Love, Power, and Evil: Playing It Out

Love...'does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;' (1 Corinthians 13:6 NASB)

Love is what makes anything, including myself, worth something; in a sense, it's what my Master values.  Not that I'm not valuable to Him enough to warrant the sacrifice of Jesus, we all are.  But what makes my Master take notice is not the use of 'gifts' but the attitude and lifestyle of His kind of love.

Love is one of those things so misunderstood by our culture that we can scarcely use the same word within groups of followers of Jesus.  What our culture means by love and what we mean by love have almost no points of connection.  I think that's partly because our culture can't even settle on some sort of definition.

When the logical problem of evil and suffering is addressed by atheists, they typically use the construction: God is Loving + God is Powerful yet Evil.  They claim that for evil to exist there would need to be either a weak God incapable of stopping evil, or an unloving God disinterested in stopping it.  The problem with both options comes down to the definition of love and power, and often evil.

Love stands defined better than I can in this venue.  A brief summary of power is perhaps best explained in terms of 'parenting'.  Just because a parent can kill their kid when they're bad, obviously showing bad/evil tendencies, and so on, they normally won't.  When that does happen, we call it 'evil'.  Most of the time, they have the power to do something but they restrain the exercising of that power because they choose to.  It's power to control power, which is much greater than simply having power in the first place.  And, ironically, it's what we expect of parents.

Evil on the other hand, at least in the Hebrew Scriptures, is subjective.  What's evil for one isn't necessarily evil for others.  It better correlates to the English word, bad.  When in war, a city is attacked and destroyed, it's evil for those in the city, but good for those attacking.  Of course, sometimes things can be seen as universally bad, where everyone agrees, that's bad.   Still though, that only means from our subjective view point, without knowledge of specifics, like how it got that way, what it would take to change it to good, and so on.  And then there is the bad mixed with good.  For instance some good things have bad consequences, and some bad things have good consequences. 

With these definitions, I believe just because evil exists it isn't necessarily tied to some defect in God.  He can easily fit the definition He provides of love, exercise power over power, and there be stuff I don't like in this world.  And, beyond that, there can be stuff He doesn't like in this world.  Being loving means that His aim isn't our 'happiness' but our absolute best.  If that absolute best is eternity in heaven, then His choices in restraining his power might not look loving to us.

I believe that the path of love described in this chapter heads directly to the throne of God.  I also believe that it is a path which returns back into the world.  The path to His throne also transmits love back into the world.  But the ultimate destination is heaven, not earth.  The ultimate good which triumphs over evil in this place is heaven.  Heaven overwhelmingly tips the balances into our favor.  And this is true regardless of the evil suffered in this world; and there is unimaginable evil suffered in this world. 

Without listing the vast examples of evil in this world, suffice it to say that love in the midst of them overcomes their consequences.  One of my favorite sayings is, 'Darkness isn't anything in and of itself, it's only the absence of light.'  The take away from that should be a fearless shining of the light of God in our lives.  The darkness in our world is only the absence of the light of God in it.  So shine. 

Now, people don't like bright lights when they've been in darkness, so it seems bad.  But the consequence is their ability to see all the stuff they've been missing because we can't see without light; and that's good.  So the patience of love and kindness of love overlook the comfort of people adapted to the dark, and shine light anyway.  It seems bad at first, but the eventual consequences are far greater than the dark-adapted good.

I have neighbors, and I'm supposed to 'shine' into their lives, even though, at first, they won't really like it.  I'm supposed to do it anyway, because if I don't they will be left in their darkness, comfortable as it may seem.  Without light, they won't know God, know His love for them, and will not have a relationship with Him.  And that's bad.  Ultimately, that's the greatest evil possible.

Judge or Not to Judge or When to Judge

For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present.  In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Corinthians 5:3-5 NASB)

So, in the previous chapter (1 Corinthians 4:3-5) Paul doesn't even 'judge' himself and tells the church not to pass judgement before Jesus comes again.  Yet here he is having already passed judgement on this one.  Are we missing something here?  I suspect we are missing something huge.

