The following was copied from the blog of Stand To Reason.
Friday, July 8th
Looking Evil in the Eye
Melinda Penner on 07.08.05 @ 05:29 AM PST
...We all did yesterday - some, sadly, more than most of us. The events in London yesterday again bring to the fore the conflict of world views that have been obvious throughout the War on Terror. Some are incapable of calling acts evil, even in the face of horrific events. Though many have lost the category of "evil," everyone personally needs to make sense of suffering in their lives. I've been thinking about the many people directly and indirectly impacted by the terrorist attack in London who are personally grappling with making sense of what happened, and many don't have God to turn to, to make sense of it. Os Guinness has written an important book on the topic of evil and terrorism and was interviewed not long ago:
"Sadly, the terrorist strike found the United States as unprepared intellectually and morally as it was militarily. This is the country with the most radical and realistic view of evil at its core—expressed in the notion of the separation of powers in the Constitution because of human nature and the abuse of power. But various philosophies and ideas have undermined that view over the last 200 years, so that American views today are weak, confused, and divided. On one side, many progressive liberals still think that we humans are essentially good and getting better and better. On the other side, many postmoderns actually think it is worse to judge evil than to do evil. And in the middle, many ordinary folk plaster life with rainbows and smile buttons and wander through life on the basis of sentiment and clichés. All of these views and others are shown up as bankrupt by the savage reality of September 11—and Auschwitz and the other terrible atrocities right through to the ghastly spate of car bombings and beheadings in Iraq....
"Which other faith comes close to matching the biblical answer for its combination of realism, hope, and courage? Buddhism, for example, has been described as the most radical No to human aspirations ever formulated. And while I personally have sometimes admired the nobility of great atheists I have met such as Bertrand Russell, there is a bleakness to the nobility that is almost unendurable. 'Atheism,' in the words of Jean Paul Sartre, 'is a cruel long term business, and I have gone through it to the end.'
"In contrast to all such views, the gospel is truly the best news ever—with its prospect of a world in which evil and suffering are gone, justice and peace are restored, and the very last tear is wiped away....
"At the end of the day, it is challenging and sobering to look at human evil in the white of the eye. But from the very depths of my being, with no attempt at propaganda or special pleading, I would say after years of looking into the question, that there is no answer to human evil deeper and more adequate than the answer that is ours as followers of Jesus. But we need to speak it out, and act it out, with clarity, courage, and love today. The world is hungry for it, and so are many in the church."
There are many good articles at Stand To Reason. Here are three (somewhat unrelated to the above article) that I'd love to get your comments on:
1. Acts and the Voice of God
2. A Private Hotline to God?
3. Discernment: Head or Heart?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Change the constitution. Fight the liberals!
Luke,
What a great post! I have been a big fan of Greg Koukl for a while now. I have read various articles on STR's website, but hadn't read any of these.
This probably won't be surprising to you, but I definitely agree with the points Greg made in the above articles. Greg does his hermeneutics well, and, as of yet, I don't know of anyone who has been able to offer a persuasive case for God giving individual, subjective revelations to people. (Of course, I'm definitely open to hearing YOUR thoughts on this subject, or the view of anyone who might read my comment.)
Have a great day!
In the end, it's not about the liberals. It's not even about the beloved constitution.
It's about Christ. It's about eternity. It's about the condition of your soul.
Thanks for the comment Mick!
This is taken from the stand to reason website:
"Our Mission
Stand to Reason trains Christians to think more clearly about their faith and to make an even-handed, incisive, yet gracious defense for classical Christianity and classical Christian values in the public square."
I totally agree with you on the issue of faith being a vital part of the Christian walk. Stand to Reason, however, is not an evangelical organization to win converts directly, but an organization to equip Christians to defend the truth. They are building off the premise of a pre-existing faith. At least, that is how I understand it?
What are your thoughts on that? :)
Mick: Gotcha. I was unclear whether your first post was a critisism of STR or a warning to "use with caution". I take it, it was more of a word of caution.
Thanks for the reminder to be a defender not a debator!
Keep blogging brother!
I would say the main difference between a debator and a defender is in your motives and intentions.
So just now I got around to actually reading those articles.
They're all thought provoking--thanks for sharing them.
I most like Discernment: Head or Heart? ... :)
Hi Luke:
This is my 2nd visit after our short "conversation" when you helped "correct" my quoting's attribution, remember?
Well, this post interests me (I'm a former journalist), and I know most of thy readers here are American, understandly so. Since I also blog on this still current topic of the London bombing incident (part 3 today titled: SEVEN7 Face of Terrorism), I wish to share some viewpoints as a Malaysian.
I tried to be as objective and balanced as possible (my training as a newsperson shows, I think)-- I'd hope that Western/Christian perspectives must also be countenanced by those of the Muslim and other faiths.
The US and allies, chiefly Britain, should know that in the aftermath of 911and their "occupation" of Iraq,there would be retaliations. I cited the parallel of Newton's Law governing force&motion; maybe I invite your readers to peep at my writings and post their Comments. Welcome, and in my dsicourse with others,I do firmly subscribe to Voltaire's: I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it."
Post a Comment