How are we to respond to these propositions? The first objector claims that there is an incipient evil within Jesus’ teachings. The second, though a believer, seems to have come to a similar conclusion regarding mercy towards a suffering world. He doesn’t think Jesus’ teachings are evil, but let’s face it: his application of Christian doctrine certainly is.
My first response is to say that the bible teaches the very opposite of these things
: that the future hope of God bringing justice to the world has the opposite effect: it promotes activity, compassion, benevolence, justice, etc. We may say to the first objector that at the very least, he must present his objections to the actual teachings of Jesus, not what he supposes their outcome will to be. The bible does indeed teach there is a future state of justice to come to the world, but this future hope transforms the way we live in the present for good. “Let us hold fast our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds...encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the day drawing near.” (Heb 10:23-25)To give this objector credit, I think he is correctly perceiving an evil tendency in the human heart, but this tendency is not within Jesus’ teachings themselves. There is a tendency we have to twist reason and good sense, to twist the good and holy into something profane and sinful. I don't find it implausible that someone will take a promise of justice to come and distort it into an excuse for moral laxness.
This objector assumes a spirit of hypocrisy within the believer: that since God will one day render justice to each for their misdeeds, the believer is exempt from such judgment. I think the fallacy here is plain: by this logic, we would be reasoning as follows: “God is going to judge all the world’s misdeeds: except mine.” I think it makes much more sense to reason that if God is going to right all of the wrongs in this world, and we find we have wrongs in our soul, isn't that strong motivation to get rid of those wrongs? Or are we supposing that God’s process of righting corrupt human hearts on judgment day will be all lollipops and rainbows?
To the second person, we may justly censure his passivity and demonstrate through a simple reading of the bible that his profession is at odds with the teaching of the Lord he claims to follow. His passivity is simply storing up judgment for himself.
The second person also seems to be assuming that God only cares about 100% success in our charitable efforts, rather than a heart of love that drives charitable energies. That is, the senseless Christian imagines God will come and say: “Well, you tried to do good, but the appointed day of judgment came, which ruined all your benevolent plans, so I’m not going to really look at what you did, or what was in your heart.”
It is true that many of our charitable efforts don’t succeed, (think of giving funds to a homeless person who simply uses it to buy drugs) or they simply aren’t as efficient a use of our time and energy as they could be. We should be giving thoughtful attention to genuinely useful and productive charity. However, I think the problem with the “senseless Christian” isn’t a heart that’s concerned about more effective charity. Rather, his mind seems to be looking intently for an alibi to keep charity out of his heart, and has twisted Christian doctrine in so doing. His hope is not set on a real idea of justice, (see my last post for my comment on how our hopes need to be based in reality) but on a justification of himself no matter what’s in his heart.
I think transforming hope concludes with the exhortation to hope in the truth, and live accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment