Using Evil Recorded in the Bible Against the Bible

It's popular for many today to quote passages dealing with evil in the Bible, and use it against the Bible. It's done either in the tone of "Look! Evil! That must mean this book is evil!" or "This happened in the Bible, this must mean God approves it." How many times, for example, have we heard the story of Lot and his daughters (Gen 19:30-38) quoted as if to embarrass us that it exists in the Bible?

Let's review a few things regarding this:

Firstly, let's clarify what the Bible is. The Bible is not about how nice a guy Jesus was. It isn't about how God is nothing but love, love, love, exciting and new. It isn't about how wonderful a people Christians are. It isn't about how great the world would be if we were just all so gosh darn nice to one another for a change. It isn't about how better your life can be. It isn't about getting rich. It isn't a children's book. And it most certainly isn't about buying some panhandling kid a pair of goofy shoes.

What is the Bible about, then? It is the story of mankind's fall and his salvation by the merits and salvific atonement of Christ. In order to talk about mankind's salvation, however, one must give a reason for man to be saved, and that entails either a discussion of or examples of mankind's evil. How can you possibly understand the words of the apostle Paul, that all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23), unless you see this discussed or displayed beforehand?

Secondly, and on that same train of thought, it is fallacious to assume that the mere mention of evil makes an entire work evil. A work on the proper mode of government would have to, by example, give poor examples of leadership, as Machiavelli does in his famous work, The Prince or his other, lesser known work, The Discourses. Yet if an author gives poor examples of leadership so that we may more properly understand the better examples, that does not give us the right to simply dismiss his entire argument. If anything, it's a fine example of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Thirdly, it is fallacious to state that, simply because a writer includes evil in his work, he must somehow approve it. According to such logic, an author who writes on the Holocaust must approve of the Holocaust, irregardless of whether or not he wrote on the Holocaust as an evil and barbaric act of inhumanity. In like manner, simply because an incident is recorded in scripture does not mean God approved of it.

Is there evil in the Bible? Yes there is. There's incest, rape, fraud, the murder of best friends, the breaking of oaths, and other examples. Yet man is a fallen creature, and even unbelievers would agree that man is capable of doing all the aforementioned evil. The Bible does not mince words when it comes to mankind's depravity. Men in toto are by their nature objects of wrath because of their sin (cf. Eph 2:3). Let us therefore give thanks to God for Christ, who "knew no sin," yet became sin "so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21). The Bible does mention evil, but it likewise tells us how we are able to flee from it and seek the righteousness of God.

Religion, Christianity and Evil

"I don't like religion because people have done evil in the name of religion."

The previous statement is often said by those who are responding to something in the news (an honor killing, a terrorist attack, etc.). Is there any real grounds for a person to make this statement?

First and foremost to this discussion, let us ask this question: do we dismiss or show distaste for every single form of ideology or a basic idea simply because some men have chosen to use it for evil? I would move those who do it for religion do not remain consistent in this position. There are men who have done evil in the name of democracy, or for the sake of the concepts of "liberty" and "freedom," and yet we don't find many who bash religion likewise bashing these principles. We don't hear people say "I don't like democracy because people have done evil in the name of democracy." We even more rarely hear someone say "I don't follow any kind of politics because people have done evil in the name of politics."

Let us take a situation wherein someone has committed evil in the name of an ideology or idea. In such a situation, a person examining the situation would normally look to two things: 1) the intent of the founders or originators of the ideology or idea; 2) the basic doctrines or tenets of the ideology or idea. For example, a person who wished to argue that Nationalist Socialism was evil, but recognized that simply saying "Nationalist Socialists have done bad things" is at best a surface level argument, would move on to point out that the originators of Nationalist Socialism were wicked men, and that their intents and purposes were wicked. They would likewise point out that the doctrines and tenets of Nationalist Socialism were likewise wicked.

