I find it sad how relativism as become the philosophy du jour in the Church, let alone much of the world. It is not acceptable to call good “good” and evil “evil,” rather it is now insisted that many good and bad actions are subjectively approaching moral and ethical neutrality in order to compromise with the world in which we live.
But evil, at least as the bible lays it out, is not on a sliding scale. While it is in the nature of humanity (we seem to be disposed to subjectivism by design) to rank evil through multiple shades of gray - God has clearly placed only two options on the scale. Option one is “good” - which is absolute moral perfection. Jesus made it quite clear what good is:
Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God (Luke 18:18-19).
Only God is good - and that from Jesus - who was God in the flesh. God is morally pure and perfect, and thus we have option one being absolute moral perfection.
Option two is “evil” - which, logically, is what is not good (if there are only good and evil).
The Christian Attitude
Christians are not to have any part of evil - which is an absolute. This means:
- we are not to compromise with evil
- we are not to ally with evil
- we are not to use evil (even to bring about “good” ends)
- we are not to support evil
- we are not to tolerate evil
- we are not to ignore evil
Amos (5:15) puts it very succinctly: “Hate evil, love good.” Evil is not to be tolerated. For example, we know that murder, rape, homosexuality, fornication, theft and drug-use are evil but so is lying, gossip, slander, pride and idolatry. These things are not “less” evil because evil is absolute. It is not divisible into smaller parts or denominations. Moreover, these things are not to be tolerated or ignored. They are to be exposed and fought with good.
But even more tempting than toleration of evil, is to compromise or even collaborate with it. For example, in politics we hear “the lesser of two evils” - this is a logically impossible phrase. There is no man or woman running who is “less” evil than the other. If we are accountable for our vote and we use it to vote for evil, then we are not vindicated. That is like standing before God and saying, “well God, instead of murdering people, I only lied to them. Well done, right?”
This is how moral subjectivity breeds self-righteousness. Ethical pragmatism replaces moral perfection as a standard of Christian virtue. Thus an absolute measure like the bible is no longer adequate, but instead men are measured relative other men and other laws (currently secular law).
The Temptation to Compromise
The Christian mission is also compromised by alliances with evil. Man is no longer seen to need conversion by a perfect and holy God, but instead to be reformed by conformity to society, governments, churches and secular philosophies. If either evil choices can be removed (through law), discouraged (through society), ignored (through churches) or even justified (through philosophy) - then man has no need of a perfect God to save him.
It is then perfectly natural for Christians to lose their zeal for evangelism and replace it with one of these idols. Perhaps the Christian must now be political and seek to legislate morality through secular governments. Or maybe he must practice ostracism or inclusion, forming cliques and hierarchies to propagate Christianity. Perhaps the answer is to advocate a life with endless church activities, programs and duties in order to leave no room for evil (which has never been dealt with). Or evil should simply be accepted, even grafted in through humanistic philosophy.
In my life, I have found that the more time and focus I have for evangelism, the less interested I am in those distractions. It should not be surprising that obedience to God’s design for our lifestyle yields good fruit and disobedience leads to the opposite.
Christians have no ambiguity with regard to evil:
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)
We are not to conform to the relativism of the world, but to hold good and evil as moral absolutes. Moreover, we are not merely to think this way - but to live out this truth in obedience to a holy and perfect God.
Great article. The day may come when the American church will have to face the same kind of persecution from our government that the early church did. However, I fear that we are trending towards the kind of government that might restrict certain matters of faith as “hate speech”. If that happens (and I pray that it does not) we too might be faced with the dilemma of obeying God or men. The Department of Homeland Security has already begun to recruit pastors as a means of dispensing propaganda during an “emergency”. This, to me, demonstrates the extreme possibility of compromise with evil. Am I saying the U.S. government is evil? Well basically all governments are evil when they operate outside their God-ordained function. So…yeah.
Chris, I think there is no question we are already in that “day” however, we have been taught compromise from our churches which have already compromised. I think if we lived as radically as the early church, things would not be so easy.
I think you’re right on. It is quite possible that the kind of compromise we have been accustomed to is so ingrained in our culture that we have lost the ability to recognize it.
I was with you until you turned to politics. As you actually said, “There is no man or woman running who is “less” evil than the other.” Neither is there any man or woman running who is good (which you defined as “absolute moral perfection”).
“If we are accountable for our vote and we use it to vote for evil, then we are not vindicated.” I don’t see how any vote for any politician who ever lived in any country is a vote for good as you’ve defined it–the absolute good of a holy God.
It is indeed possible for an evil person to intentionally vote for a specific evil that a given politician supports, but the opposite is not possible–how could a person possibly vote for “good” if no politician has yet achieved absolute moral perfection?
Should I therefore not vote?
While God measures good and evil by his holy absolute standards, he knows we are dust. We can be grateful that his mercy is everlasting and that he measures our Christian life by a growing maturity. An infant is not evil because he can only drink milk. A toddler is not evil because he can only walk and not run. And yet, as time goes by, God expects growth. Growth, yes, but we are never going to be absolutely morally perfect in all we do and say this side of heaven (Hebrews 5 and 6, I John 1).
I think the one thing your article lacked is the fact that we live between “good” and “evil” (however you want to define them). Nobody (human at least) is purely evil, none are purely good (at least those that are merely mortal). If we are to “avoid evil,” does this entail us avoiding even ourselves? Is this advocating a duplicity of identity–a Manichean duality? Where do we draw the line for practical applications of this (we can talk theory all day long, but that doesn’t get us any closer to living with it)?
Sorry for the lateness of reply. The point I am making here (and your question) follows very similarly a biblical encounter near to the subject:
In other words, the politics example is not really about politics. If we are biblically accountable for our vote, then it seems silly that God would approve one evil man over the other. If we are not biblically accountable (or accountable in a different way) then maybe voting is something else.
The point is that we can’t delude ourselves into thinking that evil is not evil because of a made-up hierarchy (politics or otherwise).
I think we probably disagree on a more foundational level, as I do not agree that “nobody is purely evil.” Which, yes, it does follow that we “avoid ourselves” - I think this is the essence of the “pick up your cross” language in scripture.
I do agree that this kind of thinking makes the pragmatics super-complicated and very difficult. But if we hold to deduction as valid, then we must derive the pragmatics from theory - even if they are unorthodox and awkward (to say the least).
Colin,
Interesting piece. I find it interesting that nowhere in your piece do you define evil. Nor for that matter do you define good. To say that evil is the opposite of good does little to define either. Could you please clarify?
Steve,
I do define these things, but I only do so very briefly.
Good is complete moral perfection. The only example I can imagine is a good, perfect, omniscient God.
If good is absolute, than evil is what is not good - i.e. everything else. Most people don’t like this definition because it is severely impractical. However, if we are arguing absolutes (a non-absolute world is also impractical) than we must derive that definition from the former definition of “good.”
Colin,
While I appreciate your response, I’m still not sure you’ve sufficiently defined evil. You’ve defined evil only by way of negation, and a negation is not sufficient in defining terms. You’ve told me what evil is not, but have not defined evil. Can you clarify?
Sure, but in absolute terms, it is philosophically consistent to make such a definition. Take light and dark. There is light - dark is the absence of light - I’m not sure of another pure was of defining dark.
I don’t view evil as a list of don’ts or do’s; or a specific mentality. The definition of evil is predicated on the definition of good.
You may view that as a cop-out, but that’s the way I see it.
If I were to give a “non-negating” definition. I might define evil as “force” - as the violation of freedom as found in nature and nature’s order.
This captures the essence of what Evil is from the Catholic perspective courtesy of St. Thomas Aquinas. I’m sorry for the cut and paste, but I gain a lot more wisdom from the great minds of history than what I’m able to conjure up myself. Then maybe on their shoulders, I’ll be able to better apply that wisdom to what we face today:
“The Roman Catholic Church holds the view of natural law set forth by Thomas Aquinas, particularly in his Summa Theologica, and often as filtered through the School of Salamanca. This view is also shared by some Protestant churches.[citation needed]
The Church understands human beings to consist of body and mind, the physical and the non-physical (or soul perhaps), and that the two are inextricably linked. Humans are capable of discerning the difference between good and evil because they have a conscience. There are many manifestations of the good that we can pursue. Some, like procreation, are common to other animals, while others, like the pursuit of truth, are inclinations peculiar to the capacities of human beings.
To know what is right, one must use one’s reason and apply it to Aquinas’ precepts. This reason is believed to be embodied, in its most abstract form, in the concept of a primary precept: “Good is to be sought, evil avoided.”[16] St. Thomas explains that:
there belongs to the natural law, first, certain most general precepts, that are known to all; and secondly, certain secondary and more detailed precepts, which are, as it were, conclusions following closely from first principles. As to those general principles, the natural law, in the abstract, can nowise be blotted out from men’s hearts. But it is blotted out in the case of a particular action, insofar as reason is hindered from applying the general principle to a particular point of practice, on account of concupiscence or some other passion, as stated above (77, 2). But as to the other, i.e., the secondary precepts, the natural law can be blotted out from the human heart, either by evil persuasions, just as in speculative matters errors occur in respect of necessary conclusions; or by vicious customs and corrupt habits, as among some men, theft, and even unnatural vices, as the Apostle states (Rm. i), were not esteemed sinful.[17]
However, while the primary and immediate precepts cannot be “blotted out”, the secondary precepts can be. Therefore, for a deontological ethical theory they are open to a surprisingly large amount of interpretation and flexibility. Any rule that helps man to live up to the primary or subsidiary precepts can be a secondary precept, for example:
Drunkenness is wrong because it injures one’s health, and worse, destroys one’s ability to reason, which is fundamental to man as a rational animal (i.e. does not support self preservation).
Theft is wrong because it destroys social relations, and man is by nature a social animal (i.e. does not support the subsidiary precept of living in society).
Natural moral law is concerned with both exterior and interior acts, also known as action and motive. Simply doing the right thing is not enough; to be truly moral one’s motive must be right as well. For example, helping an old lady across the road (good exterior act) to impress someone (bad interior act) is wrong. However, good intentions don’t always lead to good actions. The motive must coincide with Aquinas’s cardinal or theological virtues. Cardinal virtues are acquired through reason applied to nature; they are:
Prudence
Justice
Temperance
Fortitude
His theological virtues are:
Faith
Hope
Charity
According to Aquinas, to lack any of these virtues is to lack the ability to make a moral choice. For example, consider a man who possesses the virtues of justice, prudence, and fortitude, yet lacks temperance. Due to his lack of self control and desire for pleasure, despite his good intentions, he will find himself swaying from the moral path.”
Interesting exposition by Aquinas, but I’m not sure it does much better in defining evil. While I agree with Colin that evil exerts force and with Aquinas that evil should be avoided, I’m not sure how you can claim it is “a violation of freedom”. I would argue it is a necessary condition for freedom. I think you tread on dangerous ground claiming the “absolute nature of evil”. If by your own definition, absolute good=God. Then what is absolute evil? Do we then throw the concept of monotheism out the window in order to make our concept of God conform to our concept of evil? I would contend evil can never be absolute. Can you clarify?
Let me take a crack at this. Here’s my explanation as I best understand it from a philosophical viewpoint:
* God is Good and everthing that he created is Good
* Evil does not have a nature of it’s own, but only exists as a “corruption” of what is Good
* The Devil, Satan, was the greatest of Good angels, until “Pride” led him to choose himself over God and thus corrupted his Good nature. If you believe in the Devil as refered to in the bible, would represent complete evil, since the Angels are able to make a complete decision; either God or not.
* Human’s have a more limited knowledge and capability than angels, so our decision is in smaller steps of either “turning” towards God or away from him. And in doing so, we are either completing our nature, “to know and to love” God, or corrupting our nature in various degrees of evil by turning away from God and towards “worldly” things as described in the bible.
Ultimately only Good has a nature and Evil is only a corruption of a Good nature. That is why Good is unltimately more powerful than Evil. Evil does not have the ability to “create” and Creation comes from “Love”, the ultimate truth and basis of our existence.
Steve,
Yes, evil is a necessary condition for freedom. But this doesn’t make evil “good” or “less evil” because it happens to be useful. However, even believing in relative “degrees” of evil still speaks to an objective standard to measure those degrees. In other words, saying “less evil” - less than what? In declaring that evil is absolute, I am ultimately trying to make the point that evil is a fixed, limited quantity (namely, by good). It might be unknowable, but this does not necessarily follow that it is relative. Although if one had a more relativistic/positivistic worldview, than of course, things like good and evil wound not only be unknowable but without limits also.
So, if we have a limited, absolute good - a total moral perfection in the entity of “God,” it follows that evil would also be limited, and thus absolute. I admit that this is a deduction on my part, and I don’t have proof. I have accepted an objectivist premise (in a sense, I suppose) that the universe is measurable, defineable, knowable, testable, etc…
I know that isn’t really “proof” for my case, but that it the kind of logic that I am employing here.