Wednesday, April 2, 2008

//Decontructing Evil::N.T. Wright

I just started reading a book I borrowed from my good friend Tim, entitled "Evil and the Justice of God" by the great theologian N.T. Wright. I am currently concluding chapter 1, which was a synopsis of the problem of evil as defined by modern and postmodern culture. Wright, with the backing of other great philosophers and theologians from the past and present, insists that we have come to look at the world as slowly getting better, it seems as if there tends to be less evil in out midst. We are progressing towards utopia, even if it means there must be violent means to get there.

Progress.
Progress.
Progress.

Wright goes on to discuss the common thought that Western civilization ("Westernization") and democracy are looked at as the solution to end the evil that is in the world. After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared that there was an "Axis of Evil" that needed to be dealt with and that it was the their (the politician's) job to "rid the world of evil".

Wright then states that he has seen three things that characterize the "new" problem of evil. First we ignore evil when it doesn't hit us in the face. This is seen greatly in our response to the AIDS epidemic, the genocide in Darfur, the illegal sex trade, sweat shop labor, and many other important global issues that are destroying our world. We are not responding to these desperate pleas because they aren't directly effecting us.

Second, we are surprised by the evil when it does actually hit us in the face. This can clearly be seen in our response to the attacks of 9/11. We were aware of the terrorist groups and knew of the damage they were causing in their own areas, but did not think to look into non-violent ways of stopping it before it was to late. Also, we should have known and acted as Christians on the sanctions the U.S. put on Iraq from 1991-2003, which by 1998 had already caused 1 million deaths due to mass starvation and lack of medical supplies. (Read more here at http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Iraq/Sanctions.asp) It is certain that these sanctions caused severe unrest among the civilians and aided to continued conflict between U.S. and the Middle East. During the imposed sanctions, which included banning imports of food, medicine and educational supplies, we offered them the generous "Oil for Food" program. "You give us oil, we will give you some food...but not til you give us OIL!"
Disgusting.

Anyway...I'll rant more about that on a later post.
Third, after the evil does hit us in the face, we react in immature and dangerous ways. Wright goes on to site our response to the attacks of 9/11: "One of the most obvious and worrying instances of this phenomenon was the reaction to the events of September 11, 2001. That appalling day rightly provoked horror and anger. But the official response was exactly the kind of knee-jerk, un-thinking, immature lashing out which gets us nowhere." He continues that the event was un-imaginably evil and that thousands of innocent victims died an undeserved death. "But the astonishing naivety which decreed that the United States as a whole was a pure, innocent victim, so that the world could be neatly divided into evil people (Arabs) and good people (Americans and Israelis)..."

Near the end of the chapter, Wright, referencing Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, deconstructs the idea that there are good people and there are bad people. This idea of good and evil people permits us to have a "us" and "them" mentality. The line between good and evil runs trough each one of us.

Reflecting on a terrible tragedy such as 9/11, how do we react to obvious evil that is in the world? How do we take seriously things like Darfur? How do we deal with "Natural" evil (floods, hurricane) compared to "Moral evil (war, genocide, rape)?

4 comments:

Daniel Coutz said...

I agree with your post and you've made me want to read this book more. We definitely seem to think that Democracy or Democratic republicanism as my friend corrected me yesterday, is the hope for the world, that ideaology is a tragic distortion that is believed even by Christians. Aren't Christians supposed to believe that Jesus Christ is the hope of the world?

I remember hearing in a sermon or reading in a book one time that a Jewish man who survived the Holocaust was at the Nuremburg trials and during the testimony of one of the defendants he stood and rushed out of the courtroom. He was greatly shaken. He said later that in that moment he experienced such an uncontrollable rage that he realized that the possiblity for evil rested in every human. Evil or atleast the possibility of it is universal the same is true of good.

Your last question is the same as mine. If it is wrong to use violence and war to change these situations (as I believe it is) then how do we effect change? That is a part of my belief in non-violence that I am struggling with at the moment. So I'm curious What some other opinions are. Sorry that this turned into a mini-post on your post.

Tyler DeLong said...

no man, great thoughts!

Anonymous said...

mmmm N.T.

-Steb- said...

yes mmmmm N T

Yes my friend I agree with your thinking. I finished the book during break and think that you will really like some of the coming chapters... Why is it that we always are -Reacing- to evil?? Why do we not face it head on? Why are we not proactive in sacrifice to -prevent- it from even happening???????

Love ya friend
-Steb-