To stand speechless
I mentioned that former atheist Anthony Flew refused to speak to the moral nature of the Nazi camp commandants and their treatment of prisoners. I can’t help thinking that there’s something terribly out of whack in a worldview that leaves us speechless in the presence of profound evil. You’ll remember that Bertrand Russell openly lamented that he was unable to rationally justify his hatred for moral horrors.
This makes it clear to me that people like Russell who agonised at times over these matters would have preferred it to be otherwise. Russell would have been glad to be able to morally condemn such atrocities but it would have meant he had to say goodbye to his worldview and he could not do that. But let me say it again, it wasn’t a worldview that pleased the man. And how could it be? What kind of human is it that would feel no agony in this situation?
The morally awake non-believer should want there to be Someone that will right all wrongs. If the non-believer feels that he should care for the uncared for, shouldn’t he want there to be Someone that would say, “I will fulfil what your heart wishes for”? That’s why I find the sneering and arrogant non-believer such an offence. [No less an offence than the believer whose only concern is about “me and mine”.]
What the non-believer offers the countless victims of cruelty, torture, humiliation and pillage is nothing! To wish the punishment of the moral thugs and gangsters is not barbaric and vengeful. Punishment is the form that righteousnesstakes under certain circumstances. Whether we think it is productive or not is another question—we can argue that until the cows come home. But rightly administered punishment expresses the value we place on the victims.
But it’s no consolation to the victimised that the demonic thugs might be punished. What of the victims? Should the non-believer not want to believe that what the Hebrew prophet said was true of all the innocent and righteous dead. “This is what the Lord says, ‘I will restore to you the years that the locust have eaten’ ”? Ultimate justice cannot be simply about punishment but about restoration.
Yes, yes, but even if the non-believer would like to believe that such a thing would happen, he cannot, for he thinks it is a baseless hope.
I understand that, but I think it should curb the spirit and the language of those that jeer and sneer at the biblical doctrine of judgement. If non-believers care for people as much as they say they do, their emotional weight should be thrown into the hope that the biblical Story of judgement and the righting of all wrongs is true.
Ask a non-believer: “If you had the choice between no ultimate justice and the righting of all wrongs that included the righteous punishment and the restoration to abundant life of all the victims of the ages, which would you choose?” Which would he prefer to be true?
I confess that I find it intellectually satisfying and emotionally uplifting to be able to speak and condemn as immoral so much of what goes on in the world.
I confess that Jesus Christ has persuaded me that one day all wrongs will be righted and that those that have been victimised from the cradle to the grave will share in abundant life in a glorious resurection.