• Home
  • About
  • Podcast Archive
  • Subscribe (RSS)
  • Subscribe (iTunes)
  • Deacons
  • Live Events
  • Advertise With Us

Homebrewed Christianity

Equipping grassroots theologians for creative thinking, engaging, and living.

Living the Questions

You are here: Home / thinking / bible stuff / Evil Is as Evil Does

Evil Is as Evil Does

June 7, 2012 by Bo Sanders 28 Comments

Earlier this week I wrote about Dealing with Demons - a progressive take, and in it I mentioned that the Devil was a personification of when evil is too big and too bad for us to comprehend as a human result … we outsource to an ancient, cosmic bad guy.  Many were able to track with the demon thing but some hit a snag with the Devil thing.

Then what is evil?  Where does it come from? Is it real? Is it ontological? 

Let me entertain the 3 suggestions that were brought up by responders to the blog: Augustine, Process and Relational Reality.

Augustine had a theory called “privatio boni”. Back in my apologist-evangelist days I would explain it like this:  Evil isn’t something, it is the absence of something. Like darkness is not a thing, it is simply the absence of a thing. Wherever you do not have the presence of light, you automatically have darkness – so where God’s will is not obeyed, you automatically have sin and evil.

Of course, the problem with this is that it predicated by God being “all powerful” or omnipotent. Augustine explains:

For the Almighty God, who, as even the heathen acknowledge, has supreme power over all things, being Himself supremely good, would never permit the existence of anything evil among His works, if He were not so omnipotent and good that He can bring good even out of evil. For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good? In the bodies of animals, disease and wounds mean nothing but the absence of health; for when a cure is effected, that does not mean that the evils which were present—namely, the diseases and wounds—go away from the body and dwell elsewhere: they altogether cease to exist; for the wound or disease is not a substance, but a defect in the fleshly substance,—the flesh itself being a substance, and therefore something good, of which those evils—that is, privations of the good which we call health—are accidents. Just in the same way, what are called vices in the soul are nothing but privations of natural good. And when they are cured, they are not transferred elsewhere: when they cease to exist in the healthy soul, they cannot exist anywhere else.

An alternative to that comes from Process thought – which does not see God’s power as coercive (able to unilaterally act however God wills) but persuasive, engaging the possibilities of each moment, complete the contingencies of the past, to bring forward the possibility of a preferable future. John Cobb explains in Process Perspectives II that there are many factors that create the multi-layered web of evil. Human sin is just one element. He also names

  • Chance and Purpose
  • Survival instinct
  • Communal Identity – and fear when it is threatened
  • Deep held but mistaken beliefs
  • Institutions
  • Obedience of authority

among others, as potential ingredients in the creation of evil.

 I want to make it clear that the systemic evil of degrading the Earth in our current situation is not primarily the result of individual sins of unnecessary wastefulness by those who know they are falling short of the ideal. The systemic evil results from our industrial-economic system. This system came into being out of a great mixture of motives. Some of them were narrowly selfish, and some of the decisions people made in the process were no doubt sinful. But not all. Some people rightly saw that the development of this system brought prosperity to nations and eventually to most of their people…

Since I believe that to some extent we all miss the mark or fail to fully actualize the initial aim, I do not exclude sin as a causal element in the establishment of this system. My point is only that to explain the rise to dominance of this system primarily in terms of sin is extremely misleading. The evil results from a mixture of good intentions, ignorance, and sin. It is also profoundly brought about by the power of the past in each moment of human experience. (p. 135)

 A third option for thinking about this is a Relational Approach. I first encountered this through reading Native American approaches to theology with my mentor Randy Woodley (who’s new book Shalom and the Community of Creation  just came out).

If you go back to the story of Eden and can resist the temptation to retroject a Greek understanding of ‘original sin’ and substance into the story, you will see that it is primarily about relationship. What happens in Eden is a fracturing and a resulting alienation in 3 directions:

  1. humans from God
  2. humans from each other
  3. and humans from the earth that sustains them.

As Genesis continues, the fractures stretch out and the impact of the alienation is greater and greater. Soon brother kills brother, generations are fractured … then tribes, peoples and societies.

I love this approach! Once you get away from the substance/material approach the whole Gospel reads differently!  God’s relational covenant with Israel and the resulting Law, Christ’s relationship to the God and ushering in a new covenant which radically altered (and began to repaired) our relationship to God – to each other – and to the earth which sustains us (where do you think bread and wine come from?)