In my opinion, humans pass judgement very indiscriminately typically based on personal (as in self-centered) foundations for judging.  We do it daily, mostly to make decisions, but also with regard to value assessments of other humans.  We also can be, and often are, intentionally malicious in such activities.  Since we can't truly know someone else very well, or thoroughly enough to assess value, we are typically poor judges.

But there are times when this ability to judge between two things comes in handy and is in fact a responsibility.  The problem comes down to knowing when and among what we are supposed to judge.  So here is my basic, overly simplistic, rudimentary, rule-of-thumb to figure it out:

1. Use Scripture to judge behavior (what 1 Corinthians 5 is about)
2. Don't judge 'character' or personal value/worth (what 1 Corinthians 4 is about)

 This is really easy to say, but not so easy to accomplish when the two things blur.  For instance, is the guy referred to in 1 Corinthians 5 of good character?  Well, probably not, and you wouldn't want him running the youth program at church.  But what is addressed is the behavior, not the value or character.

Here's why I believe this simple assessment matches Scripture.  I believe the purpose behind Scripture is redemptive.  When a person's character is judged, there's not much room for redemption.  But someone can come back from behavior flaws, and their character can be redeemed. 

The way I define it, 'to judge' means to render a final assessment/decision.  So, when a person's character is judged, it has been stated what this person is at their core.  No one can really do that very well, even though some may be able to guess better than others, no one truly knows enough.  Behavior is much more clear.

So, to sum up, I can judge behavior but probably not motive.  Therefore, I judge behavior, and leave the judgement of motive to my Master. 

The way this works is that when I witness behavior in myself or in another that clearly violates my Master's mandates in Scripture, I address it with that person (or myself - I confess it to my Master).  If that doesn't work (if I persist in the sin), then I bring someone else in on it (for myself, I confess it to another).  If that fails (and it better NOT fail me) I bring such a thing to the church.  If the sin persists beyond such a public revelation, then offending person is treated as outside the fellowship of the church.  So, no need to buy a gavel just yet.

As an aside, this is one of the main reasons I encourage followers of Jesus to study the Hebrew Law.  The other reasons are are found in the next chapter.  So, I have another blog for which I seem to have no time called "Scriptural Laws for Christians".  In it I examine the practical application of Hebrew legal texts to modern Christian life.  I haven't made a new entry since March, 2012, and there's only 7 entries total.  Sorry to advertise something so limited, but the concept it presents would be helpful here.

So, Where Was That Spirit From Again?

Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him.  Saul's servants then said to him, "Behold now, an evil spirit from God is terrorizing you.  Let our lord now command your servants who are before you. Let them seek a man who is a skillful player on the harp; and it shall come about when the evil spirit from God is on you, that he shall play the harp with his hand, and you will be well." (1 Samuel 16:14-16 NASB)

On the 14th, I wrote an entry in this blog about what it meant for me that my Master would send an 'evil spirit to torment'.   My conclusion was that all things come from my Master, and therefore I will praise Him more.  It's one thing to say that, and sing nice and lovely to praise my Master more.  But what about when bad things happen?  Oops, hmm, didn't thing about that.

So, while I write a lot of blog entries on theology and philosophy, what I do to put bread on the table is sales.  Part of my struggle with that is that I'm not really a 'salesman'.  I'm really a teacher who teaches people to buy smarter.  Sometimes that works well and in my favor, and sometimes it doesn't.  But it always works in the customers favor.  Because of this, I have developed a long relationship with several of our customers.  Recently my company put forth a company-wide effort to delight our customers.  It hasn't quite trickled down yet.

In my sales department, we have a rule that says that if a sales rep leaves a voicemail with a customer, they own the sales for the next two weeks.  The idea is that we recoup sales lost from customers hearing the message but calling into the general queue without mentioning the rep who left the message or who order online.  This protects the sales credit for the rep who prompted the sale.  Sounds good right?

