/
RSS Feed
Michael explains the important distinction between good/evil as affectional categories and righteousness/wickedness as moral categories. He explores the problem of evil, common grace, the last petition of the Lord’s Prayer, and numerous other biblical texts, recovering an understanding of how the moral and material are on a trajectory toward distinct union in the new heavens and new earth.
LINKS
The Problem of Evil has an “Evil” Problem, by Michael Minkoff, Jr.
No joke intended, but this really was a good episode! There are too many applications to count and I’ll probably be dwelling on this one for weeks.
Two questions that popped up while I was listening:
1. Where does the concept of enabling sin come into play? It seems that there’s an unaddressed debate between “turn the other cheek” and “stand up for yourself; don’t teach others to abuse you”(or at least I can’t find resources that either acknowledge this tension or don’t assume believers know what actions to take in a particular situation). How would you reconcile these two concepts? Is returning good for evil different than implicitly sending the message that it’s okay for that person to keep hurting others? Extreme examples like narcissists who use “you’re a Christian so turn the other cheek” come to mind, but this could also happen for any scenario in which someone overlooks offenses but gradually gets worn down or even bitter over time because they’re not being treated with dignity or respect.
2. I agree wholeheartedly with the section on good works, but was wondering if you could touch on what to say to someone who might be cautious that this idea could turn into something like the Social Gospel Movement (or who might be in favor of a social gospel via “real” good works). I wonder if Christians would be more open to the idea if it weren’t constantly viewed as a feature of progressivism or as some war between compassion and truth. I have people I want to send this episode to, but know there could be objections on both sides.
Thank you for all of your hard work!
Thank you for the encouragement. And these are really good questions.
1. At a certain point, short-term good is not in the long-term interest of the person you care about. If you are setting boundaries with people, and you should, they should be set according to what you believe will actually do good for another person in the long-term. In other words, you should not withhold good or evil from selfish interest but from real concern and love for another. For instance, often giving a drug addict money (a real short-term good) is not really good for them. Letting a narcissist have his/her way is often not good for them ultimately. The goal must be love for the other person based on a faithful understanding of what would actually benefit them. But even in this, I think we should rather be defrauded than potentially do real harm to others (1 Cor. 6:7). Our goal ultimately should be good to another. Sometimes that ultimate good requires short-term boundaries, withholding, and even some degree of rebuke/discipline. We shouldn’t love any evil, but we should be willing to do evil or withhold good if we sincerely believe it is right and loving and truly toward a person’s mid- or long-term good. That’s really hard to navigate. But first sincerely loving the other person provides the best and most sure compass for navigating it. Great question!
2. I agree with you that a lot of the fear concerning good works or an emphasis on good works is an attempt to avoid the dilution of the verbal Gospel. But the verbal Gospel is so much more effective when it is delivered in real love, and good works is the best way to win an audience if one is really concerned with that. Good works and verbal evangelism can both be done for selfish reasons—from what amounts to virtue signaling. So even in this, a real and sincere love for others is the only real protection from vanity. I am just as concerned that the verbal gospel could become dead confession as I am that good works could become faithless “progressivism.” I think there are clear pitfalls on either side. If someone is most gifted in hospitality or generosity or other good works, perhaps they need the support of evangelists or apologists to fill in the gaps. Or vice versa. Exclusive emphasis in either direction is perilous. God calls us to witness Him in word and deed. I don’t think “word-alone” evangelism is even a full and true witness of Christ. Jesus Himself knew the crowds came to him for bread and healing (John 6:26f), and not necessarily to hear the truth. But He still gave them bread and healing nonetheless. And whenever they came, He preached the kingdom of Heaven. I hope that clarifies this somewhat. But it is obviously a huge discussion. Perhaps it might help to check out my article “What is the Mission of the Church?” It’s a review of a book that emphasizes “verbal witness” to I think too great a degree. In that article, I try to offer a helpful critique of that exclusive emphasis.
Thank you so much for your questions, and for listening to the episode so closely. I’m really thankful the episode was good for you.