The gift of Holy Spirit re-connects us in an inter-related family of God. The perichoretic reality of the Trinity is about the relatedness of the Godhead and not primarily about matters of substance and matter (ousia). Evil in this picture, is that which results from brokeness and fracturing, which leads to alienation, and is then complixified through  exponential increase of family systems, tribalism, social structures, societal realities and institutional frameworks … it becomes so big and so bad that it is nearly unimaginable to our mind. At this point we are tempted to outsource the badness to an ‘entity’ which is the personification of evil.

So those are three really good ways of beginning to address the problem of evil. They all have strengths and weakness – but in the end, they are better than saying ‘the Devil made me do it’.

I will end by quoting Cobb again:

 The ways in which even what is good in human nature and society can and does become destructive are so numerous and so effective that the mystery is how good sometimes triumphs over it. This is where I see the need to emphasize God’s directing and empowering call to novel forms of goodness.

John B. Cobb Jr.. The Process Perspective II (p. 137). Kindle Edition which sells for $7.63

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: bible stuff, books, church history, engaging, latest, living, thinking Tagged With: Augustine, Bible, book, books, church, death, demons, Devil, eden, evil, God, history, Holocaust, Holy Spirit, jesus, john cobb, Native American, Process, Randy Woodley, reality, science, sin, society, St. Augustine
26 comments
  Livefyre
  • Get Livefyre
  • FAQ
Sign in
+ Follow
Post comment
 
Link
Newest | Oldest
LogenByrne
LogenByrne 5pts

great one bo daddy

Wayne Schroeder
Wayne Schroeder 5pts

Well done.

Stephen Barkley
Stephen Barkley 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

Okay, please bear with me because my thoughts are still swirling around this topic.

 

Whether evil is (a) the absence of good, (b) a mixture of good intentions, ignorance, and sin, etc., or (c) the result of fractured relationships, I still have to wonder: how does evil escalate from a single person's greed to an economic system that oppresses the entire world—or from Cain knocking off his brother to wholescale genocide? The exponential escalation of evil seems like a guided process to me.

LogenByrne
LogenByrne 5pts

 @Stephen Barkley 

I think it is guided, by us.  Like in the Hunger Games when Peeta can't tell what is real & what is not real.   Sometimes we just can't.  We're all a little insane :-)   And Jesus did say there was nothing good in man.  That pretty much puts it into perspective.  Just like Science helped us figure out the Earth was not the center of the universe, we evolve, we learn more, we grow.  Mental illness is huge & the stats out on how many people take some form of meds is incredible.  I think that the demon encounters in the gospels could easily be just that.  Crazy people with no meds.  AND since Jesus met people where they were at he worked in their framework sometimes.  He showed often that people aren't ready for everything right away.

 

He could have spent all his time trying to fix little mythologies and lost his focus on us.

Stephen Barkley
Stephen Barkley 5pts

 @LogenByrne I've been thinking about your comment. I agree with so much of it: I agree that we can't tell what's real and what's not. I agree we're all a little insane. I agree that the heart is deceitfully wicked. I agree that mental illness is far more wide-reaching and has far more impact than the general populace thinks (I'm a pastor). I agree with you that God always speaks to us where we are and doesn't waste time trying to correct every detail of our worldview.My sole issue is this. There comes a time when personal evil compounds and escalates. I think the larger corporate social evils are too intricate and carefully crafted to have happened by pure chance. (I sound like I'm arguing for some diabolical version of Intelligent Design here!)

 

But you know, I'm also 100% sure that I could be wrong on this. I certainly enjoy being challenged to think through these things.

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

 @Stephen Barkley  @LogenByrne  1) you are hilarious 2) so glad you are looking into Cobb ;)  3)  look at Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software by Steven Johnson 

 

Emergence explains how large complex things can grow from smaller simpler things ... That is how I approach systemic evil 

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @Stephen Barkley  I really like that you are willing to think out in the open :)  Thank you for doing that!  It helps me to see where the theory needs work or where I need to be more clear. 

A) I would say that it is tough to stop 'outsourcing' the root of evil to a cosmic bad guy. It is just so helpful ;P  but like I said, that is what we do when something is too big or too bad for us to get our heads around.  We blame it on an ancient celestial being opposed god in some galactic battle in pre-history. Having an evil overlord is easier (in some ways) that examining what it is exactly that humanity is capable of in numbers (ie, the holocaust) 

 

B) You might want to read the section of Process Perspectives II that I mentioned. Here is Cobb:

"Once a system is established, it comes to seem self-evident and gains enormous support through its institutions. For example, at the time this industrial-capitalist system arose, it had little support in the university. Now it shapes much of what goes on there and exercises enormous influence. Anyone socialized by the dominant university culture will support the now-dominant system. This socialization into acceptance of the now-dominant system is, from my perspective, an evil. It has a demonic character. That is, the objective power of the system is far more determinative of the evil that transpires than are the sins or virtues of individuals. Even though most people are chiefly formed by the dominant attitudes of the societies in which they live, this does not mean that they are especially sinful. Most are genuinely persuaded of the validity of theories that support much of the destruction going on in our society. Mistaken beliefs, honestly held, play an enormous role in generating evil. On the other hand, I do believe that many people today have some awareness of a call to reject these beliefs, adopt others, change their personal habits, and try to change the system as well. People respond to this call more or less fully." -  John B. Cobb Jr.. The Process Perspective II (p. 135). Kindle Edition. 

