The Face of Evil

Tags

Boston Marathon Bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, evil, face of evil, God-centered, Gospel, Paul, Romans, Tamerlan Tsarnaev

What form does evil assume? What does it look like?

Whenever an act of evil takes place, it is in our human nature to try to categorize it. Some deny its existence. Others try to identify it by external appearance or influences. Some look for commonality of race, creed, education level or economic background.

The events in Boston this past week have demonstrated that evil takes many forms. We can’t always recognize it until it happens. Friends and acquaintances of the bombers repeatedly used words like “shocked,” “unexpected,” and “surreal.” There was “nothing that stood out” about them. If you look at their pictures, you see no indication of the atrocity they would commit. They could have been one of any number of young American men.

We can’t always identify evil because it is not always externally manifested. The Bible is clear that evil resides within, in the human heart. Jeremiah 17:9 says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked:”

As Jesus explains in Mark 7:20-23 “That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.”

{Boston Marathon suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev with unidentified friend}

In some of us that sin nature expresses itself in overt acts of evil. In others it is more deceptive, mingling well-disguised with self-righteousness. In all of us it is lurking beneath the surface, waiting for the right circumstances to expose itself.

This is contrary to popular thinking. Society says man is basically good and what will make him better comes from within. God says man is basically bad and what will help him must come from without.

This is the message of the gospel. It is God-centered. God planned redemption before it was needed, promised it through the Old Testament Scriptures, presented it in the person of Jesus Christ, and proclaims it to the world through His people. (Romans 1:1-7)

The Gospel is God’s antidote for the disease of sin. The “Good News” is that, through faith in Jesus Christ, God does to the evil within us what we could never do on our own.

Where is God when you need Him? 9 Things To Remember When We Ask “Why?”

Tags

Faith, question of evil, questions, theodicy, Theology, tragedy, where is God?

This question is not ultimately about God’s location. It essentially asks the age-old question, “Why does God allow evil to happen?”

Frequently this question comes from someone who has no use for the things of God, can’t bother to obey the least of His commands, and generally live as they please. Now they act as if He owes them some sort of explanation.

That being the case, I suspect some are not genuinely seeking to understand the Scriptural truth that would answer their question – they merely are seizing this tragedy as an opportunity to justify their total disregard for the sovereign King of the universe. No answer will satisfy them because they do not want it to.

Others who are asking “Why?” are suffering and are not at the best point to receive the truth. Even if they already know it, it is not the time to remind them of nuanced explanations. The best response to them is love, compassion, care, and encouragement. There will be opportunity later to discuss with them the theological answers to their questions.

Some (including those with strong faith) are genuinely wondering, “Why does God allow evil to occur?” They have genuine doubts, wish to help others, or want to be prepared for trials of their own.

The answers to this question are not easy, nor are they complete. It is important to remember there are some things we will not know in this life.

Can we at least at this point admit that we do not know everything? God does. Since He knows all and we don’t, since He knows correctly and we can be mistaken, it is possible likely certain that He knows more and better than we do. It would be best to be careful before we start accusing God about what we don’t know. (Job 42:3)

There are, however, some things we do know:

1. Evil exists because God gave man a free-will. Man has the ability to choose, and unfortunately he chooses sin (Psalm 14:1-3). Sometimes this sin is minor in its consequences, but at other times it has tragic effect on others.

2. Our sovereign God can bring good out of the evil that man freely chooses to do as well as tragic natural events. (Romans 8:28 – this is for believers, but the principle of God’s sovereignty remains the same). This is true even when we don’t see or understand what possible good can come out of it.

3. Sometimes God allows one evil to happen in order to prevent another, worse evil. (Isaiah 57:1-2; cf. 1 Kings 14:1-13)

4. Sometimes God allows evil in order to work a great good (Genesis 6; The cross).

5. Sometimes God allows evil by simply allowing us to experience the consequences of our own foolish choices (Romans 1:24-32). Take away the restraint of accountability to God from a society, for example, and the consequences will be evil.

