Se7en
Romans 5:19
For just as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
Most people have no problem morally distinguishing between the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and the Nazi perpetrated Holocaust of the European Jews. Although both resulted in horrific death and massive suffering, history sees a moral difference between the events. The bombing of Hiroshima arguably brought an end to a war which would have continued for at least another year, with massive loss of both military and civilian life and infrastructure. Japan would have been obliterated. The American response to Japanese aggression in the Pacific was a defensive one, and the peace which ultimately ensued brought about a birth of Asian economic prosperity which the world has never known. In contrast, the Holocaust and the Nazi butchery had no redemptive value. The utter horror and complete depravity of methodical genocide on this scale had never been seen in human history. It could not be interpreted as a defensive action, nor could any aspect of the Holocaust be morally justified.
As obvious as these historical facts may seem, we have entered an age in which many people cannot tell the difference between a defensive war and a hateful aggression. This new philosophy equates all killing with murder. No act of defensive war is justified because all acts of war are murderous. Death itself is evil unless it comes about through forces of nature, and even then we try to blame American imperialism for failing to prepare for or respond to natural disasters, and we blame American environmental imperialism for causing natural disasters as well.
I just recently watched the film "Se7en". This film, along with "Silence of the Lambs" and "The Cell", portrays the truly diabolical nature in the heart of man. I wonder if a person making an argument of moral equivalency could distinguish between a Marine tossing a grenade into a terrorist rathole and the sinister murder and torture portrayed by John Doe, the perpetrator in Se7en. Do the motivations of the killer change the moral value of the killing? Not so long ago, the answer to this question was easy and obvious to the vast majority of people in our society. Perhaps the answer is still obvious to most people, but here are some mantras which should be familiar:
Meat is murder. (Killing animals for food)
War is murder. (Regardless of the reason for the war)
Bush lied, people died. (People should not die, ever)
Capital punishment is murder. (No matter the crime)
Oh, and lest I forget, abortion is CHOICE, a fetus is a parasite.
This type of anti-intellectual idealism allows people to cut through the complexity of ethical issues with a single blade. It provides the believer with an illusion that he sees through the social ephemera and the lies of the established order. In this utopian view of humanity, we as individual human beings are basically good, but we are controlled by the rich and powerful to participate in imperialistic enterprises, to suppress the dissident and misfit, and to neglect and distract the unfortunate. Basic human nature is good, but has been distorted by those in power for self aggrandisement.
If the United States threatens the world with nuclear annihilation, then how is this different from Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR threatening the world with totalitarian conquest? Or how is it different from Al Quaeda threatening the world with an Islamic theocracy? People who cannot see the distinction can neither see the difference between a law enforcement officer and someone robbing a convenience store at gunpoint. This kind of muddy thinking permeates the very places where we teach leaders how to think critically -- the universities. It is the fall of civilization, not by conquest, but by self mutilation.
One cannot enjoy a movie like Se7en. It is not meant to enjoy or to entertain. It is meant to shock and to stimulate thought. John Doe has brought a taste of Hell into the world. He condemns sinners, but offers no redemption or hope. He enjoys torturing and delights in the misery of his victims. He delights in the twistedness and complete perversity of the human heart devoid of love. He exalts evil as holiness. John Doe takes moral equivalency to its nihilistic extreme. In a world where all killing is equal, where no justice is possible, and where all people revel in sin, the Devil makes the rules. As scripture says, there are no righteous, no not one.
So why should it matter that a sinner tortures another sinner? What difference does it make whether a bomber drops a nuclear weapon on a city or a Wahabist saws off the head of a Westerner? If there are no innocent, then there are no victims. Or is it the opposite, where all are innocent, all are victims? Either way, the end result is chaos and social disintegration. When we lose the ability to make moral distinction, we lose everything.
If we only take half of the Biblical message, that all have sinned and all deserve death, then John Doe is no different than John the Baptist. Or if we take the behavioral science model and say that we are products of our environment and must re-engineer ourselves, then John Doe is no different than the victim he tortures. God solved this dilemma, as we read in Romans 5:19. We are made righteous, neither by redefining righteousness, nor by social engineering, but by the righteousness of Christ. But knowing this, if we fail to differentiate between fighting or committing evil, then how can we even choose to accept God's grace in our lives? If we lose our ability to make a clear moral distinction, then how can we even recognize God's holiness?
Detective Somerset encounters John Doe within days of his retirement from a long and discouraging career of fighting evil. At the end of the movie, he decides to continue the fight, to remain a detective. What has changed? Evil men like John Doe continue to find their victims, although Doe himself is dead at the hand of his partner. Apathy and decadence still rule the day in the bleak and decrepit city. Why continue to fight a losing battle? What is the difference, as John Doe points out, between murder for pleasure and murder for revenge?
The battle against evil is not only against the crimes committed by the evil doer. It is also a battle against the lies of the Enemy, the lie that we cannot fight evil because we are not perfectly good, the lie that because the human heart is corrupt, we might as well indulge corruption. It is a lie we can trace back to Eden, and it remains a lie until Christ comes again.
