Trampling Out the Vintage
Where the Grapes of Wrath are Stored...
Evil and Suffering in the Modern World
by
Thomas B. Wallace
Theodicy... it is always theodicy that the modern attack uses to establish its legitimacy. If God were indeed Truth, Beuaty and Goodness, then would he allow such evil as we know surrounds us in abundance? Look at all the cruelty and suffering and you cannot but know there is no True, Beautiful and Good being behind it? Right? So evil is the final refutation of the existence of God and the final affirmation of despair as the philosophy of darkness?
But what is the problem with the question of theodicy? It is the tendancy of people to literalize all concepts, to personify them and then to distill them into their purist essence, and yes, I used the word "purist" purposefully, for it is the activity of the "purist" in evil who arrives at the conclusion that any given act, any given circumstance, any given process is, in and of itself evil.
But that is because they have misuderstood 'evil" as a substantial thing that exists independently of those who practice it; that it has an 'absolute' existence independant of those whom it affects. As so many things that are the creations of free moral agents 'evil' has no more independant existance than do the thoughts of those who have them. In short they are cast into the ripples of reality and exercies their effects directly in proportion to the degree to which all the rest of reality passes them on.
If 'evil' has gained power, it is because we, as a collective moral agency in action in reality give it power. We give it power in several ways.
The first, of course is to consciously put our spiritual and physical energies behind those actions which we can readily define as 'evil' - we will come to examine those shortly but will put the specifics aside for the moment.
The second, and perhaps the most surprising way that we give 'evil' currency is to lend it more influence in our lives than it deserves. In this sense then we so fear 'evil' that we make of those who practice it more than they are, and, conversely we ascribe to actions whose moral nature is either ambiguous or at worst venal, the power and authority of 'evil' when what we are dealing with is prinicipally ignorance and misdirection.
We convert them into monsters with supernatural authority to create and support structures of evil that they simply would not have were we not buying into their structures. We ascribe to their practitioners a fanciful intensity of thought and moral depth they simply do not have.
Finally, the worst and most widespread way that we lend 'evil' currency is simply to ignore it. I do not know who said it, but it is true, "...for evil to triumph it is necessary only that good men do nothing..."
If each of us truly wishes not to be 'evil' (each of us must take a positive decision to eshew evil, since without that guarded attitude 'evil' will find us and we are all capable of 'evil'), then it is necessary that we first understand what 'evil' is. There simply is no other way for us to determine whether or not what we are doing, what we are contemplating, or what we are ignoring in others, is, in fact 'evil'.
Of course the definition of what is 'evil' has puzzled philosophers for ages, and I know that there are readers who will decide that I am filled with hubris to say that I have that definition. Berkeley's famous question about a tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it is actually relevant to the definition of 'evil'. How? Simple, the answer to that question implies a system of real relationships that define their own terms. The answer to Berkeley's question is a simple no, simply because the word "sound" is defined by both the vibration caused by the tree's fall and the ear or receiver that perceives it. So, without the ear, there is no sound.
That doesn't address the vibration, or the other effective actions of the tree in falling. The same is true of 'evil'. It is not a thing in itself, but rather an effect that echoes in reality. Without a True and Beautiful and Good creator there can be no "evil" simply because the Truth, Beauty and Goodness are the creative reality within which "evil" is a response of "free moral agents" created within that system.
One of the qualities of "free moral agency" is "moral capability", that is the ability to exercise a quality of being. Now here is where most make a type error.
The ability to exercise a quality is not the same as exercising the quality. In short the capacity to be 'evil' is not the same as being 'evil'. God Himself is a "free moral agent" simply because He wishes Himself as such and therefore is as capable of 'evil' as any other "free moral agent'. His ultimate goodness, truth and beauty lies in choosing not to exercise that capability.
We too are "free moral agents" and therefore have the capability to exercise any morally invested activity, including 'evil'. The difference between us and God is that he can see the results of his exercise of "moral agency" and we frequently cannot.
That is our original sin; we sought after the perfection of God before His plan intended it, and therefore set our will in opposition to His. That is the definition of 'evil'; a moral agency set in opposition to God.
If there is no God, then there can be no evil. The modern attack seeks to replace God with the "moral agency" of the creation and therefore to justify its evil as a natural process of reality which actually has no moral weight one way or another.
So what does that mean when it comes to such concepts as Satan, Death and Suffering? First, let us examine exactly who Satan is, was, will be.
