The "lesser of two evils", an anti-Biblical viewpoint

Much has been said of late about the desire to choose between the "lesser of two evils".  These two choices being discussed by many self-declared Christians are both acknowledged to be "evil" to one degree or another.  Which raises the question: Is it Biblical to choose between the lesser of two evils?  Why do I ask if it is Biblical?  Because this is the only standard by which we, as Christians, have been commanded to order our worldview.  Thus if something is anti-Biblical, it is by necessity anti-Christian.  A person may disagree with an assessment that both choices that are being considered are indeed "evil", but once that assessment has been made without self-interested excuses in the way, it is incumbent upon the Christian to refuse to choose either.  The lesser of two evils is still evil.  Nowhere in the Scriptures are we commanded, encouraged, or even permitted to choose evil.  God's Word to us is rather this, "Be holy, for I am holy."
The philosophy behind the "lesser of two evils" mentality is Pragmatism, otherwise known as Utilitarianism.  While this may be an exceedingly popular way of governing in the world today and throughout human history, the common usage of pragmatism in moral decision making in no way makes it Christian.
Let me offer some examples from recent American history, beginning with WWII, to illustrate decisions that were made with a "lesser of two evils" viewpoint.  Again, a person may disagree with one of these examples, thinking that in these difficult situations that it can be excused and not called an "evil", but the consequences of these actions weigh against that conclusion. (1) The appeasement of Hitler prior to WWII, putting off the confrontation until Germany was far stronger and making the Holocaust a possibility. (2) The alliance with Soviet Russia, and evil regime if ever there was one, during WWII, which led to 70 years of Communist domination of Eastern Europe. (3) The fire bombing of German and Japanese cities during WWII, which caused hundreds of thousands of non-combatant deaths and failed to shorten the war at great cost in material and lives on the Allied side. (4) The use of the atomic bomb on two cities to end WWII. (5) The failure to prosecute fully Nazi war crimes because those same Nazis were useful for the West in the Cold War. (6) Alliances made with brutal dictators all over Africa, Latin America, and Asia during the Cold War because they were anti-communist.  (7) Support of the Shah of Iran, leading to the revolution which set the groundwork for the anit-Western obsession of Islamic fundamentalism and the terrorism plaguing the world today. (8) Involvement in Vietnam to stop the "domino effect" of communist expansion. (9) Leaving Saddam Hussein in power in 1991, and then coming back twenty years later to remove him. (10) The U.S. government allowing and/or encouraging torture following 9/11.
The list could be longer, I could keep listing pragmatic decisions by world leaders throughout history, many of which led to more evil, not less.  These leaders may have thought that they had no choice, or that the choices before them were only evil, but such thinking will not stand up before a holy and just God's scrutiny.
For Christians, it is tempting to excuse immoral behavior by saying that the only choices available are bad ones, therefore we must choose one of them.  For all those who choose to embrace an evil choice, remember this, you will answer for all of your decisions in life, and the attitudes that led you to make those choices, while standing before Almighty God.  Far too often, Christians have embraced pragmatic morality in their pursuit of wealth, fame, and power, this has to stop.  It is time for the Church, for Christian organizations, and for individual Christians to disavow pragmatic morality.  We have been called to live holy and righteous lives, we will be judged for how we live, for we are Christ's ambassadors here on earth, our Savior never chose the "lesser of two evils".


Romans 3:8  Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!
- The context is about sinning so that God's holiness can be more clearly seen, yet Paul's emphatic reply should be warning enough against attempting to justify an evil choice on the hope that good will come of it.