What happens when my long-time client (seven years!) calls me direct for their annual order, and as I go into their account, I find that one of my teammates has left a message a few days ago?  Now I have a choice.  I can pass off the customer to that sales rep since I don't get credit, and let that guy do all the work.  Or I can  keep the customer, enter the order, but just put the other rep's credit on it; maintaining the relationship but without the benefit.

I have complained about this, and have been shot down every time.  I leave a lot of messages for customers, but I very rarely get much in the way of sales from it.  The idea is that if I leave more messages, I'll get more sales.  I hate that idea.  It does work, just statistically speaking, it has to.  But it's without skill, without relationship, and fails to measure anything but the ability to leave more messages than the next guy.  It drives me nuts.

So, I do two things in protest.  First, I maintain my sales relationships I have with customers to the degree that I can; I enter the orders, even with other reps credit (as I did in this case).  Second, I give those sales away when I have left a message but someone else has an established relationship.  If they get the call back because they have an established relationship, I believe they should get the sale (I'm not as generous when the customer doesn't call them back though).  Both of these things only hurt myself.  But both actions preserve my values.  My values aren't in line with what I do, the rules under which I do them, nor the wishes of my managers.  I hold my values anyway.

But what does this have to do with my Master and sending evil tormenting spirits?  Well, I also believe that while I do a lot of 'planting' and 'watering' of customers and sales processes in my job, it is my Master bringing the results.  If all things are from Him, and He knows all things, then He knew and arranged to have my co-worker leave that message days before my customer called me.  I can get frustrated with the system, I can get frustrated with my co-worker (for doing his job, right, that makes sense), I can get frustrated with my manager; but each of those things is the wrong response.

What I am learning through this is to receive from my Master's hand whatever He decides to give me; when and how He decides to give it.  But also to let go from my hand whatever He wants to take.  If He really brings the sales, than they are His not mine.  Can I let go of what I believe I am entitled to receive?  Can I relent with my Master?  It's one thing to say all things come from Him, it is another to be okay with it.  Can I be okay with it?  "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I shall return.  The Lord gives, and the Lord has taken away, Blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21).

Will I accept this?  Will I still praise my Master when He takes away sales on which I was counting?  Will I, having lost almost nothing compared to Job's loss, say as he said, "Blessed be the Name of the Lord"?  This is where my 'culture' and 'society' influences begin to weaken, and the message of Scripture begins to come home to me.  Yes, I will accept; I will praise my Master; I will bless His name, sing songs of praise all the more intensely, and live out the belief that all things do in fact come from my Master.

Where Did You Say You Were From?

1 Samuel 16:14 Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord terrorized him. 15 Saul’s servants then said to him, “Behold now, an evil spirit from God is terrorizing you. 16 Let our lord now command your servants who are before you. Let them seek a man who is a skillful player on the harp; and it shall come about when the evil spirit from God is on you, that he shall play the harp with his hand, and you will be well.” 17 So Saul said to his servants, “Provide for me now a man who can play well and bring him to me.” (NASBStr)

One of the most problematic statements in all of Scripture for Biblical Theologians is 1 Samuel 16:14.  The statement that the 'Good Lord' sent an 'evil spirit' is a square theological peg in a round hole of God's character. At least it looks that way.

Here's what we know:

• The verse actually says this; there's no other way to translate it.
• In following verses uses, 'evil spirit from God' rather than 'from the LORD'; in other words, God's name is used initially, then references to Him.
• The servants know what has happened and what to do about it; a very specific solution, rather than a general search for any solution.
• Saul agrees with the solution, indicating either personal familiarity with the problem, or trust of those who serve him.
• This is the only known record of such a thing done by God.

There's much that can be deduced from this; it's more common in their culture than in the Scripture the record, music was found to help people God afflicts this way, and no one seems to think it is out of character for God. There's more that suggested, and then opinion and theory take over.  