Satan, in the Bible takes on a number of names, among which are Lucifer - which means bearer of light - Satan, which means "enemy" - Devil, which means "adversary" - "Son of the Morning - which when translated into a paleohebrew would be rendered as either "Hallel" or "Ariel" one means Glory and the other means Glory of God - Prince of this world - Prince of the Air - The Cherub Who Covers. In the Islamic tradition he is Ibliss a fallen angel.
Regardless of the name there are two things about him that remain consistent in Hebrew/Christian/Moslem traditions. He was an Angel of Great Authority and, at some point in his existance 'evil' was found within him. At that point in his existence he placed himself in opposition to the plan of God for creation and began, as an adversary, to go about proving his case against God by dragging God's creation into 'evil' that is, a corresponding opposition on the part of all Creation to God's plans.
By deception he tricked humanity into demanding the stature of Gods through a knowledge of good and evil which resulted in the introduction of Death - defined as complete separation from God - into creation and because of that introduction creation began to "groan" under the weight of sin - that is suffering became an effect of the introduction of 'evil' into creation.
Now, let us look at this extraordinary being who commands such respect, fear and revulsion.
There are clues given to us in his names that tell us something of who he was and what responsibility he held in the governement of creation. First he is described as "The son of the morning" and "The Cherub that Covereth". These are descriptions that are nomic in nature. By that is meant that they are titles descriptive of the responsibilities that go with them.
The first would seem to imply that he was among those "sons of God" who shouted for joy at the creation of the Universe. The second, you must have some understanding of Hebrew religious practice to understand clearly. When the Hebrews were wandering in the wilderness God commanded them to build a set of structures within which His Shakinah - glory - would reside to guide them.
In the very center of this structure there was a gopherwood box overlaid with beaten gold that held three items, the staff of Aaron, the brother of Moses, that had sprouted, the Tablets of the Law, and some of the manna with which God had fed his people. Over this box there spread their wings before their own bowed heads two cherubs of beaten gold who covered the mercy seat, which is where the Shikanah Glory sat in judgement of Israel.
Below these wings were the things of the creation containing the things which God had given them to free themselves from bondage and over these wings sat the Glory of God's Being. Between the two were the overspread wings of the cherubs whose duty it was to see that nothing of the creation that was unrighteous would approach the mercy seat upon which God's Glory dwelt.
Now, this literal box was called the Arc of the Covenant - which was an agreement between God and Israel as to how he would judge them - and it was a reflection of the metaphor that existed in the "heavenlies" as the government of God over creation.
Satan was one of those cherubim charged with protecting the throne of God from the approach of unrighteousness, before the universe as we understand it was created. He was described as being of superb intelligence and he was perhaps given the responsibility of creating this universe with "free moral agents" within it that would reflect the imago dei, the image of God.
There was a problem with that instruction though... you cannot introduce "free moral agency" into a finite system without understanding that the exercise of "opposition to God" will be a capability of those agents and given their ignorance and finite perspective they will inevitably put themselves in "opposition" to God. Thus, in his hyper rational structures, there had been given him the responsibility of creating a contradiction.
Protect the throne of Gof from the approach of all unrightousness, but then create a reality that would inevitably approach God's throne with unrighteousness.
In his pride of place he perceived this as an error in God's creation that he himself had detected, and that therefore he was and is superior to God. It has and ever will be his mission to prove that case by casting himself in opposition to all that God does and to deceive all of creation to follow after him in one of the three ways I described earlier, either directly, by fear, or through moral paralysis.
Now, I will not here go into a Christian defense of God in the issue between them, but will rather continue to pursue the nature of 'evil'.
Fundamentally, 'evil' is what stands in opposition to God.
So, how do we know what stands in opposition to God and what does not, and therefore give ourselves a foundation on which to base our decisions for action in the real world? Well there are several ways.
First, there is in nature an order of being that gives us clues as to the natural law that surrounds that being.
Whether you believe in God or not, or whether you believe in a particular God or not, you, as a being with free moral agency, recognize this order and understand that you have a certain place within it, even though you can, by your nature, step out of that place when you choose to. Having that capability does not compel you to exercise it, but having it is an enormous temptation to exercise it.
Still we are not compelled, only tempted. By definition, exercising the capability to step outside the natural order is potentially dangerous done in ignorance of the rules involved.
