Naming Evil

"If there is any justice in this world, there will be criminal accountability for this inexcusable act of greed, selfishness & callousness."

— Mayor of Port Coquitlam

**********************

Dear Kate,

Yesterday was the second anniversary of the Humboldt Broncos bus crash.  The tragedy was senseless, but helped made somewhat sensible by our identifying some possible evils: it was the one truck driver, it was not having any seat belt on the bus, it was that particularly bad road design, it was the weather...

But what if we can't really identify the source, and even less so, the path, the evolution, the "epidemiology" of evil?

What caused something as senseless as COVID-19?  We want an explanation.  Someone owes us an explanation.  Someone is willing to give us an explanation: it's a "Chinese virus," it's because we are not wearing a mask, not responding fast enough, fierce enough, shrewd enough, etc.

We need an explanation, a trajectory to map out our narrative, one that everyone can understand and stand behind.  Because when we have a simple explanation, we can explain it, Evil, away.

I am sure you might have been perplexed by my claim about a week ago, that "I'm afraid so far I have not heard anything from the church that speaks about--and, more importantly, from--the most obvious, on which great theology is built and the most beautiful stories told and courageous lives lived...I singled out the church, but really I haven't heard anything truly meaningful from anyone, which is expected, which is also why I singled out the church."

What should the church have said?  What could we have said to each other that is meaningful, honest, and kerygmatic?  (I am not saying I know.)

Remember the mayor who called the pair caught selling masks at an exorbitant price "the lowest of the low"?  What was he trying to do, really?  He was trying to give evil a name.  He was trying to help us make sense of the senseless, to explain to ourselves why we are at where we are now.  And in order to do that, there must be a scapegoat, a reason that does not implicate you and me, something that can energize our collective indignation.  Nothing fires us up like moralism.

But didn't the pair actually do wrong? you ask.  Of course they did.

Still, please take a step back.  First of all, it was one particular act of wrongdoing.  Would that justify them being condemned to the lowest hell?  Second, last time I checked laissez-faire is the true orthodoxy of our worldview, and why the interference and judgement now?  Third, if they were fined for trading without a business licence, then how about all of us trading on Craigslist and etc, sometimes unfairly, dishonestly?  And I can go on.

Yet all these are moot points.

You see, if the mayor were to have this one chance to unload 5,000 masks at $500 each, and all he'll have to do is to click a secret button to sell via an untraceable path and the money would magically show up underneath his bed in unmarked cash, what do you think he would do?

What would you do if you are given that sweet chance?  I am sure we could all come up with a few morally justifiable (even upright) positions to serve ourselves right.

So what the mayor didn't say was that he was also implicated in the evil he condemned, in heart, if not in deed.  He at the end still didn't commit any wrong per se, true enough.  But what if he is to have the awareness that evil is lurking around every turn of his own path and any minute he could easily find himself at a place just as low as (if not lower than) where the pair was, would he have spoken differently in singling out the evil in others and helping his community make sense of the senseless?

I will let you answer that question, write up a Shakespearean soliloquy for yourself.  For me, I would imagine there would be no "lowest low" kind of self-righteous talk if I am to articulate my own capacity to do evil.  I would imagine there would be grace and maybe even forgiveness in the mix.

When Jesus healed the paraplegic he said to him, "Son, I forgive your sins."  Now that's an entirely ridiculous statement if the paraplegic wasn't doing any wrong against Jesus personally, let alone able to trace the cause of his damned condition to the supposed "sins."

So what was Jesus trying to say?  And who was He saying to?  The paraplegic?  The Pharisees?  Everyone present there?  You and me here?

And is this what the church is saying about Jesus and about ourselves now?

I think we are almost ready for Good Friday.

Yours, Alex