Sermon Video: Resisting the Love of God - Luke 13:34-35

Much has been written, any many a debate and/or argument had, over the issue of how the will of God fits together with the freewill of humanity.  Is God entirely sovereign, and human choice simply an illusion, or has God chosen to allow human choices to truly matter?  In regards to salvation, in particular, what is the key factor, the call of God or the response of man?  Does it have to be an either/or question or can it be a both/and?
This is, of course, a complex topic, involving many Scripture passages, as well as the overall theme of God's Word, and one where you can find references in the Bible that seem to support both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.  In the end, we won't be able to "solve" this question in this life, but because it is one that the Scriptures dwell upon, so must we.
Here in Luke, Jesus laments the rebellion of Jerusalem and expresses his desire to protect them from themselves, "but you were not willing!"  Regardless of how the rebellion of man fits into your understanding of the issue of God's will and human freewill, the consequences of that rebellion are the same: desolation.  Without God, man is doomed, without redemption, our terminal spiritual sickness will indeed become spiritual death.  Our response, again regardless of how we view the issue, is the same, we must share the Gospel, we must do everything we can to show the Lost the love of Christ and their need for forgiveness.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Avoiding the fool's bargain

While working on my sermon for this week, I was reading Matthew Henry’s commentary on II Chronicles that was written in 1708.  The text tells of Levites who left their homes and land in the northern ten tribes of Israel and migrated south to Judah because their new king, Jeroboam, had replaced worship of the LORD with idolatry in order to keep his people from going to Jerusalem to worship.  Jeroboam’s political decision proved to be utterly disastrous as it started Israel down a road of moral decline that ended in the destruction of the kingdom in 722 at the hands of the Assyrians.  The Levites, seeing that they were no longer welcome, and that they could not continue to serve God as they had done, decided to leave the land that had been given to support them while they ministered.  It was a costly decision for them, one that took away a certain income and left them hoping for the best in a new land.  It was also clearly a wise and brave decision, to choose morality over money, a choice that continues to be put before God's people in our world today as it was when Matthew Henry commented on the decision of the Levites three hundred years ago.  In response to their choice, Henry wrote, “No secular advantages whatsoever should draw us thither, or detain us there, where we are in danger of making shipwreck of faith and good conscience.”  Whether that advantage is money, fame, or influence, it just isn’t worth it.  To risk your reputation, your honor, and your faith in God for such things will always be a fool’s bargain.  

"All Christianity concentrates on the man at the crossroads" G.K. Chesteron

In his book, Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton explains the difference between Eastern philosophy/religion and Western philosophy/Christianity by focusing on fatalism versus free will.  To those who believe in pantheism ("all is God") or panentheism ("all is in God"), "existence is a science or a plan, which must end up a certain way." (p. 128)  After all, without separation between God and man, what use is there in trying to change anything, what hope is there in reform?  Thus the Buddhist ends up denying existence and seeking to extinguish it rather than trying to change it.  Christianity (and by with it Western philosophy) views life differently, "to a Christian existence is a story, which may end up in any way."  Thus the focus upon the crossroads, it matters a great deal which road a man takes in life because God has created man to have life and being of his own, to be able to choose to not do what God wants, and to be able to choose to love God.  Without freewill, and you can't have freewill without a transcendent (separate) God, what's the purpose of anyone's life?
This may seem like an area of interest only to philosophy or comparative religion students, but in reality, our attitudes about our place in this world and our relation to God have profound effects upon how seriously we take our personal responsibility for the choices we make.  With every horrific act of violence reported on TV due to the latest shooting or suicide bombing, people want more and more to believe that evil is something abnormal in the human brain.  It is only the "crazy" people who do such things we tell ourselves as we search for what went wrong in someone's life to turn them into such a madman.  Evil is choice, the vast majority of evil in our world is the result of the mundane choices to choose evil or good on the part of ordinary people.
Christianity offers an alternative road.  Jesus stands at the crossroad, holding up a sign that says, "I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)  Will people pass him by, laughing at the guy who hasn't realized yet that life is meaningless?  Will they stop, look to Jesus, and allow him to lead them down a new path?  It makes all the difference in the world which path we take.  You see, "all of Christianity concentrates on the man at the crossroads."