Second, we can accept that human beings are, in fact Theometers of some sensitivity. Roughly 95% of humanity expresses some experience of God either on an intellectual, spiritual, or physical base. If this is so, then it is not irrational to understand that some of these Theometers may well be in better working order than are others.
From these we can derive the prophetic and the psychic. However, given this is true, it is equally possible to understand that our reception may not always be capable of telling the difference between the things of the spirit that are in God's will and the things of the spirit that are in oppostiion to God.
For that reason then we tend to need to look across the spectrum of religious belief and to see within these what is consistent with what we know intuitively of the character of a Creator versus the character of a Destroyer. In short we need to look for clues in scripture, regardless of where it comes from, for the character of God and for explicit instruction from God for life practice.
Whether you believe that the code of Hammurabi preceded the Ten Commandments, or you believe that the one derives from the other, or vice versus, we all recognize the Ten Commandments as a legal code of sufficient moral agency and flexibility to maintain a system of justice that is capable of renedering what appears to be a "morallly valid" justice on the activities of people in concert with one another. In short it is a legal system capable of moral agency within a larger polity if followed by the individuals within such a polity.
We can, therefore, decide, that since, if it is voluntarily followed, it works to dispense justice in a largely indiscriminate fashion it can be said to have a certain "morally sound" foundation. It does not, therefore, stand in opposition to God and its precepts can safely be followed as a guide to good and evil behavior. In short we follow what we know to be just laws to determine our actions to be in God's will and therefore not evil.
Finally, there is the ability of the individual, or even sometimes the group, to reside within their own spirits and therefore to reestablish that spiritual connection that was severed in our original sin and which has since been so intermittantly practiced. However, once again, without the proper practice, the proper set of instructions, the proper relationships to the spiritual it is easy to be subject to deception by "principalities and power of the air" against which we war.
I liken this practice, and you must understand that I come from a background of having practiced tarot and ritual magic, to the management of an electrical grid.
All of us are capable of managing the electrical power within our homes. We can flip switches, set thermostats, even do the wiring if we have the proper tools and exercise the proper caution and take the time and effort to learn the proper practices. But when we step outside our own homes and start to work on the power pole outside, even though we may be able to do it safely once or twice, since we don't know when and where the power flows through those lines, it is extraordinarily dangerous for us to do that, we can be overwhelmed, shocked and burned, or even killed.
If we go even further and we go to the switching station and start throwing breakers and channeling power, trying by trial and error to find out what it does, now we not only endanger ourselves, but we are practicing in realms that affect others, either more power to the wrong spot or less power to the right spot and we are doing something that has been clearly prohibited to us without authorization, after all that is what the sign outside said, "authorized personnel only".
Now, having successfully survived our sojourn into the switching station, and not having been caught at it and arrested or destroyed by our foolishness, we go on to the power plant itself, only we haven't chosen a power plant of little consequence, we have chosen the big cahoona, the nuclear power plant and we have ensconced ourselves in the control room and now we are throwing switches willy nilly, once again, looking by trial and error to find the combinations that will allows us to control the power outputs and bend them to our will.
Unless we are extraordinarily fortunate what we are likely to produce is a nuclear meltdown and the destruction associated with it. Now, at the point at which we stepped outside the house and went to the pole we committed a sin. It wasn't expressly forbidden to us to do what we did but it was a dangerous thing to do and it could have resulted in destruction to ourselves and we knew it. But it was not 'evil' per se because we did not do it in opposition to the electric company but because we were mistaken in not calling on them to fix what needed to be fixed so we were not at risk.
When we went to the power station we put ourselves outside the law and that was 'criminal' because it was against the rules and could hurt others as well as ourselves. But it would be a gray area as to whether or not this constituted an 'evil' since we may have had any number of good and righteous motivations for doing what we did, as well as any number of destructive motivations. So the 'evil' of this act is determined by its context and success but its 'criminality' is not, it stands outside the law, and we are therefore convicted of the sin of it.
Finally, as we go to the power plant itself, we stand in evil, for the power plant is designed, run and operated by the creator and we have set ourselves in His place and determined that our direction is more valid than His. This is the definition of 'evil' and it is that which condemns a man or woman to "death", which is separation from God.
Okay, that is all that I am going to write about theodicy and the definition of 'evil' itself. The issues addressed in the original essay are themselve, in some senses, type errors and deserve a separate response, as the burden of 'evil' and 'suffering' are often misunderstood and given more, or less, currency, than their 'moral weight' implies or demands.
