anyone else to
join in:
* Admissions of guilt carry a larger burden than they have in
previous times, since we live in a litigious society. People are
loath to admit guilt -- more loath than usual, at least -- because
doing so can ruin a person. There's an entire professional class
whose livelihood depends on maximizing the cost of admitting guilt,
and on keeping as much of the proceeds as possible (rather than using
it to help those who are wronged) -- both of which militate against
justice.
* The poor are often thought of as somehow sub-human -- the "surplus
population" of Dickens. This has sunk to the level of ordinary folk
begrudging them any help they might get, specifically disparaging
"handouts" and such(1), and advocating for shunning those who have
made serious financial errors rather than providing a way out.
* We have constructed our system such that those who attain power
tend to do so through vast wealth or through military prowess. (The
Senate is a millionaire's club, but that's not because the Senate made
them rich.) This process tends to select against those who would
exhibit compassion or mercy.
* As mentioned earlier, we have venerated the *tool* (the political
process and/or the market) above "higher considerations" like justice
and mercy (Matthew 23:23-24), as if the tool is somehow by itself
capable of administrating those higher ideals perfectly. Sometimes,
the market is a very efficient way to get goods and services to the
right people. Sometimes not, though, as we've seen with the most
recent depression, where people used the tool (the market, the
political process) to manipulate people and capital so they could get
more of the tool; that's an indication that something is seriously
broken(2).
----------
(1) Don't get me wrong. I feel that many systems that ostensibly
exist to help the poor are in *serious* need of, at minimum,
readjustment; waste and exploitation of the system are rife. It's the
attitude that the poor are somehow "undeserving" *simply by dint of
being poor* that I mean to decry.
----------
(2) Yes, I know that part of the problem is, to some extent, the fact
that *people* are broken. But we must avoid thinking that this
shifting of the question constitutes an *answer* to the question.
Doing so can bring us back to the state we hoped to climb out of:
willingly turning our back on ways God has called us to be like Him.
(It also precludes any active good that we as Christians might do to
mitigate the problem, and stops us from searching for ways to help and/
or serve the people we are ordered to serve.)
Tom Olson
I guess I have some things to add that aren't really theological, but
on the other hand, nothing in the universe is untouched by God, so the
more interesting question is, what _isn't_ theological? : P
I suggest that public denial of guilt is a side-effect of excessive
self-interest. That seems to be the real problem. American
individuality is one of my favorite things about our society, but
sometimes it can get us into trouble, because we can start to confuse
autonomy and selfishness.
I think with regard to excessive litigation, that's a symptom of too
much gaming of the systems we have. People are sorta tuned to believe
that winning is more important than being the good guys. It reminds
me of some of the darker things I heard said during the darker parts
of the occupation of Iraq. Maybe gamism is caused by general notion
of selfishness?
Finally though, there is a little of the non-apology apology
("mistakes were made") that is more of a structural problem with the
American corporation. Corporations are obligated to serve their
investors. The way a friend of mine put it, "There is always a
constituency of assholes among shareholders who believe that the only
profitable company is a mean company, an they'll sue to get their
way." (source - http://vort.org/2010/04/28/)
For individuals though, sometimes people are fragile, more fragile
than they realize, and they can't admit they've done wrong because it
hurts too much. Or they're just afraid of the implications ("I can't
do anything right," or "I've tried and tried and I keep making this
mistake.") Many people face these demons alone, more orphaned than
anybody whose parents are dead. Seems like there's an opportunity
there for Christians to do something useful.
-T
go4tli
> on the other hand, nothing in the universe is untouched by God, so the
> more interesting question is, what _isn't_ theological? : P
Excellent point. :) There were scholars during the High Middle Ages
who referred to theology as "the queen of the sciences" for that very
reason (as well as the notion that studying God illuminated all other
topics). Something I think we've lost sight of in large numbers, it
seems to me. We tend to think of things that happen that we can
explain as being things that happened without God... as if God is
somehow constrained by our imagination and/or perception. :) This
would be a fun tangent to explore sometime...
> American
> individuality is one of my favorite things about our society, but
> sometimes it can get us into trouble, because we can start to confuse
> autonomy and selfishness.
Well put. I've heard it said that one of the things Americans are
best at is understanding themselves, and one of the things we're worst
at is understanding others. Autonomy is a valuable thing, but self-
focus -- in various forms -- can easily become excessive.
And perhaps you're right. One of the reasons we don't admit to guilt
may be our own perception of the importance of our own reputation.
> I think with regard to excessive litigation, that's a symptom of too
> much gaming of the systems we have.
Well, right. Almost by definition. But that "too much gaming", I
would argue, is a result of putting one's own interests over the
collective interests of the group. I just mean to put forward the
idea that once one person is selfish enough to game the system for his
own benefit, other people are likely to become selfish merely as a
means of self-defense. This is exacerbated by the fact that gaming
the system has become a means to support an entire professional
industry.
> People are sorta tuned to believe
> that winning is more important than being the good guys.
Ho boy, yes. Americans love winners. In that vein, I've gained a
fierce admiration for ancient tales (like certain Norse legends) in
which people fight for the right *because fighting is the right thing
to do*, even though they're pretty certain that they won't win.
> For individuals though, sometimes people are fragile, more fragile
> than they realize, and they can't admit they've done wrong because it
> hurts too much. Or they're just afraid of the implications ("I can't
> do anything right," or "I've tried and tried and I keep making this
> mistake.") Many people face these demons alone, more orphaned than
> anybody whose parents are dead. Seems like there's an opportunity
> there for Christians to do something useful.
It seems that repentance is always a painful process. I find myself
wondering how many times Christians have gotten in the way of that.
There's a book I've reserved at the local library that asserts that
Christians made a very wrong decision around the time of Constantine
when they started to ally themselves with political forces -- a
mistake that we're still seeing repercussions from in recent history,
in everything from the alliance of Protestant and Catholic churches
with Nazi Germany to the alliances forged between American Evangelical
Christianity and the so-called "Religious Right". It should make for
interesting reading, at least.
Along those lines, I wonder if we've made it hard for some people to
repent because it's politically suicidal to do so. Determine that
you've been teaching people wrong, for example, and you may well be
thrown out on your ear, and seen by lots of followers as "dangerous"
or "compromised". (I've cited quite a few people already who have
been kicked out of their positions or seriously threatened for being
so audacious as to suggest that Christians tell the truth about
factual matters.)
What this means isn't very flattering: We Christians have made it hard
for people to follow the truth sometimes. Jesus Himself didn't have
kind words for people like that (Matthew 23ff). It's ironic -- well,
it *should* be, anyway -- that we would be the very ones to alienate
and shun people even as they hurt the most. We shouldn't be the ones
forcing people to decide between embracing the truth and keeping their
social network intact.
All that to say that I agree with you. We *should* be a place for
people to follow the truth, even when it means they have to change
their direction in life. *Especially* when it means that. We can't
let political expedience dictate whom we try to reach and when.