For just as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
Most people have no problem morally distinguishing between the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and the Nazi perpetrated Holocaust of the European Jews. Although both resulted in horrific death and massive suffering, history sees a moral difference between the events. The bombing of Hiroshima arguably brought an end to a war which would have continued for at least another year, with massive loss of both military and civilian life and infrastructure. Japan would have been obliterated. The American response to Japanese aggression in the Pacific was a defensive one, and the peace which ultimately ensued brought about a birth of Asian economic prosperity which the world has never known. In contrast, the Holocaust and the Nazi butchery had no redemptive value. The utter horror and complete depravity of methodical genocide on this scale had never been seen in human history. It could not be interpreted as a defensive action, nor could any aspect of the Holocaust be morally justified.
As obvious as these historical facts may seem, we have entered an age in which many people cannot tell the difference between a defensive war and a hateful aggression. This new philosophy equates all killing with murder. No act of defensive war is justified because all acts of war are murderous. Death itself is evil unless it comes about through forces of nature, and even then we try to blame American imperialism for failing to prepare for or respond to natural disasters, and we blame American environmental imperialism for causing natural disasters as well.
I just recently watched the film "Se7en". This film, along with "Silence of the Lambs" and "The Cell", portrays the truly diabolical nature in the heart of man. I wonder if a person making an argument of moral equivalency could distinguish between a Marine tossing a grenade into a terrorist rathole and the sinister murder and torture portrayed by John Doe, the perpetrator in Se7en. Do the motivations of the killer change the moral value of the killing? Not so long ago, the answer to this question was easy and obvious to the vast majority of people in our society. Perhaps the answer is still obvious to most people, but here are some mantras which should be familiar:
Meat is murder. (Killing animals for food)
War is murder. (Regardless of the reason for the war)
Bush lied, people died. (People should not die, ever)
Capital punishment is murder. (No matter the crime)
Oh, and lest I forget, abortion is CHOICE, a fetus is a parasite.
This type of anti-intellectual idealism allows people to cut through the complexity of ethical issues with a single blade. It provides the believer with an illusion that he sees through the social ephemera and the lies of the established order. In this utopian view of humanity, we as individual human beings are basically good, but we are controlled by the rich and powerful to participate in imperialistic enterprises, to suppress the dissident and misfit, and to neglect and distract the unfortunate. Basic human nature is good, but has been distorted by those in power for self aggrandisement.
If the United States threatens the world with nuclear annihilation, then how is this different from Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR threatening the world with totalitarian conquest? Or how is it different from Al Quaeda threatening the world with an Islamic theocracy? People who cannot see the distinction can neither see the difference between a law enforcement officer and someone robbing a convenience store at gunpoint. This kind of muddy thinking permeates the very places where we teach leaders how to think critically -- the universities. It is the fall of civilization, not by conquest, but by self mutilation.
One cannot enjoy a movie like Se7en. It is not meant to enjoy or to entertain. It is meant to shock and to stimulate thought. John Doe has brought a taste of Hell into the world. He condemns sinners, but offers no redemption or hope. He enjoys torturing and delights in the misery of his victims. He delights in the twistedness and complete perversity of the human heart devoid of love. He exalts evil as holiness. John Doe takes moral equivalency to its nihilistic extreme. In a world where all killing is equal, where no justice is possible, and where all people revel in sin, the Devil makes the rules. As scripture says, there are no righteous, no not one.
So why should it matter that a sinner tortures another sinner? What difference does it make whether a bomber drops a nuclear weapon on a city or a Wahabist saws off the head of a Westerner? If there are no innocent, then there are no victims. Or is it the opposite, where all are innocent, all are victims? Either way, the end result is chaos and social disintegration. When we lose the ability to make moral distinction, we lose everything.
If we only take half of the Biblical message, that all have sinned and all deserve death, then John Doe is no different than John the Baptist. Or if we take the behavioral science model and say that we are products of our environment and must re-engineer ourselves, then John Doe is no different than the victim he tortures. God solved this dilemma, as we read in Romans 5:19. We are made righteous, neither by redefining righteousness, nor by social engineering, but by the righteousness of Christ. But knowing this, if we fail to differentiate between fighting or committing evil, then how can we even choose to accept God's grace in our lives? If we lose our ability to make a clear moral distinction, then how can we even recognize God's holiness?
Detective Somerset encounters John Doe within days of his retirement from a long and discouraging career of fighting evil. At the end of the movie, he decides to continue the fight, to remain a detective. What has changed? Evil men like John Doe continue to find their victims, although Doe himself is dead at the hand of his partner. Apathy and decadence still rule the day in the bleak and decrepit city. Why continue to fight a losing battle? What is the difference, as John Doe points out, between murder for pleasure and murder for revenge?
The battle against evil is not only against the crimes committed by the evil doer. It is also a battle against the lies of the Enemy, the lie that we cannot fight evil because we are not perfectly good, the lie that because the human heart is corrupt, we might as well indulge corruption. It is a lie we can trace back to Eden, and it remains a lie until Christ comes again.
posted by moleses | 4:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home