Here's my theory: Everything comes from my Master, and I can trust that what He does does not contradict what says about Himself. I believe the problem lies with my lack of understanding, not His character.

So, my Master can send an evil spirit to torment someone, and He is still Love, sending His Son into the world to save all the ones believing in Him. 

That means that evil also comes from my Master.  That isn't easy to swallow or accept, that the All-Loving God of the Christian Scriptures would cause evil.  Consider this, the enemy, Satan, is a created being.  This creature is not on par with the Almighty, does not possess His power or knowledge, and is not the 'balance' for the 'goodness' of the True Creator of the universe.  So our enemy, this creature, is not 'deity' of any sort, but rather a rebel against Deity.

Just so we're clear, all things come from God.  So, how do I, a servant of the King, knight of the Realm, reconcile good and evil both being from my King?  By recognizing that while my King is not subjective, my understanding of Him can only obtain a subjective level.  In other words, I only know what He reveals to me of Himself, which includes the tidbit that there's more about Him I don't know.  In fact, when Isaiah 55:8&9 are unpacked in light of modern astronomy, then really, my Master is as far from my understanding as the width and breadth of the universe; not our galaxy, but the whole universe.  And so you know, by the way, the dimensions of the universe are unknowable from our perspective on earth.

Still, both good and evil coming from a Loving God?  Yes.  Again, as I've pointed out before, when evil and good are defined in the way the terms are used in Scripture, they aren't necessarily moral assessments.  They are wider umbrella terms for things generally affecting the writer/editor, the audience reading/hearing, or the objects being acted upon in the account recorded.  Let that sink in a moment, perhaps you should re-read it a few times.  

What I mean by that is sometimes the things we don't like are morally contrary to God's will, plans, and commands.  But sometimes what we think are bad things are merely inconvenient, we don't like them; and sometimes they are catastrophically detrimental to us, people die.  Scripture calls these things evil regardless; we don't like them, they're evil.  That should help clear up how both things can come from the same God, but not for everyone.

So the 'evil spirit from God' was His punishment on Saul.  It was 'evil' from Saul's perspective, and those around him could see that Saul wasn't enjoying it.  They didn't see what it was tormenting their king, so it had to be a 'spirit'.  That it was from God was a given since there could be no other source for such things in their minds. It is this last part where I believe I and others have deviated into error.

Like many I have ascribed to my enemy more power than he really has.  If all things come from my Master, then all my enemy can do is use what has already been created, and what he already has at his disposal.  He can't make something to torment me.  He can't 'send' something that isn't already his.  This creature desiring my separation from my Master is stronger than I am, but nothing compared to my Master.  My enemy only makes me more dependent upon my Master, he can't hurt me truly. 

So, in response to all things coming from my Master, I will praise Him all the more.  I will proclaim His power and majesty louder and with more fervor.  I will seek to honor Him even more, and I will tremble before Him.  I will wait on Him, worship Him, and walk before Him. 

The Fractured Reality of Sodom 2: The Mob, The Judge, And The Angels

Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."  But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.  "Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof."  But they said, "Stand aside." Furthermore, they said, "This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them." So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door.  But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door.  They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway. (Genesis 19:4-11 NASB)

I don't know where to start.  I was expecting to be shocked, to find a wickedness, but the depths of this shocked me.  I was hoping to somehow rescue the character of Lot from his surroundings, but I'm failing.  I'm trying to find some cultural or ethnic tradition or something that explains what I read, but I'm not finding it.  So, I will simply unpack it and let be what it is.

The men of Sodom, from all over the city and from all age groups, form a mob.  It's not said this is usual or not, a festival or not, but they circle themselves around the house.  Their intent is the men who came to Lot's house; they want to "know" them, and, in this case, it would be "biblically".  So a mob, forming for no other clear reason than to take the men who just came to the city, encircle Lot's house and call for him to send them out.  Remember that Lot strongly urged the angels, who intended to stay in the plaza, to stay with him.  I infer from this that the mob was neither an isolated occurrence, nor surprising to Lot.  He seemed to know what was coming.

Some sort of "carnival" (in the ancient sense of that word) would go a long way to explain their behavior, but none is mentioned.  Perhaps every night was "carnival night" in Sodom.  The moral conditions of the place are not explained, but merely described.  It's creepy.  The attitude that spawns such behavior is in every part of the city, and in every generation of them.  They don't "grow out of it" at some point.  It is pervasive, insidious, and completely irrational.

Before you jump all over the "irrational" judgement, ask yourself, how do these people conduct trade with other cities or regions if this is how they treat visitors?  How can they survive without commerce?  The very fact that they are known by other cities and regions was demonstrated in chapter 14, so how can they adopt this mode of behavior and still remain a viable presence?  It is truly irrational to behave as they are.

And yet, Abraham considers them a moral blight on the land even as he rescues their goods (and Lot) from conquering kings.  So, they are known for their evil even before this.  And yet, they are tolerated by their neighbors.  They aren't a military power (they lost a battle where 318 + 4 won), so what is it that they have which is so "tolerable" to their neighbors?  And it's not just their neighbors.

When Lot goes out to speak with them, he calls them "brothers"!  Really?  Seriously?  The whole passage quickly takes on the surreal psychotic feel very quickly.  How can such a place exist?  Even during the 30-years war, the Catholics and Protestants agreed on one thing, the destruction of Muenster was necessary.  They joined forces and burnt it to the ground.  It was recognized by both sides as an evil place.  Why that hasn't happened here, long ago, baffles me.

"And everyone's okay with this?"  Lot's answer to their plea is to send out his virgin daughters.  I'm shocked!  I have no explanation for such a suggestion.  It could be part of hospitality in that culture, but I don't find other examples of it.  First he calls them "brothers" and then offers them his daughters if they will just leave the visitors alone.  They refuse.  Of course they do.  Why would a mob of men want a couple of women when there are two men as options?  The place is upside down, and the condition is pervasive, and for whatever reason, "acceptable" to their neighbors.

So, at what point does such insidious evil become acceptable to me?  What has to happen to me and what do I need to experience to find such things acceptable?  Probably way too much.  But what if the people and attitude of Sodom wasn't "acceptable" to their neighbors (they didn't necessarily do the same things), but the neighbors were apathetic?  Now I'm closer to fitting the description.  How often to I turn a blind eye or deaf ear to the wickedness of my own country?  It's become such a cacophony that it blends into a constant noise I have learned to ignore.  There's just too much of it to deal with, it seems hopeless to stand against it.

But that is me living in Sodom, calling the people "my brothers", and seeking to mollify them by sacrificing what is precious to me.  I haven't reached that point yet, but really, how far away is it?  When I don't speak out against the vocal evil, isn't that tacit acceptance?  When I refuse to point out that my Master is against behavior am I not loosing my moral ground?  At least Lot tried to be a judge to bring some semblance of righteousness to the place.  It did no good but have I even tried that? 

I think I am supposed to judge from my Master's perspective.  I am to be vocal about what my Master says is important.  I am supposed to be "judgmental" because my Master has given me, and all His followers, the responsibility to be a vocal proponent and an object lesson of what He says.  But am I?  Do I address the evil around me as the evil it is?  Do I point out wickedness?  No, I don't.  And more often than not it is because I am aware of the wickedness in my own life and do not see myself as qualified to point it out.  I fear being a hypocrite who is as bad as those he criticizes.  But my Master calls me to be His broken and cracked jar of His glory.  He has called me and my fellow believers to own the failures of our lives and cry out against the evil around us.  It takes both confession and proclamation.  It's not comfortable; less comfortable than apathy against the evil.

So, to change I have to man-up, put on my "big boy pants", and stand in integrity against the evil of my community.  Integrity means owning my failures, but not letting them disqualify me from vocally and actively standing for my Master's views.  Bold words.  Now I need to give them hands and feet, and therefore steel.  Deep breath.  Okay, let's do it.