That is the question posed at the UU Salon for September. It’s nearly the end of the month – and I guess I’m not very surprised that this question has drawn the fewest responses of our “Big Questions” so far. After all, many Unitarian Universalists claim to not believe evil exists – and many of us simply avoid the topic like the plague. We focus on the inherent worth and dignity of all people in our principles – and reject most discussion of difficult topics of sin and evil.
A little over two years ago I had the honor and privilege of sharing the pulpit with a colleague in a ‘dialog sermon’ on the topic of evil. Our main objective was to educate his congregation in the art of faithful conversations – discussing the difficult topics of faith – by way of demonstration. In his introduction to the topic, my colleague read the following; written in 1913, by Unitarian minister William Wallace Fenn:
“We must seriously question whether [this faith] can bear the weight of the tragedies of human experience. Does not its amiable faith in inherent goodness appear but a ghastly mockery when confronted by the facts of life.
And what of human sin? Here more than anywhere else, the weakness of Modern Liberal [religion] shows itself.
It may be conceded that traditional theology made too much of sin (and evil),
but surely that was better than to make light of it.”
My own seminary training required all M.Div. candidates to write a Constructive Theology paper – the equivalent of a master’s thesis. One of the required chapters had to deal with our theology of sin, evil, and suffering. This blog entry draws from both my constructive paper and my portion of that dialog sermon.
Let’s start with the notion of sin. I’ll say at the outset that I don’t agree with those who say humanity “fell,” and that we are the inheritors of the original sin of Adam and Eve. Nor do I believe that all sin is a sin against God. In my theology, the holy dwells in the connections between us. I don’t think of the divine as a “being,” but “God” or “the holy" happens in the interactions we have. My definition of sin is relational, and I hang it on our Unitarian Universalist concept of the interdependent web of all existence. As I understand it, we are all connected, and for me, holiness happens in those connections.
Sin is, therefore, an action or failure to act, that breaks a connection (or connections), between persons or between a person/persons and the holy, causing unnecessary suffering. There is sin that is very direct, a relational failure to treat each other as we should, ranging from lying about someone to the extremes of rape or murder. Obviously there is a difference in the suffering caused, but the sin is in breaking a connection between people. There is also complex, sometimes called indirect, sin, like those actions which contribute to systems of oppression and injustice. These sins are often corporate sins – sins committed by groups, breaking their inherent connection with other groups.
Evil for me is about human relationships and responsibility. If we look at it in a personal way, those acts that break connections between people, or destroy our connection to the holy, are truly evil acts. An obvious example would be murder, the destruction of a life being pretty high on my personal scale of evil actions. Torture - which isolates and then systematically destroys a person, physically, emotionally and spiritually is evil. Religious extremists who call for the destruction of other groups are advocating evil.
I think we can sin against other people, animals, the earth itself. A sin against another person breaks a connection between at least those two people, and maybe more. I’m thinking someone who tortures a prisoner, say one of the guards at Abu Ghraib, breaks more than the connection between herself and that other person, but also breaks connections in the form of covenants between groups of people. Causing deliberate pain to other animals also breaks a connection between us and our relations. Polluting the earth, stripping it of resources so nothing good can grow in huge areas, breaks our connection with a source of life.
As a parent I’m a fan of natural consequences, and I think many sins have natural consequences. Hit a puppy too many times and he will stop trusting you, will run from you, depriving you of the comfort and unconditional acceptance you might want from him. Break a connection with another person and you will get a similar consequence – loss of trust, loss of friendship, maybe even loss of personal freedom if the sin is bad enough. Destroy the earth, and ultimately all suffer from lack of resources, food, and so forth, which is awfully close to eternal damnation!
And then there is systemic evil. Evil is not a concept that can be applied directly to a natural event, such as a flood, for example. A flood may be destructive, the effects of a flood may be devastating, even tragic, but the flood itself has no destructive or evil intent. However, an unjust system which allows some classes of persons to recover relatively easily from the devastation of a flood while others continue to suffer over a long period of time is evil. Such a system separates people, causing further ruptures in the web of connections between them. We’ve seen a prime example of this in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The Hurricane itself wasn’t evil – but the unequal response from a system that is supposed to help people recover – that is evil.
One need only turn on the evening news, or check news websites, to find examples of personal or systemic evil. Hardly a week goes by in my metropolitan area that I don’t hear of someone being murdered – or of a child being abused. One group or political party rails against another, with overly enthusiastic news “personalities” egging them on, sometimes resulting in the loss of an election because lies were believed – sometimes resulting in physical harm to someone, or some group. In the past couple of weeks, I’ve been struck by the number of suicides by young boys, bullied because they were (or were perceived to be) gay. Surely the bullying was evil, the bullies sinned, and so did the adults who refused to listen to the boys and/or their parents when the bullying was reported.
I don’t know what makes an individual person commit evil acts. I don’t know if anyone is “born evil.” I think it’s possible that some people really are missing some essential piece – the compassion gene, maybe – and that makes evil actions seem o.k. to them. And I know the Rev. William Schulz has asked the question: “In what sense can we defend the notion that a torturer is a person of ‘inherent worth and dignity’?” (What Torture's Taught Me, Berry Street Essay, 2006) I highly recommend reading this essay, if you’re ready to lose your rose-colored glasses and think seriously about our faith and our principles.
My colleague suggested fear as a motivator, that individuals and groups commit evil acts out of fear – fear of losing power, privilege, status, economic advantage… I suggest that evil (particular systemic evil) is also about hierarchy and control. Evil wants to draw lines in the sand, or circles to keep people out, keep things under control, and enforce a hierarchy – like some governments, some churches, some of us. Good erases the lines, opens the circles, shares control, and has no need of hierarchies.
That’s what I’ve got on the nature of evil, so far. I know we’re not all going to come to the same conclusions, but I think we Unitarian Universalists need to take off our rose-colored glasses and tackle these thorny topics seriously and theologically. I welcome further discussion!
And... if you were wondering about my title:
