Evil is in the eye of the Beholder

For me, the question of "what is Evil" is intriguing. I think, for the most part, Evil is a perspective: a judgment made based in the  beliefs of the perceiver.

For example:  In college, I enrolled in a Latin Americans studies . When the course began, the entire class thought we had a clear  idea  of what  evil was.  For us, there could be no better example of pure evil, than the  notoriously ruthless leaders of some developing (aka.  third world)  countries, especially in the ares with drug cartels.  We viewed those dictators  as merciless tyrants who, without regard to human life,  ordered random executions  and mass killings  based their whims. Hundreds  were massacred and beaten for, seemingly, no reason. Citizens lived in terror. To us, this was the definition of Evil.

Our professor asked if we were running the country, what would we do differently? "Overthrow him and bring peace to the area, " we agreed. Our professor then asked us to come up with a plan to make that happen.

After weeks of investigating and studying the political history of developing countries,   we were shocked by the solution we turned into our instructor. In  class of more than 50 students, we unanimously decided to best thing we could do for the struggling country, was keep the tyrannical  dictator in power.

While we abhorred the dictators methods,  all the other options paled in comparison.  As we dug in and studied,   we quickly learned that the under developing world is not our world.  Because of their situation, their thought processes, methods of coping  and responses to social situations are not like ours. In their countries, they  have no social benefits. There  is no government housing or  food stamps--and if there is food, it is often scarce.  Many  don't have jobs and they do what they have to do to survive. Gangs, cartels and guns are the norm. From stealing to killing, many ordinary citizens are forced into unthinkable choices --just to survive. Since most people were born into these conditions, they just assume fighting for survival is the way of life.  

 

 My class researched similar developing country uprisings and, in the end, came to the conclusion that, if we had decided  to go with our initial gut feel and  topple the dictator, we might have  done more damage to an already struggling country.  

 

 History has shown that, in developing countries,  when a dictator is overthrown, mayhem erupts as gangs, cartels and factions struggle for power.  Gangs, warlords and drug cartels are not interested in attaining peace. We concluded that  the brutal, often bloody tactics  of the dictator, were the exact responses needed to keep the gangs and cartels in line.  The Dictator had to have enough perceived power, that the other forces feared going up against him. That fear kept the others in line. Therefore, the dictators tyrannical reputation , brought some form of stability and  control to the region.

 

If we had decided to remove the dictator, we would have had to replace him with another regime that was just as powerful, or more so, just to keep the other sanctions in line. That would have, most likely, caused more bloodshed.

By the end of our study, we had changed our view. To our surprise, we had to conclude that the Evil dictator may not have been as Evil as we originally thought-it was a matter of perspective.

Theological Snapshot

 

There was a time when I felt very solid and confident in my religious beliefs.  I could spout off my convictions without wavering. If someone had a religious question, I had an answer (and I knew it was the right answer).  Not only was I rock solid in my beliefs, I felt it was my God appointed duty to convert others to my belief (and I was pretty good at doing it). However, now, I find that my theological beliefs are evolving.

I’m not exactly sure how or when my convictions started changing, but, I began having questions. I always kept these questions to myself, because, as a church leader, I didn’t feel safe in expressing my doubts for fear of condemnation.   In my belief system, I was taught that you had to accept Christ as your personal savior, or face an eternity in Hell.  I believed in that concept without question.  Deep down, however,  I had a nagging feeling something was amiss.  As a parent, I don’t care what my children did, there was no way I could condemn them to an eternal hell. If I couldn’t do it, how could a loving God do it? I’ve heard it explained that it breaks God’s heart to condemn people, but He gave them every opportunity repent—so it was their own choice. Somehow, that argument felt like bull crap.

One of the key events prompting me to question if my religion was the only True religion happened after listening to an audio recording of the Bhagavad Gita. I was moved to tears as I heard the stories unfolded.  The passages from the Gita were just as spiritual charges as any other spiritual event I had felt in my Christian upbringing.  Moreover, I was taken aback by the numbers of stories in the Bhagavad Gita that sounded very familiar to those in the Bible.  I also found in interesting that the Gita was written hundreds of years before the Bible. For the first time, I decided to give myself permission to question my beliefs. I began to question whether my Truth was the only truth.

I’m still questioning, but here are the key concepts that I am embracing-- right now. I no longer believe in a big, judgmental God out there and that the Kingdom of God is within. I believe that I have thoughts (some higher and some lower) and that it is my responsibility to decide which thoughts will rule my decisions and my life. I do believe there is a higher knowledge and power. But this higher knowledge and power is not anthropomorphic God.  It is a power like electricity or gravity. I believe that Power is limitless and everywhere and that I can access that Power by turning my thoughts toward it.