Most importantly, we must ask: does the evil committed by the perpetrators in question act in alignment with the doctrines or beliefs of the original founders, or the ideology or idea as a whole? To return to our example of Nationalist Socialism, we see that all which the Nationalist Socialist party did in 1930's and 40's Germany was in line with their doctrines and core beliefs. If there were a conflict between the two, one could rightfully argue that those who did evil in World War II were acting in isolation; however, if there was no conflict between the two, and in fact they complimented one another, then we could rightfully argue that those who did evil were - as many did indeed say at the Nuremberg trials - "merely following orders." If the murder of German Jews and other "undesirables" had merely been the zealous pursuit of a select few, then we would be right in arguing that the Nationalist Socialists are misunderstood, being represented wrongfully with the actions of a minority, all of whom were acting contrary to the party's basic teachings. However, history shows instead that the Nationalist Socialist party itself was behind the genocidal destruction that raged Europe in the 1940's, and that it was perfectly in line with what they had been building during the 1930's.

Obviously, at this point, we see that the person who made the opening statement has given us far too broad a statement. We do not shrug off an entire ideology or idea simply because of a few bad apples, but rather we examine those ideologies and ideas to see if they are truly the source or not. We also recognize that, instead of presenting a broad examination of an entire concept such as politics, religion, or otherwise, we examine our problems on a case-by-case basis. In the case of religion, it would have to be by examining each individual religion. It would be inaccurate and unfair to try to lump Buddhists together with Jehovah's Witnesses under the broad use of "religion," just as it would be unfair to lump Democrats with Nationalist Socialists under the broad use of "politics." A broad spectrum exists under what calls itself "religion" just as a broad spectrum exists under what calls itself "politics." A person disgruntled with Islam cannot direct their same hatred of Islam on Hinduism any more than someone disgruntled with the system of Communism can direct their same hatred of Communism towards democracy.

Let us turn to a specific example in regards to this, and for the sake of discussion the religion will be Christianity. I'm choosing Christianity for a few good reasons: 1) I am a Christian; 2) this is a Christian blog, so it makes sense; 3) in talking about my own religion and not someone else's, I can avoid the charge that I am avoiding faults from my own side by pointing my fingers to others.

It is popular for many non-Christians, especially atheists and some agnostics, to label Christianity as evil because of events such as the Crusades, or the murder of non-Christians by radical Christian groups, or by attacks from supposed Christians, such as those that have happened at abortion clinics. As the people who perpetuated these attacks called themselves Christians, and claimed they were acting in the name of Christianity, clearly Christianity must be at fault. Is this the case?

Let's again recognize some terms. When we say that Christianity is at fault, we recognize we do not mean every single Christian. Not every Christian went on a crusade during the middle ages and killed non-Christians - for every crusader there were perhaps hundreds of thousands who stayed home. Not every single Christian has sought to blow up abortion clinics - in fact the percentage of so-called Christians who did so is staggeringly small. Not every single Christian does any form of violence in the name of Christianity - therefore we cannot mean every single Christian when we speak of Christianity. If by Christianity we mean only the bad Christians, then we would be acting unfairly by speaking in broad terms for what should be specific, and our entire position would be nonsensical. Therefore, when we speak of Christianity, we have to mean Christianity as an idea or system of beliefs. If this is the case, then our previous train of thought would beg us to look to the true doctrine and intents of Christianity's originators.

Christianity, however, is far more than just a system of beliefs, and is much more than morals and ethos - rather, it is rooted entirely in the person of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word and God the Son. Do we find the aforementioned evils in line with the person of Christ? On the contrary, we find them opposed to him. Christ commanded his followers, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt 5:44). He told the apostles not to subjugate, but to "make disciples" of all nations, and not to do with with fire and sword but with "baptizing" and "teaching" (Matt 28:19-20). Some might jump to where Christ says "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matt 10:34), but an examination of the fullest context (Matt 10:34-39) shows that Christ is talking about steadfastness against familial pressures to apostatize, not about literal war and violence. Some might still turn to passages where Christ speaks of kings who seek vengeance against ungrateful subjects (cf. Luke 19:27), however these are in reference either to the destruction of Jerusalem, which was brought about by the will of God, or in reference to the final judgment.

The earliest Christian leaders, who were working with the authority given them by Christ and speaking through their inspired texts, likewise show the same non-violent nature as was seen in Christ. The apostles did not win 3,000 converts at Pentecost by force of the sword, but by the grace of God and the power of the Gospel. The apostle Paul himself confirmed that the power of God was not by his ability to compel someone by force or to strike with terrorist tactics, but rather with the Gospel of God (Rom 1:16). He likewise wrote regarding revenge: "Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all" (Rom 12:17), and "See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone" (1 The 5:15). With this the apostle Peter agreed, writing: "Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing" (1 Pet 3:9).

