An Old Debate
One of the most common reasons for denying the existence of God is the problem of evil in the world. Just ask any group of atheists to give their top ten reasons for unbelief and surely one will claim as number one, “If there is a God, then why is there so much evil in the world?” For many, this is the pièce de résistance of rebuttals. How could a good God be real and allow all the suffering in the world to continue unabated – assuming He is even good? The eighteenth century philosopher, David Hume described the problem this way in Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, 1779:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?” (Stackhouse 1998, 11)
So, the “problem of evil,” and its source, has been an issue of philosophical debate for centuries. The existence of evil in the world, along with unanswered questions, has even become evidence enough for some to embrace atheism. Therefore, because so many philosophers and theologians have tried for ages to reconcile the existence of God with the existence of evil, I dare say that nothing I write will be new. But, if anyone were to challenge my belief in God, along with my faith in Jesus Christ, with the argument that the problem of evil constitutes proof God does not exist, then I would possibly respond with arguments based on the following thought:
Without the existence of God, there should be no evil to be a problem, and that’s the real problem with “the Problem of Evil.”
Evil? What Is It?
What exactly is “evil?” Now, that may sound like an absurd kind of question to ask, but if the existence of evil is the evidence that is supposed to expose my faith as a fraud, at best, or even a lie, then what is it? Is it something tangible? Is it metaphysical? Is it theoretical? What is it, exactly? Does it have any particular form? How can it be distinguished from what is called good? On what do the atheists and agnostics base their definition of this thing called “evil?”
Amazingly, the answers are not all the same, nor in some cases even grounded in reality. However, it is imperative to understand that we must define this God-killer, because its definition will determine our conclusions and help to clarify our assumptions.
When C. S. Lewis was an atheist, for example, his “argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust.” (Lewis 1989) There he had it, or so he thought. God could not exist because so much evil exists. But how did he arrive at “this idea of just and unjust?” Lewis said, “A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.” (Lewis 1989) “Tell me,” I would say, “what is evil, and how do you recognize it when you see it?”
The Adjective
To start, evil must be understood to be an adjective. Evil is a description of something that is not good. Evil is not a thing. The word “evil” only describes the thing, the thought, and the action. Technically, “evil” does not exist, only what it describes.
Some people say that they cannot believe in God because why or how could a good God, if He was perfect, create evil? They think of evil as something that must have not existed until God made it. But evil “isn’t a kind of molecule or a virus…infecting or affecting everything it encounters. There was no time when God said, ‘Let there be evil,’ and there was evil.” (Stackhouse 1998) As John G. Stackhouse put it, “evil becomes a noun only in the abstract.” Additionally, in his book Can God Be Trusted, Stackhouse says of evil:
“An action can be evil, or an event can be evil, or a quality can be evil, or a being can be evil. And we can lump all these particular evils together in our minds and come up with a category ‘evil.’ We can even go on to discuss it as if it were a particular thing, so long as we do not forget that we are always dealing with a category or group of particular evil things, not a thing itself.” (Stackhouse 1998, 31)
So then, if evil is a description, how is it that we come to use the adjective, or as Lewis put it, the “crooked line,” without first having some idea of what is a “straight” one? Defining what is good is as important as defining evil. To know what is evil, we must first have some assumption as to what is not evil.
The crazy thing is that if God does not exist, and man is nothing more than a collection of random matter, both good and evil are purely relative – their existence is based purely on one’s perspective. So, in other words, the one who says that there is no God, based on the existence of evil, is literally basing his belief on pure opinion, not on anything objective. Therefore, in order to bring an accusation against the goodness of God, one must have a base line. What is the standard by which we determine what is good and what is evil?
The Standard
Some use Man as the baseline. They compare God to the standard set by what is thought to be good behavior in this world. They rationalize that if God is real, at least according to monotheistic dogma, He must be all-powerful, perfectly good, and the supreme example of love, kindness, and providential care. Because it is preached that God is a better Father than earthly fathers, Mark Twain took it upon himself to write:
The best minds will tell you that when a man has begotten a child he is morally bound to tenderly care for it…[yet], God’s treatment of his earthly children, every day and every night, is the exact opposite of that, yet those minds warmly justify those crimes…when he commits them.” (Tonie Doe Media 2007)
So then, according to Twain, God could not exist because if He did, He would act consistent with our understanding of what a good and loving earthly father would do. In other words, if God cannot, in all His perfection, behave better toward His children than the most common man, His credentials are therefore revoked, and He must cease to exist. However, this is so illogical.
Who are we to say that God, if He is perfect, and we are imperfect, ever treats His children poorly? Do the protesting cries of a toddler who has had poison taken from his grasp carry more weight than the decision of the earthly father to take it away? How, then, are we to automatically assume that the infantile tendencies of finite man are wiser than the infinitely Mature?
Using Man as a baseline for what is good and evil is pure arrogance.
Whose Line Is It?
In reality, the problem of evil is really a problem for the atheist. He, who denies the existence of a Creator and accepts only the realities of evil in the world, essentially has nothing about which to complain. Everything should be just fine and dandy, but it’s not. The atheist knows that evil things happen to both good and bad people.
He sees the hurt, feels the pain, and begs for justice. The reality of evil in the world causes men to cry out for justice; for things to be made right. This is a problem, though, because knowing that a crooked line is not straight hints at the fact that a Line-drawer exists.
The Followers’ Fault
Others take a different approach. They claim that God does not exist except in the evil intentions of his followers to control others through guilt. They claim that God is just a fabrication of priests to keep mankind from behaving “naturally.”
They say that nature is good, and if anything, God is evil for trying to get man to behave contrary to the very way he was created to behave. One guru said, “It seems that for those who worship God, the opposite to God is not that which is ‘evil,’ but that which is natural.” He said of animals, comparing them to men, “They don’t worship God, they don’t go to church, they don’t have any theology. They don’t have any feeling of guilt, they are simply natural.” (Osho 2009) In other words, if there is evil in the world, it is because our belief in God has inflicted it.
The Majority Response
But for the majority of the hurting world, pain is real, loss is real, and evil is manifested daily. Many see the things that happen to innocent people, especially children, and wonder, “If there is a loving God, why doesn’t he do anything about this?”
These people, many of which hold on to hope as long as they can, finally succumb to their doubts and conclude that the only way to explain away the pain is to admit that it is just part of life, part of the natural world, part of what makes us human; alone, in our quest to make life easier, free of pain, free from evil; alone, without God.
These are the ones, I believe, that lure more away from the faith than any Darwinist. They are the ones who have seen evil face-to-face and cannot fathom a God who would allow it to continue. And because their experiences are so painful and tragic, the devout are left speechless and without explanation. Ellie Wiesel is a good example.
Wiesel’s Observation
Wiesel was a teenager when he saw his family murdered in the Nazi death camps. But it was only after witnessing one particular act of horror – the slow, hanging death of a young boy – that he turned away from his faith in God.
In the book Night, his Nobel prize-winning autobiography, Wiesel said he heard a man behind him ask, “Where is God now?” As he stood there, being forced to stare into a pitiful, wide-eyed, swollen face of a dying child, a voice within replied, “Where is He? Here He is – He is hanging here on the gallows…” (Wiesel 1982) Because there was no justification, even in the big scheme of things, Ellie Wiesel’s God died with the executed boy.
But as sad as it is, without God, who can say what happened to that boy was any worse than the slaughter of an animal? Are we not all just animals – some more evolved than others?
The Real Problem
To me, the problem of evil is not a problem for the believer to explain, but one for the non-believer. Aside from the theological arguments about the character of God, without God, to turn Hume’s question around, “whence then is evil?”
Without God, evil is relative to one’s desires and personal pleasure. Does it really even matter whether or not God could do anything about evil in the world when the whole question is moot if He didn’t exist?
With God, evil is defined as that which is against His law, that which stands opposed to His standards, and that which describes all who take pleasure in such rebellion. Without God, evil is just a matter of opinion.
That is the real “problem of evil.”
Works Cited
Lewis, C. S. “Atheism.” In The Quotable Lewis, by C. S. Lewis, 59. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1989.
Osho. The God Conspiracy: the path from superstition to superconsciousness. New York: Osho Media International, 2009.
Stackhouse, John G. Can God Be Trusted. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Tonie Doe Media. In The Atheist’s Bible, 129. New York: Harper Collins, 2007.
Wiesel, Ellie. Night. New York: Bantam Books, 1982.
.jpg)
The Recovering Legalist 
Critique of ‘Hallelujah’ in Christmas Worship
As of this writing, there are only five days until Christmas. If I had only spoken out a few months ago, things might have been different today. But I didn’t say anything earlier because I didn’t want to hurt feelings or offend. I can only hope that by protesting now, something good can come of it.
You may recall that a few years ago I wrote a scathing critic of Dean Martin’s “Baby It’s Cold Outside.” I wasn’t the first to point out the song’s sexually abusive lyrics. Nevertheless, my article did get attention. This wasn’t surprising since the #metoo movement was going strong at the time.
But here we are in yet another Christmas season and what do we have? More offensive lyrics in Christmas songs. What makes it worse is that they are part of worship services. These services are meant to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, not a sexual conquest.
It seems that all one must do these days is include the word hallelujah in a song, no matter the context of the borrowed lyric or tune, and it’s sure to be a hit at your next Christmas cantata.
“Hallelujah”
Let me be clear. It is not my wish to trash Leonard Cohan’s famous, beloved and oft-covered “Hallelujah.” Why would I want to? My complaints would just fall on deaf ears. Since the 1984 release of Cohen’s “Hallelujah,” near universal praise has been given for its lyrical, poetic, and harmonic beauty. But I’m not a fan. I can’t stand the song – not because of the tune, but the message.
But as with many things, even though I’m not a fan, if it stays within the bounds of its intended secular audience, I’m content to let rotting dogs lie.
It’s only when the putrid scent of death begins to taint the fragrant incense of worship that I get offended. My gag reflexes tempt me to puke.
Unfortunately, as of late, I’ve had to keep a barf bag close by. It seems that more and more Christians have gone odor blind and cannot detect even the slightest stench. Everywhere I turn, Cohen’s agnostic and broken Hallelujah” is being incorporated into holy worship.
A Little Background
With just a little digging, I found that the first time “Hallelujah” became linked to Christmas was in 2010. Susan Boyle from Britain’s Got Talent included it on her Christmas album. It featured the original lyrics.
Then, early in December of 2012, Cloverton released the now popular Christmas version of “Hallelujah” which tells the story of Christ’s birth. Below is the first verse.
In 2017 the group Anthem Lights released “Hallelujah Medley,” a mashup of two classic Christian songs with “Hallelujah” woven throughout. The other two songs were “Hallelujah, What a Savior” and Michael W. Smith’s “Agnus Dei.”
This year I heard both the Cloverton and the Anthem Lights versions in the same church Christmas cantata. However, as an instrumentalist in that church, I couldn’t bring myself to accompany either one.
Giving Grace
But I want to extend grace. I don’t want to disparage anyone who sings these covers or re-writes of “Hallelujah.” Their intention might be to glorify God. They may also encourage others to praise Him. Even Paul was hesitant to condemn those who, out of jealously, added to his suffering, for even then the Gospel was being preached (see Philippians 1:15-18). That was the main thing.
I’m compelled to show grace, too, because others may genuinely see things differently. They may consider what is being done with “Hallelujah” as an act of sanctification. They might argue that the tunes of some of the greatest and most beloved hymns were once big hits in the pubs and ale houses. Therefore, incorporating the tune or some of the lyrics into Christmas music is no different than how we sing “Amazing Grace” to the traditional tune of “New Britain.”
And, if nothing else, I must be careful to offer a lot of grace because I’m not perfect. I’ve had a bad cold, recently, and lots of things irritate me more when I feel sick.
What Are the Issues?
So, what is the issue (or issues)? What is there to complain about this time? What makes me cringe? What makes me nauseous?
Issue 1: The Lyrics
To begin with, it all goes back to Leonard Cohen’s original “Hallelujah” and its meaning. You see, I like music, but I also try to understand the lyrics. Just because a song has a happy tune, that doesn’t mean it’s worth listening to. I try to feed my soul with good stuff, not garbage.
Compared to many songs, though, “Hallelujah” is downright tame. It’s not a vulgar, pornographic jingle celebrating wet body parts (e.g., Cardi B). But it isn’t religious, nor is it wholesome for all ages, either. Actually, it is a song that draws loosely from the lives of biblical characters to describe dysfunctional, sexually-involved relationships that seek consolation through mutual brokenness.
But as a Christian, what bothers me most is the way Cohan distorts and contorts the word hallelujah. It offends me that such an intrinsically holy word (made up of two Hebrew words, hālal and yâ, which means “praise the Lord”) is used to describe a sexual release in the second verse.
It may seem petty, but it also irritates me how Cohan (born a Jew, but a practicing Buddhist) not only mixes the stories of King David and Samson, but does so in a self-justifying, slanderous way. David needed proof for his faith? Whose throne got broken?
But who really cares about the verses of this song, right? I mean, all that people really care about are the melody and the haunting chorus that repeats the word erroneously attributed to a “baffled” king.
Hallelujah is the real money maker, after all.
Issue 2: The Fusion of the Holy and the Unholy
The other big issue I have is not only the willingness, but the ambivalence toward fusing holy, Christian works with unholy, secular, even blasphemous works in an attempt to be creative.
Here’s the thing. I can’t sing “Amazing Grace” without including the accompanying tune once connected to bar songs. However, when I or any other person hears “Amazing Grace,” the words of “New Britain” never enter our minds. The older song is totally disassociated from Newton’s “Amazing Grace” and the author of “New Britain” never gets any credit.
But “Hallelujah” is a different thing entirely. Whenever either the tune or the lyrics of “Hallelujah” are used in either a lyrical remake or a mashup with other Christian songs, some sort of attribution must be given to Leonard Cohan.
Issue 3: Ignorance is Blessed
I asked my wife for her thoughts on the rendition of Cloverton’s version of “Hallelujah” that our praise band did last week. Like everyone else, she thought it was beautiful. And from a purely musical perspective, even a worshipful one, it was moving.
But on the other hand, on hearing “It goes like this, the fourth, the fifth, the minor falls, the major lifts,” when does one wonder: “Why are the words of an agnostic Jewish Buddhist being used out of their context to praise the God and Savior he doesn’t even believe in?”
But that’s just it. Most people don’t know.
Most people aren’t aware of the source material. For that matter, most people never parse the lyrics to any of the songs they sing, even in church, and are usually content remaining ignorant, but blessed. Honestly, I can’t blame them. It’s easier that way.
And frankly, at least in this case, what you don’t know probably won’t hurt you, so worship away.
But I do know. That’s why I just had to say something.
Share this:
2 Comments
Filed under Christianity, Christmas, Church, music
Tagged as Christmas, Church music, commentary, critique, faith, God, Hallelujah, Jesus, Music, Theology