C. S. Lewis wrote two books on suffering. The first, The Problem of Pain was written when he was a younger man, a bachelor. “The purpose of the book,” he tells us, “is to solve the intellectual problem raised by suffering.” It is probably the best book ever written on this subject, and has been both an eye-opener and a comfort to many readers, myself included.
Twenty years later Lewis wrote a second book, A Grief Observed after the death of his wife of only four years, Joy Davidman. In this book, more like a journal, he pours forth his grief, his anger and his doubts.
I had been a C. S. Lewis fan for a long time before I picked this one up. It had been years since I’d read The Problem of Pain. I was shocked. No two books could be more different. Here was not a cool, clear, well-reasoned treatise, but a torrent of emotions. My first impression as I began reading was that this book could not have been written by the same C. S. Lewis I knew. But it was!
We have a similar situation in the book of Job. His outpouring of grief, even anger in chapter 3, does not seem to fit with his previous statements of faith (see preceding post). So much so that critics have used the apparent discrepancy as an argument against the unity of the book. But Job, like C. S. Lewis, like anyone who is suffering, has to be allowed to speak in his pain, things that may not seem to harmonize.
Job had apparently been sitting on his ash heap, scraping his sores for months (cf. 7:3), when his three friends Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar came to call. The text says that they came “to sympathize (the Hebrew word has the idea of “shake” or “be disturbed”) with him and to comfort him.” We’re told that when they saw him they displayed the signs of grief and sat with him silently for a week, day and night, “for they saw that his pain was great” (2:11-13). Good counselors: they didn’t open their mouths. They were “quick to hear, slow to speak” (James 1:19).
Then Job opened his mouth, after his long silence. And the first thing out was a curse. He “cursed his day” – the day of his birth and the night of his conception in a tirade that takes up the first ten verses of the chapter.
Then came the “why” questions: four times the word “why” comes up (3:11, 12 (twice), 20). “Why didn’t I die at birth?” like a hidden stillbirth. Job sees the alternative as a sort of misty afterlife, where both wicked and good, both rich and poor are at rest, a sort of great equalizer (verses 11-19). (More on Job’s concept of the afterlife later.)
Essentially the question is “why be born only to suffer?” (20-23). He feels that death would be preferable to life. God has hedged him in. Interestingly this is very similar to Satan’s complaint that Job prospers because God has “fenced” Job in (1:10).
In 3:25 Job states, “What I feared has come upon me, and what I dreaded has befallen me.” Many have debated what Job’s fear was, but it appears to me that he was not speaking of his personal sufferings, his loss of his family or his loss of prosperity, as much as what these appeared to signify: a loss of the favor of God. He had lost his closest friend!
Perhaps that is what makes suffering so much worse for the person of faith. It is not only the physical pain and loss, even the loss of loved ones. It’s that feeling deep inside that somehow God has turned His back, that He, the great Lover, has ceased to love and is acting in a cruel sadistic fashion toward the former object of His love.
Is life then worth living? Probably Job, at least as we hear him in chapter 3, would say “no.” And why not? Because life isn’t fair. Because the God I had trusted has let me down. He’s dealt me a bad hand and I feel like folding.
But God didn’t make life the way it is. As the Bible teaches elsewhere, sin brought death and suffering into the world. And though God is in control of both death and suffering, He is not their originator.
Life isn’t fair. But Job didn’t have the whole picture. Even at the end of the book we still have questions. But though we – you and I -- still don’t have all of the details, we do have an answer. Life isn’t fair: evil and suffering and death – “the king of terrors,” strike seemingly at random. Yet Jesus has conquered death by suffering it on the cross and by His resurrection. God the Son has entered into this unfair life and borne its unfairness, borne suffering, not just the seemingly random, senseless sufferings of this life, but the sufferings of the next. He has felt, as Job did the anguish of being forsaken by God. From the cross He cried for all to hear: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken Me?”
While you and I may as Job still long at times for death, it’s not a vague somewhere that lies beyond that we expect, it’s eternal life forever with Jesus, where every tear will be wiped away.
Still more to come.
Bill Ball
1/25/2010
Bill's Thoughts on the Bible, Theology and American Culture
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
JOB, GOD AND SUFFERING, 2
I believe that the book of Job was written with the knowledge in mind that its first readers held to what today we would refer to as “prosperity theology,” the idea that God wants us to be rich, that if one lives a godly life he will prosper and if one doesn’t live a godly life he will suffer. Job and his three friends seem to agree on this philosophy.
If we put ourselves in the place of those who were reading the book for the first time, we would assume from the first few verses, that this is the author’s stance. We are told that Job was “blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil” (1:1). Then we are told that he had seven sons, three daughters, a plethora of sheep, camels, oxen, donkeys and servants and that he was “greater than all the sons of the east” (1:2, 3).
Of course, we would expect a man of Job’s character to be wealthy; after all, isn’t this what was promised in the Bible?
“How happy is the man who fears the LORD …
His descendants will be mighty in the land …”
Wealth and riches are in his house …” (Psalm 112:1-3).
“How happy are all those who fear the LORD,
Who walk in His ways” (Psalm 128:1).
The story seems to be going the way we would expect. Job is an example of that “happy” man, of the truth of God’s promise. But then we get a glimpse into heaven, into the workings of God, and we find out that these “promises” don’t always come (or at least, continue) true. We see a meeting between the LORD and Satan, the Adversary, an angelic being opposed to the LORD and Job. The LORD brags on Job, using the same words that we see in verse 1.
Satan argues with the LORD that it’s not the way we might think. It’s not that God blesses Job because Job fears Him; it’s rather, he asserts, the other way around! Job fears God because God blesses Him! That’s a big difference. God has purchased Job’s loyalty. This is an attack on the character of God, rather than the character of Job. Take away the blessings, says Satan, and instead of fearing God, Job will curse Him. The LORD takes the challenge and gives Satan free reign to put his hypothesis to the test. A cosmic bet!
But Job has no idea of the heavenly events, of the workings of God; he hasn’t a clue. There follows a series of horrid events, occurring in rapid succession, in which all of Job’s possessions, even his children, are taken away. Prosperity theology has failed him!
So what does Job do? He goes through the rituals of mourning – tears his clothes, shaves his head and falls to the ground in grief. We can picture him lying there before the rubble in his agony. But then we are told that he “worshipped.” We can almost hear his words (1:21):
“I came naked from my mother’s womb,
And naked I shall return.
The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away.
Blessed is the Name of the LORD!”
We might have reacted differently, but we’re told that “Job didn’t sin nor put the blame on God” (at least not yet).
Then a second heavenly bet – same dialog – only this time Satan is permitted to “touch” Job with anything short of taking his life. Satan hits Job with a horrible skin disease (much greater then “boils” as it’s called in the King James Version). We get descriptions of the symptoms throughout the book: loss of appetite (3:24); worm-eaten, hardened and oozing skin (7:5); breathing problems (9:18); decaying, putrid flesh (13:28); pain, exhaustion, weight loss (16:6-8) and more (16:13; 18:13; 19:17, 20; 30:17, 18, 30; 33:19-22). The sight of Job would be repulsive to us.
Again, Job reacts in faith. Mrs. Job begs him to “curse God and die!” (I believe this was a cry of loving despair; in modern terms, “pull the plug.”) But Job answers her with words of faith: “You’re talking like a fool! Should we accept good from God and not accept evil?”
We are assured again that Job still “didn’t sin with his lips.”
Contrary to our way of thinking, it is not Job’s suffering that calls into question the character of God, it is Job’s blessings – his “prosperity”! Satan accuses God of being a sort of doting old grandfather who has to buy his grandchildren’s love. The “bet” seems concerned more with who God is, than with who Job is.
And even though Job has no idea of the events in heaven, he appears to have some understanding that what is happening is more about God than him.
We’ve seen similar scenes of Haiti on our TV screens. People are pulled bruised and bleeding from beneath rubble after days of suffering and they burst into song, praising God.
We modern Americans have a hard time with this. It offends our concept of justice. It offends our view of God. We like to think of God as that doting gramps that Satan accuses Him of being. But He’s not!
He’s so much more!
And apparently Satan realizes he’s lost this bet. We never read of him again after the first two chapters.
Still more to come.
Bill Ball
1/22/2010
If we put ourselves in the place of those who were reading the book for the first time, we would assume from the first few verses, that this is the author’s stance. We are told that Job was “blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil” (1:1). Then we are told that he had seven sons, three daughters, a plethora of sheep, camels, oxen, donkeys and servants and that he was “greater than all the sons of the east” (1:2, 3).
Of course, we would expect a man of Job’s character to be wealthy; after all, isn’t this what was promised in the Bible?
“How happy is the man who fears the LORD …
His descendants will be mighty in the land …”
Wealth and riches are in his house …” (Psalm 112:1-3).
“How happy are all those who fear the LORD,
Who walk in His ways” (Psalm 128:1).
The story seems to be going the way we would expect. Job is an example of that “happy” man, of the truth of God’s promise. But then we get a glimpse into heaven, into the workings of God, and we find out that these “promises” don’t always come (or at least, continue) true. We see a meeting between the LORD and Satan, the Adversary, an angelic being opposed to the LORD and Job. The LORD brags on Job, using the same words that we see in verse 1.
Satan argues with the LORD that it’s not the way we might think. It’s not that God blesses Job because Job fears Him; it’s rather, he asserts, the other way around! Job fears God because God blesses Him! That’s a big difference. God has purchased Job’s loyalty. This is an attack on the character of God, rather than the character of Job. Take away the blessings, says Satan, and instead of fearing God, Job will curse Him. The LORD takes the challenge and gives Satan free reign to put his hypothesis to the test. A cosmic bet!
But Job has no idea of the heavenly events, of the workings of God; he hasn’t a clue. There follows a series of horrid events, occurring in rapid succession, in which all of Job’s possessions, even his children, are taken away. Prosperity theology has failed him!
So what does Job do? He goes through the rituals of mourning – tears his clothes, shaves his head and falls to the ground in grief. We can picture him lying there before the rubble in his agony. But then we are told that he “worshipped.” We can almost hear his words (1:21):
“I came naked from my mother’s womb,
And naked I shall return.
The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away.
Blessed is the Name of the LORD!”
We might have reacted differently, but we’re told that “Job didn’t sin nor put the blame on God” (at least not yet).
Then a second heavenly bet – same dialog – only this time Satan is permitted to “touch” Job with anything short of taking his life. Satan hits Job with a horrible skin disease (much greater then “boils” as it’s called in the King James Version). We get descriptions of the symptoms throughout the book: loss of appetite (3:24); worm-eaten, hardened and oozing skin (7:5); breathing problems (9:18); decaying, putrid flesh (13:28); pain, exhaustion, weight loss (16:6-8) and more (16:13; 18:13; 19:17, 20; 30:17, 18, 30; 33:19-22). The sight of Job would be repulsive to us.
Again, Job reacts in faith. Mrs. Job begs him to “curse God and die!” (I believe this was a cry of loving despair; in modern terms, “pull the plug.”) But Job answers her with words of faith: “You’re talking like a fool! Should we accept good from God and not accept evil?”
We are assured again that Job still “didn’t sin with his lips.”
Contrary to our way of thinking, it is not Job’s suffering that calls into question the character of God, it is Job’s blessings – his “prosperity”! Satan accuses God of being a sort of doting old grandfather who has to buy his grandchildren’s love. The “bet” seems concerned more with who God is, than with who Job is.
And even though Job has no idea of the events in heaven, he appears to have some understanding that what is happening is more about God than him.
We’ve seen similar scenes of Haiti on our TV screens. People are pulled bruised and bleeding from beneath rubble after days of suffering and they burst into song, praising God.
We modern Americans have a hard time with this. It offends our concept of justice. It offends our view of God. We like to think of God as that doting gramps that Satan accuses Him of being. But He’s not!
He’s so much more!
And apparently Satan realizes he’s lost this bet. We never read of him again after the first two chapters.
Still more to come.
Bill Ball
1/22/2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
JOB, GOD AND SUFFERING, 1
The recent earthquake in Haiti has raised afresh certain questions that lay simmering in the backs of our minds. Even though the response to the disaster worldwide has been tremendous, the questions still seem not to be clearly answered.
What, if anything did the people of this land do to deserve this/
Why such horrible destruction?
Why did some escape, while others were killed or suffered horribly?
Where is God in all this?
It seems that we all have a desire to make some connection between this disaster and the behavior of those on whom it fell. We seek a sort of cause/effect relationship. We try to tie it together with our sense of justice and a just God. But the pieces don’t seem to fit. On our TV screens we are barraged with images of suffering children, of total chaos, of a city flattened, of 2 million people living in makeshift tents or sleeping on streets, without adequate food or water or medical care. It makes no sense!
One religious leader on TV tells us this should have been anticipated, because 200 years ago Haiti’s leaders made a pact with the Devil and brought a curse. Is that why these children suffer? Are the sins of the fathers being visited on the children? Or is this guy just sticking his foot in his mouth?
Of course these thoughts and questions are not new. They have been the topics of literature, philosophy and religion, I suppose, ever since humankind began.
One early writing on these subjects, although certainly not the oldest, is the biblical book of Job, a book dated by scholars anywhere from 2000 BC to 500 BC, though the late date is improbable. Despite the argument of some that the book is a patchwork pasted together over a number of years, its unity of theme argues otherwise. It is a beautifully written piece of literature, with a narrative beginning and conclusion and poetic discourses sandwiched in between. Its specific genre has been argued: is it a book of philosophy, a drama, a lawsuit or what? It has been called a theodicy. Some have even called it a seminar on suffering.
Whenever it was written, Job seems a very modern book. It deals with the questions on suffering and evil mentioned above. It deals with questions of faith. It also contributes to our knowledge of God, of man, and of Satan – the Adversary. There are lessons to be learned on reacting to suffering and how (not) to counsel the suffering and on whether we are justified in questioning God.
But there is another question that is stated over and over by the various characters in the story:
By Eliphaz (4:17):
“Can a man be right before God?”
“Can a man be clear before his Maker?”
By Job (9:2b):
But how can a man be right with God?”
Eliphaz again (15:14):
“What is man that he should be pure?”
“Or one born of woman that he should be right?”
Bildad (25:4):
“How can a man be right with God?”
“And how can one be pure who is born of woman?”
It appears that the whole question of suffering is somehow related by the characters in the story to the question of how one can be right with God. Perhaps this is because they, like many of us today, can’t escape the feeling that a person’s suffering calls into question his relationship with God. Or worse, it calls into question the character of God.
More later.
Bill Ball
1/21/2010
What, if anything did the people of this land do to deserve this/
Why such horrible destruction?
Why did some escape, while others were killed or suffered horribly?
Where is God in all this?
It seems that we all have a desire to make some connection between this disaster and the behavior of those on whom it fell. We seek a sort of cause/effect relationship. We try to tie it together with our sense of justice and a just God. But the pieces don’t seem to fit. On our TV screens we are barraged with images of suffering children, of total chaos, of a city flattened, of 2 million people living in makeshift tents or sleeping on streets, without adequate food or water or medical care. It makes no sense!
One religious leader on TV tells us this should have been anticipated, because 200 years ago Haiti’s leaders made a pact with the Devil and brought a curse. Is that why these children suffer? Are the sins of the fathers being visited on the children? Or is this guy just sticking his foot in his mouth?
Of course these thoughts and questions are not new. They have been the topics of literature, philosophy and religion, I suppose, ever since humankind began.
One early writing on these subjects, although certainly not the oldest, is the biblical book of Job, a book dated by scholars anywhere from 2000 BC to 500 BC, though the late date is improbable. Despite the argument of some that the book is a patchwork pasted together over a number of years, its unity of theme argues otherwise. It is a beautifully written piece of literature, with a narrative beginning and conclusion and poetic discourses sandwiched in between. Its specific genre has been argued: is it a book of philosophy, a drama, a lawsuit or what? It has been called a theodicy. Some have even called it a seminar on suffering.
Whenever it was written, Job seems a very modern book. It deals with the questions on suffering and evil mentioned above. It deals with questions of faith. It also contributes to our knowledge of God, of man, and of Satan – the Adversary. There are lessons to be learned on reacting to suffering and how (not) to counsel the suffering and on whether we are justified in questioning God.
But there is another question that is stated over and over by the various characters in the story:
By Eliphaz (4:17):
“Can a man be right before God?”
“Can a man be clear before his Maker?”
By Job (9:2b):
But how can a man be right with God?”
Eliphaz again (15:14):
“What is man that he should be pure?”
“Or one born of woman that he should be right?”
Bildad (25:4):
“How can a man be right with God?”
“And how can one be pure who is born of woman?”
It appears that the whole question of suffering is somehow related by the characters in the story to the question of how one can be right with God. Perhaps this is because they, like many of us today, can’t escape the feeling that a person’s suffering calls into question his relationship with God. Or worse, it calls into question the character of God.
More later.
Bill Ball
1/21/2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
ON RUMORS
Quite often, books written by non-Christians (or at least by those who make no claims one way or other) have a way of putting their fingers on ethical problems that Christians seem to totally ignore. One such book is: ON RUMORS: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done by Cass R. Sunstein. Sunstein is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, presently on leave serving as administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for the current administration. Though this sounds pretty impressive, he writes in an easy-to-read style. And though the book has only 100 pages, it’s packed with more info than most books four times its size!
The author is clear on his purpose: “This small book has two goals. The first is to answer these questions: Why do ordinary human beings accept rumors, even false, destructive, and bizarre ones? Why do some groups, and even nations, accept rumors that other groups and nations deem preposterous? The second is to answer this question: What can we do to protect ourselves against the harmful effects of false rumors?” (pages 4, 5) The book does an excellent job of answering the first question, though I believe it comes up short of answering the second.
Sunstein gives as his working definition of rumors: “ … the term refer(s) roughly to claims of fact … that have not been shown to be true, but that move from one person to another, and hence have credibility not because direct evidence is known to support them, but because other people seem to believe them.” (page 6)
What to me makes the argument(s) of this book easy to follow is the author’s use of various clear descriptive phrases:
“social cascades” (we rely on what other people think and do)
“group polarization” (when like-minded people talk to each other, their thinking gets more extreme)
“biased assimilation” (“my mind is made up – don’t confuse me with the facts”)
Much of the book is devoted to dealing with the above.
When dealing with how rumors start, he describes the various motivations of propagators: Some are simply self-interested while others are downright malicious. The propagators may be (among other things) involved in investments or in politics, and rumors are begun in order to promote the interests of investors or political candidates.
Political rumors are often propagated to attack an opponent and destroy his/her credibility. We saw plenty of these in the 2008 presidential campaign, and many are still going around.
One matter of curiosity for me was who these propagators are. I receive plenty of e-mails with all sorts of wild rumors, but I don’t think any of my friends actually started them. The book doesn’t seem to have a clear answer to this.
Basically the rumors we accept and pass on are those that reinforce our previously held opinions, whether political, religious, or even “scientific.” We are slow to accept any information that contradicts those hard held beliefs. “We seek out and believe information that we find pleasant to learn, and we avoid and dismiss information that we find disturbing.”
The author points out the distinction between “dread rumors, those driven by fear, and wish rumors, those driven by hope.” Unfortunately these often overlap. We may even be outraged by rumors of a certain person’s behavior (a senator, the President), but they also bring us pleasure, and we are overjoyed if the rumor is confirmed. Depending on one’s political affiliation, many were delighted to hear of Bill Clinton’s or Newt Gingrich’s affairs.
The very traits which make rumors so acceptable are the ones which make them hard to deny. The motives of the denier are often called into question, as anyone who has attempted to deny a rumor can probably testify. Or a thought is expressed something like: “It must be true or he wouldn’t be trying so hard to deny it.”
The problem of rumors is multiplied in our present age of instant electronic communication. Even as we are barraged with more information than we can absorb, so also we are barraged with misinformation. If we like the rumor all we need do is click the “forward” button. No need to think. No need to ask questions. No need for skepticism.
The weakness of the book is its attempts to answer the second question. There are clearly no legal means to deal with rumors as the author seems to admit, and other “chilling effects” can only be hoped for.
We are told we can imagine two different futures: “a dystopian future in which propagators … are rewarded,” or “a future in which those who spread false rumors are categorized as such, discounted, and marginalized.” “The choice between these futures is our own.” Or is it?
If we have a biblical worldview, if we understand original sin, then the “dystopian future” is the more likely. Yet we as Christians do have the option of not giving in to the temptation to become just like the rest of the rumor lovers.
To me the book’s greatest weakness is that it lacks a sense of moral indignation. Rumors are simply a problem. They don’t seem to be considered the evils that they really are.
The spreading of rumors is sin. And not just some personal sin that only involves the person passing them on. Rumors are destructive. They can destroy a person’s reputation. They can distort our understanding of ethical or political issues. They can destroy a company, or a church, or our nation’s economy.
It seems that we Christians can get extremely indignant about certain evils or perceived evils in our nation, but don’t seem too stirred by this evil. Perhaps that is because it is an “acceptable” sin among us.
I have written on this subject before. See: GOSSIP and DO NOT PASS IT ON). I believe I did not speak strongly enough there. I basically recommended not passing on rumors. But I believe we need to do more. We need to be skeptical. We need to check them out thoroughly. We need to confront the rumor monger and challenge him or her to find out the truth. We need to let them know that gossip is sin.
Perhaps this sounds judgmental, but aren’t we being judgmental whenever we pass on rumors?
Anyway, I highly recommend the book. If I were still teaching a course on ethics, this book would be on my bibliography, probably even on a required reading list.
Bill Ball
1/18/2010
The author is clear on his purpose: “This small book has two goals. The first is to answer these questions: Why do ordinary human beings accept rumors, even false, destructive, and bizarre ones? Why do some groups, and even nations, accept rumors that other groups and nations deem preposterous? The second is to answer this question: What can we do to protect ourselves against the harmful effects of false rumors?” (pages 4, 5) The book does an excellent job of answering the first question, though I believe it comes up short of answering the second.
Sunstein gives as his working definition of rumors: “ … the term refer(s) roughly to claims of fact … that have not been shown to be true, but that move from one person to another, and hence have credibility not because direct evidence is known to support them, but because other people seem to believe them.” (page 6)
What to me makes the argument(s) of this book easy to follow is the author’s use of various clear descriptive phrases:
“social cascades” (we rely on what other people think and do)
“group polarization” (when like-minded people talk to each other, their thinking gets more extreme)
“biased assimilation” (“my mind is made up – don’t confuse me with the facts”)
Much of the book is devoted to dealing with the above.
When dealing with how rumors start, he describes the various motivations of propagators: Some are simply self-interested while others are downright malicious. The propagators may be (among other things) involved in investments or in politics, and rumors are begun in order to promote the interests of investors or political candidates.
Political rumors are often propagated to attack an opponent and destroy his/her credibility. We saw plenty of these in the 2008 presidential campaign, and many are still going around.
One matter of curiosity for me was who these propagators are. I receive plenty of e-mails with all sorts of wild rumors, but I don’t think any of my friends actually started them. The book doesn’t seem to have a clear answer to this.
Basically the rumors we accept and pass on are those that reinforce our previously held opinions, whether political, religious, or even “scientific.” We are slow to accept any information that contradicts those hard held beliefs. “We seek out and believe information that we find pleasant to learn, and we avoid and dismiss information that we find disturbing.”
The author points out the distinction between “dread rumors, those driven by fear, and wish rumors, those driven by hope.” Unfortunately these often overlap. We may even be outraged by rumors of a certain person’s behavior (a senator, the President), but they also bring us pleasure, and we are overjoyed if the rumor is confirmed. Depending on one’s political affiliation, many were delighted to hear of Bill Clinton’s or Newt Gingrich’s affairs.
The very traits which make rumors so acceptable are the ones which make them hard to deny. The motives of the denier are often called into question, as anyone who has attempted to deny a rumor can probably testify. Or a thought is expressed something like: “It must be true or he wouldn’t be trying so hard to deny it.”
The problem of rumors is multiplied in our present age of instant electronic communication. Even as we are barraged with more information than we can absorb, so also we are barraged with misinformation. If we like the rumor all we need do is click the “forward” button. No need to think. No need to ask questions. No need for skepticism.
The weakness of the book is its attempts to answer the second question. There are clearly no legal means to deal with rumors as the author seems to admit, and other “chilling effects” can only be hoped for.
We are told we can imagine two different futures: “a dystopian future in which propagators … are rewarded,” or “a future in which those who spread false rumors are categorized as such, discounted, and marginalized.” “The choice between these futures is our own.” Or is it?
If we have a biblical worldview, if we understand original sin, then the “dystopian future” is the more likely. Yet we as Christians do have the option of not giving in to the temptation to become just like the rest of the rumor lovers.
To me the book’s greatest weakness is that it lacks a sense of moral indignation. Rumors are simply a problem. They don’t seem to be considered the evils that they really are.
The spreading of rumors is sin. And not just some personal sin that only involves the person passing them on. Rumors are destructive. They can destroy a person’s reputation. They can distort our understanding of ethical or political issues. They can destroy a company, or a church, or our nation’s economy.
It seems that we Christians can get extremely indignant about certain evils or perceived evils in our nation, but don’t seem too stirred by this evil. Perhaps that is because it is an “acceptable” sin among us.
I have written on this subject before. See: GOSSIP and DO NOT PASS IT ON). I believe I did not speak strongly enough there. I basically recommended not passing on rumors. But I believe we need to do more. We need to be skeptical. We need to check them out thoroughly. We need to confront the rumor monger and challenge him or her to find out the truth. We need to let them know that gossip is sin.
Perhaps this sounds judgmental, but aren’t we being judgmental whenever we pass on rumors?
Anyway, I highly recommend the book. If I were still teaching a course on ethics, this book would be on my bibliography, probably even on a required reading list.
Bill Ball
1/18/2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)