Let me now dare to go even a step further, and to cite the earliest Christians beyond the apostles, who while not writing inspired text, were nonetheless historical examples of how Christianity closest to Christ interpreted violence and wickedness, especially in the name of their faith. Two choice quotes:

...it is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man’s religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion... [Tertullian, To Scapula, Ch. 2]

Religion cannot be imposed by force; the matter must be carried on by words rather than by blows... [Lactatius, Inst. Div. V, 20]

I could go on from here well into the fourth century, with quotes from Church Fathers such as Athanasius and his peers. The earliest persecutions against non-Christians from so-called Christians were not by the church or by true believers, but by Roman emperors seeking to enforce their power, and even then their actions were met with opposition by men such as Athanasius and others.

From this evidence, we can say that those who commit evil in the name of Christ are, in fact, acting contrary to Christ and all which he taught, and against the example set by the earliest Christians. Some here, of course, may predictably turn to the Old Testament and attempt to find examples, such as Sodom and Gomorrah or the destruction of the Amorites. The vast majority of the time, however, these situations are misrepresented or misunderstood. For example, those who accuse God of cruelty in His destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah forget that, in the dialogue between the Lord and Abraham regarding the cities, God makes it clear that if there are ten righteous people in the city he will spare everyone (Gen 18:22-32). Also, those who turn to the destruction of the Amorites forget that this destruction was God's judgment upon them for their sins, and that God had earlier spared the Amorites because their "iniquity" was not yet "complete" (Gen 15:16). These calls for judgment were also temporal and specific to certain situations - they were not perpetual. The situation within the Old Testament regarding Israel and her actions is also irrelevant to the New Testament period, for we are now under the new covenant, and God has no longer a national Israel to call His people, but the church, the new Israel, made up of Jews and Gentiles, which He calls His people (cf. Rom 9:24-26). All in the Old Testament, in the formation of Israel and the construction of the Holy of Holies and the animal sacrifices, was "a shadow of the good things to come" (Heb 10:1).

From this we can gather that those who have done evil in the name of Christianity have not been acting in the name of Christianity at all. A study of the motives of those who launched the Crusades shows that their motivations were far more political than religious, and a study of those who commit terrorist-like attacks against abortion clinics are acting unilaterally with their own motives rather than those of scripture. The root cause of their evil, therefore, cannot be attributed to Christianity, and their title of "Christian" or their labeling their efforts as a "Christian cause" is in name only.

In conclusion, we've seen that the statement made at the opening of this post is simply broad brushing in an irrational fashion, and we have seen but one example of how one can examine the earliest motives and doctrines of an individual ideology or idea to see if those who perform evil in the name of an ideology or idea render that ideology or idea guilty.

Meditations on Genesis 1:3-4

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. [Gen 1:3-4]

After hearing about the fun times had by two friends, I decided to pick up Bible journaling. One friend was going through the Gospel of John, but I decided to start at the very beginning - namely, Genesis. I've been trying to do it Matthew Henry style: not only going verse by verse, but phrase by phrase, and writing down not how the verse relates to me personally, but rather how it fits into the larger context of scripture. As I went into the beginning of creation, there were two things I noticed: 1) light is created in verse 3 on the first day, yet the sun and moon are not made until verse 16, on the fourth day; 2) God only identifies the light as being good (verse 4), yet the darkness is not included.

The question, of course, is where did that light come from, and what was it?

One can't help but conclude, if the sun is not created until verses 14 to 18, then this cannot be a natural light. If so, then what is it? It can only be the Divine Light of God, the same Light which Paul describes in an epistle:

For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. [2 Corinthians 4:6]

Remember that previous to this, the world was described as "without form and void," and "darkness was over the face of the deep" (v. 2). Yet even in the midst of this darkness, God was present, for we are told in the same verse that God the Holy Spirit was "hovering over the face of the waters." If God was present, why then was there darkness? Is God not light, in which there is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5)? It is hard to imagine the Person of the Holy Spirit hovering over the dark void and yet no light to be seen at all. How can divinity exist in darkness without light of any kind?

The answer is simple, at least in the sense that we may return to the previous quotation of Paul: the Light, which is revealed in verse 3, is God making His presence known. God was letting it be known, not only for the formless creation, but for the benefit of those who would be reading Genesis for years to come, that in the midst of the darkness He was present. That He had not made Himself known is irrelevant - He was still there. Darkness must never be seen as the weakness of God, but merely the absence of God. Not absence in the sense that He is not present, for it is clear here that God is present even the darkness - rather, it is the absence of the knowledge of His presence. There are many times in our lives when we find ourselves in great darkness, and it feels like God is not present - yet it is clear, from the very beginning, that God is still present even in the greatest of darkness.

What follows next is plain in the text: God commands for there to be light, light is revealed, and it is said that God saw the light as being good. He then separates the light from the darkness. Many things can be seen from this:

1) The light is good because it comes directly from God, and as God is a perfect Creator it stands to reason that all He creates would be perfect.

2) The darkness is not said to be good because darkness, by its very nature, acts contrary to light. God will later call the sun and moon, natural night and day, equally good because natural night serves good purposes - it is at night that bats and various insects are able to function and find food. Yet spiritual darkness has no good purpose, and the absence of God is the greatest evil that can be devised.

3) God separates the light from the darkness for two-fold reasons:

a) God is in control of good and evil. Not that God is Himself the author of sin, but that sin and evil cannot usurp or thwart God's will. That an evil man may believe himself to be in complete control of his destiny is only an example of his own total foolishness. To his brothers Joseph said, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). To King Sennacherib the Lord says, "Have you not heard that I determined it long ago? I planned from days of old what now I bring to pass, that you should turn fortified cities into heaps of ruins" (2 Kings 19:25), and likewise to the king of Assyria, "Shall the axe boast over him who hews with it, or the saw magnify itself against him who wields it?" (Isa 10:15). God is able to separate light from darkness because it is He who is truly in command, and the darkness has neither ability nor power over Him. Hence the words of the apostle John: "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it" (John 1:5).

b) Light and darkness are opposed to each other, and cannot coexist. The apostle Paul rightfully asks "what fellowship has light with darkness?" (2 Cor 6:14). Where there is light, there is no darkness; where there is no light, there is only darkness. God's separation of light and darkness signifies that, in His eyes, there is no middle ground. He would make this abundantly clear through the prophet Isaiah with the words: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Isa 5:20).

There is one final aspect to these passages: they are an early Messianic shadow. The prophet Isaiah foretold "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light" (Isa 9:2), which was fulfilled by Christ (Matt 4:16). The apostle John wrote that Christ, that Light, is He through Whom we have seen "glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father" (John 1:14), and it is He who has made God known (John 1:18). Christ came to a world shrouded in spiritual darkness, revealing the presence of God and bringing in the Light once again. Yet with light comes conflict with darkness, which hates that light which extinguishes it. "This is the judgment," Christ said, "the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil" (John 3:19). To His brothers, the Lord said, "The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil" (John 7:7). The world is by nature darkness, and is by nature working in darkness, and thus hates that light which exposes its evil works for what they really are (John 3:20).

There will, however, come a time when light will truly triumph over darkness. It is said that the celestial city, the bride of Christ, will have "no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb" (Rev 21:23). It is likewise said "there will be no night there" (Rev 21:25), for the light of God will never be extinguished. For now, however, "the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining" (1 John 2:8), and until Christ returns we who "were darkness" must "walk as children of light" (Eph 5:8), and preach the Gospel so that those still living in darkness may turn "to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me" (Acts 26:18). Amen.

Resources on "The Problem of Evil"

The following is a link to an Apologetics 315 page with resources on varying opinions on the problem of evil and God's place in evil. It's centered around a September 11 theme, or at the very least uses the question of how such an event could have happened.

Apologetics 315: Resources on the Problem of Evil

Meditations on Human Depravity

As the riots occurred across various cities in the United Kingdom, I watched some conversation going on in various internet circles regarding the real issue behind this. Was it simply crime, or was there something deeper? Were there social issues under the surface which, having been left untreated, resulted in these riots? Is it therefore possible to stop such riots by resolving civil issues? Is the issue of human depravity ultimately one of social condition?

The mentality of many people seems to be that man is inherently good, and therefore any crime that is committed can be resolved through rectifying a social problem - ie., if you give a person a chance to have a real job, they won't resort to crime. The evil that men do is not the result of any innate nature, but circumstances outside their control that affect their overall world view and therefore cause (if not compel) them to commit evil. This of course logically concludes that if one were to raise a child by angels on a desert island and then place into modern society, he would have no capability to commit evil, or at the very least would have the least capacity to commit evil as anyone else in the world.

This Pelagian mindset, of course, only skips across the surface of the water. As much as defenders of this mindset may accuse those who want the London rioters to be arrested as only touching the surface of the problem, they are likewise committing the same error, for they forget the issue goes even deeper than they imagine. To put it another way: whereas those who want the criminals arrested may be cutting off the weed at the top while forgetting the stem, their critics want to cut the weed off at the stem while forgetting the roots.

Those who know me personally know that I have some experience doing graphic design for local news stations, and because of this I've spent much time handling mugshots of individuals accused of various crimes. Two things a person doing this notices: 1) there tend to be patterns in regards to the crimes; 2) all people are capable of committing these crimes to varying degrees. I noticed, for example, that while it was common for minority groups to commit petty robbery or theft, the bigger robberies were committed by Caucasians. Whereas gang-related murder or random murders were committed by minorities, family-related murder and similar crimes were committed by Caucasians. I am, of course, not speaking here of absolutes, and you will find variances across the board. My point, however, is that evil is not limited to one ethnic group nor one social class - middle and high class people are as capable of committing crime as those in the lower classes. Evil, one might say, is an equal opportunity employer. It does not matter what race or social class you are, you will be found out by evil and evil will use you in whatever way possible. It will adapt and exist as it needs to. A black thug mugging someone to steal their wallet is committing evil just as a white CEO who commits fraud is likewise committing evil. That one was in a better social position than the other is irrelevant to the problem - both were acting upon the innate evil tendencies inside them.

If people still contend that evil committed in incidents such as this are to be sourced solely to social or civil issues, then why, in those same communities, does good exist? In the original novel of A Clockwork Orange, Alex briefly ponders to himself why so many people speculate on the sources of evil (video games, movies, social conditions, etc.), yet they never speculate on the sources of good. How many people who grew up in ghettos and low income neighborhoods rife with crime ended up being perfectly normal, functioning members of society? For every teen and young adult who went out and committed crimes in London and various other English cities, how many more stayed at home and continued being law-abiding citizens? Why were they "good" when they were in perfect soil to be "bad"? Or to take it another direction: why do people who grow up in situations where they should be "good" end up being "bad"? Ted Bundy, for all intents and purposes, should have been a moral person, not a serial killer, but let's not ask "What made him evil?", let's instead ask "What made those in worst situations than him good?"

God, of course, has given clear teachings regarding these problems: all men are under sin (Rom 3:9), the intent of every man's heart is to do evil (Gen 6:5), no one continually does good and does not sin (Ecc 7:29), men naturally love darkness rather than light (John 3:19), and men are born children of wrath (Eph 2:3). Man, by his nature, is a depraved, fallen creature. If he cites his social condition as reason for his actions, he is simply attempting to justify his evil nature before society. Likewise, no amount of money thrown at the problem is going to solve what lies under the surface: the depraved heart of a fallen creature.

Many jump to extremes when they hear this teaching. They assume that when we say mankind is depraved, we say all men are Charles Manson, and no one exists who does anything "nice" or "good." That, however, is not the case with total depravity. Even the most "evil" person on earth is capable of performing "good" deeds. The fact of human depravity does not say that we are all as evil as Charles Mansion - only that we are all as guilty as Charles Manson. We are all guilty of sin, and no one can say to themselves that they will get be judged righteous before God. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23).

So what do we do with this? Do we become like cynics and throw our hands in the hair and decide that nothing good can come of man? On the contrary. We must cry out with a loud voice, as did the apostle Paul: "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?" (Rom 7:24) Then, when we come to the face of the Lord, upon whom is the righteousness we need to be just before God, we can safely say, "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our lord!" (Rom 7:25) God bless.