This Sunday's Gospel: Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43
Weeds as Wickedness and a Christian Response
(Thoughts from C. A. Berkey-Abbott)
There are three issues that strike me as interesting for this section of gospel: 1) pay attention making sure that nothing happens “while everyone is asleep,” 2) do not so aggressively pursue the eradication of evil as it harms the fertility of what is valuable, and 3) the evil (undesirable) and the good (desirable) will be separated.
Point 1: If everyone sleeps at the same time, this allows the opportunity for “the enemy” (evil) to make its way into the valuable (good and productive) plantings. This is not the emphasis of this gospel, but seems to be a historically reinforced message. We should “Beware the perverters of the Gospel” including those that would use it to demand greater sacrifices in support of “the Church.” We have seen this blasphemy in many ages and its divisions within the catholic (universal theistic) church from Catholicism to Lutherans to Lutheran Pietist and others who have split from “the Church” for similar reasons.
Point 3: The evil (weeds) are removed once the wheat plantings (desirable) are mature and stable, but before the harvest. What does this mean? Perhaps that there is an appropriate time for the Church to recognize its strength and aggressively seek justice. Perhaps it means that we should let evil persist and let God sort it out at the harvest (although I strongly disagree personally).
Point 2: I read this passage today of one of the better explanations of the “problem of evil” that I have encountered. For those who may not be familiar with this slightly technical term, here is the problem of evil: Premise #1: God is omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing) and omnibenevolent (all good and loving). Premise #2: If God knows all (omniscient), truly fully loves us and therefore wants no evil to come to us (omnibenevolent) and is all powerful (omnipotent), no evil should ever come to us: God knows it will happen, God cares that it does not. God has the ability to stop it. Evil should not happen. Premise #3: There is definitely evil in this world. Therefore, there is no God or no being that is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omi-benevolent.
This is a valid argument which presents a great challenge to theists (believers in a God with these attributes). This is so much of an issue, that attempts to explain how the premises can be true and not get to the conclusion has a name: Theodicies. This is a real concern for the Church. How do we reconcile a God that knows an 11 year old will get cancer, cares that she does not, has the power to remove the cancer, but does not”
One theodicy, says “we have free will which creates evil.” This does not explain natural evil (harm) like hurricanes and earthquakes. The argument here is that God’s love for us, means that God must give us the freedom to be a weed (out of communion with God) and this is what allows for the introduction of evil. This is not the explanation for the existence of weeds (evil) that we get in this text!
Another approach to this gospel could be: but maybe the weeds (evil) will turn into wild coffee plants (something valued). This argument suggests that evil just needs to be educated and transformed. This approach (sinners – outsiders need to be transformed) has caused innumerable harms. It is not accepting, but focuses on being transformative (God loves you, but only if you behave and think as we do). Under your recognition of those conditions, God will not eradicate the weed. This is not the explanation that Jesus gives us in this text!
Another approach to this gospel could be: the weeds (evil) are innocent (sown by someone outside of themselves who has evil intent). This argument suggests a few things: 1) people are largely pawns in a greater system and cannot make their own decisions and 2) even evils that are promoted through these pawns (innocents) must be tolerated. At least the second of these suggestions is wrong. Even if someone is raised to believe that theft, rape, and murder are appropriate and/or somehow deserved, we are not obligated to tolerate these abuses from the indoctrinated innocent. As a final note: this explanation for not eliminating the evil weed is not the explanation that Jesus gives us in this text!
Another approach to this gospel could be: The weeds (evil) are needed to appreciate the wheat (the valuable). This comparative explanation argument fails for a number of reasons: 1) there need not be evil for us to appreciate the good – even if recognizing the good is aided by comparison and 2) a lower grade of evil (a few weeds) would accomplish the same purpose. This is not the explanation Jesus gives us in this text!
Another approach to this gospel could be: For every evil there is a comparable good. Yet, it is not clear that the amount of evil will lead to comparable goods. What comparable good resulted from the dehumanization of blacks, Jews, physically disabled, mentally challenged, LGBTQIA+ slaughter in Nazi Germany? What comparable good (except for the advancement of white – European American privilege- did Manifest Destiny (the destruction of the food source – buffalo, the introduction of alcohol, the chemical warfare of small pox infected blankets, and ultimately the slaughter or unconditional surrender of the Iroquois, Comanche, Sioux, and Kiowa people) bring. This is not the explanation Jesus gives us in this text!
Another explanation to this gospel could be: We don’t know why, but evil is part of God’s plan. In this scripture, it is the work of an enemy of God (the good crop) that created the weeds. It is not part of God’s ideal plan. This just kicks the preverbal “can down the road.” Why then did God not stop it?. This is not the explanation Jesus gives us in this text!
Another explanation to this gospel could be: Even the weeds have “a right to life.” Some contemporary theists seem to like this argument: “everything regardless of how evil has a right to life as God supports life.” This argument is wrong. Things that are life-supporting and love promoting have a right to life. Things that seek to eliminate life do not. Tolerant and loving people must draw a line at some point that says intolerance will not be tolerated (an objective principle – theistically based or otherwise). This enters into a philosophical consideration of where a right to self-defense begins and ends. Generally, the Church (drawing heavily on Aristotle in particular) has recognized this right. This is not the explanation Jesus gives us in this text.
This passage reads as both a warning and a call to action. There will be a time when the evil/undesirable (weed) is to separated from the good/desirable (wheat) and destroyed. Waiting too late (harvest) creates a comorbidity; evil is not destroyed until the “end time” and the desired clean crop is never manifest on its own. Waiting too late may also allow the weed to “go to seed.” When the weed seeds begin to grow in the next planting, at least some responsibility for that spread of evil falls on the gardener.
We are also cautioned: We should not remove the evil (weeds) and aggressively and indiscriminately “tear them out.” We are given a reason for this that does not resolve the “Problem of Evil (why God would allow evil in the first place. The explanation does not account for natural evil either. It does address human evil. As a reminder of some explanations that are not offered: We are not to let evil grow because: 1) the ability to be evil is a gift from God, 2) because the weeds may become wheat 3) the evil is innocently done, 4) we need the evil to appreciate the good, 5) for every evil there will be a comparable good, 6) the apparent evil is all part of “God’s plan, or 7) because even weeds have a right to life.
Here is the warning: attempts at aggressive (and I would add indiscriminate) eradication of evil in an immature field (weak Church) does extreme harm to believers and the Church beyond any perceived benefit. We have seen far too many examples of how aggressive eradication has failed to promote one’s faith. Examples include all manners of fundamentalism: Christians killing Muslims, Muslims killing Christians, Buddhists killing Muslims, Zuni versus Shia….The list of wars done in the name of the will of the divine is as exhaustive as it is stupid.
The examples need not stop at wars among religions either. We have many examples of hasty generalizations and sweeping harms done to all manner of people domestically and internationally that are not religiously based. Slavery, internment (historic and contemporary), Jim Crow laws, anti-LGBTQIA+ laws, treatment of refugees, are all examples and this list could go on as well.
On this reading, how are we to respond? Where and when does the required eradication begin? How do we prevent being overly aggressive? How do we avoid creating (praise or pay) incentives that may become perverse incentives to be aggressive? For wisdom and guidance we pray for well-considered answers recognizing that they are likely as complicated as the challenge itself. How do we resist evil without our doing so becoming a “symbol of righteousness” and a license to injure others and ultimately undermining the core values (character) of our very faith?
No comments:
Post a Comment