 

What do you think?  Does that help at all?  -Bo 

Stephen Barkley
Stephen Barkley 5pts

 @BoSanders Regarding (A), I'm not interested in outsourcing the root of evil. I think we're all fully responsible for it. I'm actually more skeptical about human nature. I'm not sure we're diabolically skilled enough to create the evil we've accomplished on our own.

 

Regarding (B), you've got my attention and I need to do some more reading. I just ordered Process Perspective vols I & II. To date, my only exploration of Process thought (besides this podcast & website) comes from critics.

 

Cheers.

kenalto9
kenalto9 5pts

have not had the time to thoroughly read the post and comments, but for those interested in what i believe is a process take on the problem of evil, Robert Mesle did a two parter on Suffering and Meaning in the early podcasts - I see the second one was in june 2008. I can't do it justice in a comment, but i know i have listened to it several times and found it very useful

dangarvin
dangarvin 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

We humans have always needed our monsters. The horrors of existence are just more manageable if we can put scary faces on them. Should we be surprised that our christian stories (however "true" they may be) are populated by devils (and angels)? Since when was truth a stagnant thing that didn't grow and emerge and become more nuanced over time?

As a lazy and selfish person there is something quite appealing about taking authority over the devil with a name and a reference to some blood. It's quite simple. Not terribly time-consuming. Doesn't really require all that much of me. Somehow I think the Powers that are inherent in western capitalism (for instance) will take a bit more time, a bit more love, and a heck of a lot more sacrifice (individually and collectively) to defeat than that.

 

Which ought to tell us something.

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @dangarvin You have clearly thought about this before ;)  -Bo

 

nicely done 

Jesse Turri
Jesse Turri 5pts

Thanks for writing this Bo, this really clarifies things for me.

 

Taking into account @JoshuaBrockway  's qualification on Augustine though, I still don't see much difference between the three. If evil is rooted in ontology, and not God's power, then process people could check two items off the theodicy list: God is not all powerful and Evil does not exist--it's just a) a complex web of human created junk or b) realational fractures. Maybe it's semantics but whatever.

 

Thanks again!

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @pluralform  @JoshuaBrockway Talk to me about 'rooted in ontology'. You have mentioned that before but I am suspicious that you mean something specific by that I may not be picking up on.   -Bo 

Jesse Turri
Jesse Turri 5pts

@BoSanders @JoshuaBrockway, Joshua summed it pretty well. My only point is that I'm not sure why process people would still want to hold on to the notion that evil exists, ya know? Going on what you wrote above evil is either a) a complex web of human created misery b) natural calamity/chance or c) relational fractures. It seems evil has been explained and therefore, no longer exists. It's kinda like what I suspect many people hope happen to the idea of god in general, ya know ;)

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

@pluralform I am so glad that I asked ! That was a really helpful explanation. Thank you -Bo

Jesse Turri
Jesse Turri 5pts

Just to elaborate a bit more, if you wanna talk about being holistic, and avoiding dualisms, what is a bigger dualism than the force of good vs evil? I'm just saying that if we're keeping the word evil then I like the idea of evil being non-existant or talking about it as a lack of goodness. One of my favorite parts of process is the idea God is most present in those places of despair and hurt. But why the mythical language of evil is kept in process thought, as opposed to adopting a more naturalistic way speaking, is puzzling to me.

Jesse Turri
Jesse Turri 5pts

@BoSanders I hear what you're saying man, and I agree with you, if evil is explained as option a, b or c from above, then yes misery and devistation exist. As to why to give up calling those options "evil" , Graham Ward says it well in that interview Joshua posted: " Once we name something as evil, once we say, “This is an instantiation of evil,” we have classified that person or force in a very negative moral category; we have given that concern a mythical dimension." Isn't this what you were attempting to do with you demonology post, "de-mythologize" demons? I'm just playing Devils Advocate man (pardon the pun), you know that ;)

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

@pluralform Oh so you are using 'real' differently. I knew you were doing something unique there but I couldn't figure it out. So if something can be explained its not real? Would we do the same with attraction (love, sex, etc.) ? It just seems like an odd line of reasoning to me. Evil clearly exists in the world... Why would process folks NOT hang onto it? -Bo

dood12
dood12 5pts

Doesn't the 3rd perspective need a literal reading of the old testament in terms of the historicity of the Sinai event for there actually to be an old covenant? I understand the new relationship brought upon by Christ but isn't the old covenant line of thought problematic I relation to old testament scholarship about Israelite monotheism and archeology of the exodus event, etc?