6. We don’t know what evil God is already restraining (Jeremiah 17:9). The amazing thing is that man is not as evil as he could be.

7. God is just (Isaiah 30:18). Though we may not ever see true justice for some on this earth, God will ultimately bring absolute righteous justice to the earth.

8. God is good (Psalm 34:8). Nothing that happens can change that. No matter what else we don’t know or understand, we can rest in this truth.

9. God is love (1 John 4:8). No evil event can separate His children from that love (Romans 8:35-39)

This is not an exhaustive evaluation of the matter. It will not satisfy some. It will not provide the “why” for all the questions. What it does is remind us that when our understanding fails, God’s faithfulness and goodness does not.

How Flawed Interpretation Can Produce False Teaching (The Importance of Rightly Dividing the Word)

Tags

Biblical interpretation, Christianity Today, David Jang, hermeneutics, Second Coming Christ Controversy

Until reading “The Second Coming Christ Controversy: More Leaders Speak Out” from Christianity Today, I had not heard of David Jang or his organization. According to some who have left it, his followers are taught that he is the second coming of Christ. What struck me as I read this article is how the two primary fallacies alleged of the group’s teaching are based on fallacies of interpretation.

According to the CT article, this belief is based on

the two stone tablets of Moses’ commandments. Just as God created the first tablets and wrote the Ten Commandments on them, so was the first Christ, Jesus, sent by God. And just as Moses broke the tablets, Jesus’ people rejected him and killed him, the sermon says. And just as Moses had to write the second tablets with his own hand, so the second Christ will be man-made.” The couple at the center of the report say they were encouraged to profess that Jang was that “second coming of Christ.

There is no evidence in Scripture that the stone tablets represented Christ, but Jang’s church allegedly sees this in the story. This highlights the danger of allegorical interpretation. Allegorizing narrative passages opens the Scripture to the subjective whims of the interpreter. This approach makes any interpretation of Scriptural narrative equally valid – even if contradictory to clear Bible principles.

The second primary fallacy is what the group calls “righteous lying.” According to Edmond Chua,

They have a teaching in their Bible studies that Jacob is the one who deserved the blessing, rather than Esau, and that Rebekah and Jacob lying to Isaac was justified. And that’s why they are also justified in lying to folks who would challenge their birthright. … If you need to flee to escape from Satan, you can lie to do so. You shouldn’t tell the truth to Satan, because he will steal your blessing and kill your faith.

Again, this teaching is based on an interpretive fallacy. It reads narrative as prescriptive rather than descriptive. The Bible recounts actions as true (as they actually happened), but not necessarily as truth (you should go out and do likewise). Just because a Biblical character does or says something, does not mean it receives an endorsement as a model.

David Jang and his churches deny they teach he is the second Christ. (If they DO teach “righteous lying,” however, that would make difficult to take them at their word.) Though the full story remains to be told, it demonstrates the importance of careful interpretation of Scripture: a flawed hermeneutic can lead to false teaching.

Articles from Christianity Today:

The Second Coming Christ Controversy

The Second Coming Christ Controversy: More Leaders Speak Out

Response from Christian Post (Jang’s periodical):

Sources in ‘Second Coming Christ Controversy’ Face Scrutiny

You’ll take my Big Gulp when you pry my cold, fat fingers from around it!

Tags

ban, Big Gulp, government, Michael Bloomberg, nanny-state, New York City, News, Poll, sugary drinks

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been in the news lately for a proposed ban on large sugary drinks. Goodbye Big Gulps, Venti Mochas and 2 litres with a straw. According to a poll taken over the weekend over half of New Yorkers oppose the ban.

Personally, I find it disheartening that 42% say this is a good idea simply because they think it will help people lose weight. I’m all for losing weight and being healthy, but I’m not convinced that government-mandated limits will be all that effective.

via absurdintellectual

Nor am I convinced this will be the key to wide-spread weight loss. It doesn’t stop refills, double buying, or the real culprits in the “war on obesity.”

