|
Why do good people do bad things? This is a question I have heard asked so continually, that I feel I may just go on giving the same complex answer until I collapse from exhaustion. Hearing this asked as a short-answer question several weeks ago in my Comparative Religions class, I finally decided to write an essay (not for the homework) that would provide an adequate response. It is difficult to answer this question briefly, necessitating a written exposition of the response that we Christians are apt to believe in. So here you are: The important phrase to notice in this question is “good people”. Before it is at all possible to answer a question such as this, ‘good’ must be clearly defined. For in order for a good person to be doing a bad thing, there must be some common standard of what exactly ‘good’ is, which he must be acting opposite of. And so I ask: what is goodness? Perhaps some concept that can only be understood relative to badness (or is it the other way around?)? All right then: so what is badness? These two questions were not always so blurry in definition. As C.S. Lewis’s Screwtape observed, gone are the days when a doctrine was regarded as being simply true, or simply false. Or in this case, simply good or simply bad. Now they are virtuous, deceptive, perhaps noble or noteworthy, but rarely good or bad. Because of the multicultural and pluralistic nature of the western society we live in today, worldviews and philosophies are regarded with adjectives that have little serious meaning. Something can be ‘ambitious’ or ‘ruthless’ while still being good or bad. Lewis is entirely correct in his observation of this—we now live in a world without any fixed consensus of what right and wrong is; our definition of right and wrong fluctuates on the shifting weather front that is the spirit of the age. Perhaps the only groups who could possibly maintain any semblance of moral consistency through the years would be religious groups (though many of them are falling victim to that spirit of the age also). Undoubtedly, morality as a human construct can (and does) waver with something so pathetic as societal mood. But what we are looking for is a Christian definition of what right and wrong is. For a Christian, the answer to this question is (or at least ought to be) simple. And so, simply put, no one is really good, therefore our doing bad things is in fact the result our very corrupt nature. As a Christian, I subscribe to the belief that our identities are defined by the actions we take—hence, a person who does bad things is not a good person. And since everyone does what a Christian would consider bad things now and then (if not all the time), we are all not good people. If it were not for this, there would be no necessity for salvation. It is easy for devout Christians to nod their heads at this, but the most bothersome question for me is how an atheist would look at the question. This is something of a side note, yet it is still an important point. Without a higher power being the authority by which right and wrong is judged, how can right and wrong exist at all? If all that we are is the mere result of cosmic accidents, our concept of morality is equally random, having no basis in logic or fact. And if there is no “conductor of the universe” as Lewis would put it, logic and fact are also meaningless human constructs. They certainly can be applied to describe what happens in our universe, to analyze and predict recognized patterns, but there could be no standard criteria logically or factually to determine what things ought to be considered good, and what things ought to be considered bad. This is why I grow particularly confused when I hear an atheist complaining about how ‘evil’ the churches are for preaching against the lifestyles of others, lifestyles which the atheist deems to be ‘moral’. Morality and God go hand in hand, neither being able to exist without the other being present also. There cannot be morality without a creator to construct it, and there cannot be a creator who has a purpose for his creation without the provision of a means by which to follow that plan (morality). If there is no god, prudence (and logic) demands that our purpose in life be nothing more or less than the betterment of the self. So what this question is asking presupposes (though perhaps not deliberately) that there is a higher power. Otherwise, the people doing bad could never have been good. They would simply be, and they would simply be doing. This distinction would be the first and greatest stumbling block for answering the question of good people doing bad things, unless one believes (as I do) in God. What about the Mere Christians? Many might be familiar with the concept of Mere Christianity. Though the idea itself is certainly not new, the name was given by C.S. Lewis. Quite simply, it is the basic Christian belief in the divinity and redemptive qualities of Jesus Christ. It is the simple belief that faith in him and love for him are the only paths to salvation, that life must be lived in subjection to his word (and his father’s) as revealed in scripture. These days, with the church splintered into numerous groups and denominations, it is often difficult to be meaningful when using the generic term Christian. I want it understood that I am simply speaking from a viewpoint that accepts scripture as true and divinely inspired, a view that there is only one path to God, and that all other paths lead to destruction. I mentioned earlier that no one is really good. I also mentioned that the human identity is based upon action. Usually this is because the actions one takes are a reflection of what he thinks (or at least what he wishes to think). But what if a person always does good, you might ask. Then isn’t he a good person? Well yes, and no. First and most importantly, if he is always good, then he would not fit into the audience this question refers to. But also—he would still have evil in his heart. As is to be expected from a Christian, I now fall onto the subject of human sinfulness. There are two forms in which this manifests itself. At first, these two may seem very much alike, but each has its own distinct characteristic. 1) Sin. This is the nature that inhibits the heart of every human being, a sort of cancer, but one of the soul or the spirit. It restricts our ability to do good things, to be unselfish, honest, charitable, and so on. There are numerous explanations as to why we posses this damaging characteristic—free will, desire, the deceit of Satan, and the like. But regardless of the exact cause or combination of causes (these things some Christians dispute or emphasize over others—I subscribe to a mix of all three), there is a disposition in our hearts toward doing evil. This quality is perhaps better known simply as human nature. 2) Sins. These are merely the outward signs of our disposition—the symptoms of our cancer, if you wish. They are a consequence. If a man has evil in his heart, it stands to reason that he would do evil. Most importantly, of the two aspects of human sinfulness, this is the only one that may be dealt with to some extent. I mentioned earlier several times that a person’s identity is defined by action, rather than thought. This is fortunate, since we would all be corrupted criminals outwardly if the latter were true. Instead our identities may be defined by our desire and effort to suppress the cancer. This action makes us into different people, trying our best to do good. As a Christian, I believe that that is the Christian identity, along with the means by which that is achieved. And as most people know, for us that means is Christ. Mere Christians live—or try to live—a life or realized fallen-ness and humble subjugation to the triune God, because we believe that no other lifestyle could merit salvation. This methodology is driven by the Christian answer to this question, that no one is good enough to save himself. No one is truly good at all, in fact. For being what most would call a good person is nothing before the might and majesty and righteousness of God. Even living in Christ, we fail and deliberately do wrong because it provides instant gratification—that instant gratification being yet another sign of our fallen-ness. Therefore good people can’t do bad things, because there aren’t any wholly good people to do them. Essentially, the answer to this question is: we cannot be good people if we are inclined to do bad, and we cannot be inclined to do bad if we are good people. Since everyone is, in fact, inclined toward evil at heart, this question is less appropriate for a Christian to ponder (beyond the purpose of discovering the implications of sinfulness) than some others. |