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @dood12 I would need more explanation there .... I want a little more info before I way in ;)   I don't have an across the board literal reading of the OT - and I have been able to reconcile it .    Why the necessity?  I'm interested but I just need more.  -Bo   Are you talking about historical-critual scholarship?  

dood12
dood12 5pts

 @BoSanders Yes historical-critical scholarship.  My question I guess centers around when you mentioned God's relational covenant with Israel.  When you say relational covenant do you mean an actual historical covenant like the one described in Exodus?  Or is the language used to convey that the authors of the O.T. came to experience and understand God through their experiences and their conversations about the divine?  I think that's where my confusion stems from.  

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

@dood12 you must have something in your mind that I am not seeing :( I came to this before I was aware of scholarship, but even now that I am fully deconstructed I can still reconcile it ... So I am not seeing the glitch. Why does it 'need' a literal reading? I use a narrative theology (seasoned with a post-liberal hermeneutic)

JoshuaBrockway
JoshuaBrockway 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

Nice comparison Bo. It helps get at some of the distinctions between these schools of theology in a very clear way....a task not easy to undertake!

 

I might qualify a bit on your section on Augustine. Actually, I wouldn't question your reading of Augustine so much as the reading of the Neo-platonic ideas he is appropriating. While Augustine may see the "privation of the good" as rooted in God's omnipotence, I think the Neo-platonists understand it in terms of ontology. When we see existence as rooted in God, evil then is the turning away from and thus movement from life to non-life. It isn't then about Power at all, but existence. What is, participates in God in varying degrees. So I have come to understand evil and "privation of the good" in terms of the Neo=platonic ladder of being not in an Aristotelian conception of power and the "un-moved mover." 

BoSanders
BoSanders moderator 5pts

 @JoshuaBrockway So when I put this up this morning I knew that I would get at least 3 criticisms ;)  1) from folk who thought I got Augustine wrong 2) from Process folk who thought I was too simple 3) from Relational types who didn't think I went far enough.

 

I try to be interested in Augustine. I try to extend his at least some measure of relevance (even if in theory). I get lost in the platonic disputes ...  I try but it is somewhere between antique and obtuse.  So I trust that you are right on this one. 

JoshuaBrockway
JoshuaBrockway 5pts

 @BoSanders @pluralform I am not trying to interpret Augustine. In fact, in my dissertation I am doing my best not to pick a fight with him as much as possible!

 

By rooted in ontology I mean that evil as privation is a matter of existence. So the ladder of being is essential- God at the top of the ladder overflows giving existence to al the beings below. Each thing then below God, who is supremely good has a share in that same goodness, or in other words is a part of God's being. Yet, by nature of coming from that being there is a part of all existence that is not God, or has less being than the rung above it. So the problem is of course that the Neo-platonists had a pretty elaborate hierarchy of being- rivaled only by the Gnostics. 

 

What it says though, is that evil as privation means that the lower on the rung the less it has of the Good. It makes for in interesting definition of sin, then. Sin means turning away from God and looking down the ladder of being. Yet, all things that are- have a part in God. But this isn't pantheism since God is God, and distinct from creation. Yet for something to exist it must to some degree take part in God. (I would then say that this means Neo-platonists avoid panENtheism as well since all things are in God rather than God is in all things. Semantics maybe :) _

 

Is that getting at your question? 

JoshuaBrockway
JoshuaBrockway 5pts

 @BoSanders  @pluralform In this interview with Graham Ward at the Other Journal he discusses exactly this- even has a great discussion of prayer as turning toward the Good.

http://theotherjournal.com/2012/06/05/imagining-a-different-future-an-interview-with-graham-ward/

Trackbacks

  1. Explaining Evil: 3 Unique Takes « navigating between the everyday and theology says:
    June 14, 2012 at 10:50 am

    [...] originally posted at HBC with an amazing follow-up conversation Like this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...]

  2. Skirting Satan, Walking on Water and Feeding Five Thousand: preaching the text says:
    June 28, 2012 at 8:36 am

    [...] June 28, 2012 by Bo Sanders 5 Comments Two weeks ago I posted a progressive take on demons and explaining evil. Last week a guy named Nithin took up a fantastic response complete with critique. I answered him [...]

Search

Subscribe via iTunes

 


Support the brew

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2013 ·Delicious Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in