And then there’s the “nanny-state” thing.

At any rate, at least New Yorkers will still have their big pizzas, big hot dogs, big subs, big steaks and big cheese cakes. Fellow Southerners can grasp their Mason jars of sweet tea and breath easy.

So what do YOU think? Cast our vote and share your thoughts:

More Abortion Logic: “The fetus is a parasite.”

Tags

abortion, logic, parasite, unbelievable

Seems like just a few days ago I was commenting on logic of abortion rights that argues for infanticide.

This type thinking is so extreme that some pro-abortion advocates accused pro-lifers of writing it to make them look bad.

Now, a blogger at Daily Kos has presented a scientific comparison of a “fetus” (pro-abortion speak for baby) to a parasite. You just can’t make this stuff up. I won’t directly link the full article due to language, but you can read a description of it here and continue to the actual article if you choose.

This, my friends, is where the devaluation of life leads. Let’s develop an antibiotic to eliminate that pesky fetus parasite. Oh, wait. Already done that haven’t they?!?

HT: Shane

Why Stop at Birth? The Chilling Logic of Abortion Rights

Tags

abortion, after-birth abortion, infanticide, Journal of Medical Ethics, pro-choice, pro-life, progressive personhood

Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva believe in the moral defensibility of infanticide. Of course they don’t call it that. The prefer “to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child.”

These two philosophers, writing in the Journal of Medical Ethics, present a chilling argument that:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

While most people will find this appalling, it is simply the logical conclusion of progressive personhood (“the value of the unborn human increases throughout its development.”) taken to its logical conclusion.

As I have noted before, this creates a subjective criteria for determining personhood. At what point does a “potential person” become an “actual person,” and who gets to decide?

Hence, Giubilini and Minerva can attest,

if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

But who determines who is a “potential person” and an “actual person?” If these authors have their way, personhood is not achieved until some time after birth.

[I]n order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm. If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. … In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. … Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero.

Who are these “non-persons?” Those with disease, birth defects or any child who would place undue stress or burden (emotional, financial etc.) on the mother.

Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.

Though I have known this is the ultimate logic of the pro-choice arguments, this is still one of the most disturbing journal articles I have ever read. Murder by any other name — infanticide, after-birth abortion, neonaticide — is still murder. Even pro-choice advocates recognize the disturbing “morality” argued for here.

The early church had to stand and speak against the practice of infanticide in the Roman Empire. As we gradually regress to a pagan society, Christians are being called to do so once again.

Nephos 9

Tags

boycott, Daniel Wallace, footnotes, Martha Stewart, Russell Moore, Snoop Dogg, Starbucks, Timothy Paul Jones

For your weekend reading enjoyment . . .

1. In honor of April 1st, here’s the story of the greatest April 1 prank, ever.

2. Last week I commented on Kathy Keller’s article on raising children in the city. Jonathan McBride presents a different perspective in Why Do Cities Just Make Sense.

3. One word comes to mind here: Ouch!

4. Running + Life Lessons = Winning Combination. I really connected with Running Lessons from Trails from the Heart.

5. A national Christian organization called for a boycott of an international coffee chain.

6. Russell Moore responded with an explanation of “Why Christians shouldn’t boycott Starbucks.”

7. Being of the “Don’t boycott OR buy” mentality, MereOrthodoxy’s Starbucks, Boycotts, and (Not) Buying Coffee resonated more with me.

*Whatever your view and/or approach to this matter, it’s not going away. The number of corporations who are pro-actively working against our positions on social issues is going to increase. We need to be prepared to have a well-thought out ethical and Scriptural response.

8. Two prominent professors have recently begun blogs – both have been added to my regular reading list:
Timothy Paul Jones and Daniel B. Wallace.

9. Perceptively accurate!