Kony 2012 - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

I must confess – I really don’t have “good, bad, and ugly” to write about, but I thought the title might get a few more people to read this. My motives are not pure! Maybe that’s the ugly part. Let me say up front – this is not an evaluation of the Kony2012 campaign (but please, don't stop reading!). Instead, I want to reflect on some ideas prompted in my thinking by the campaign.

First, we live in a very messy world. A world largely ruled by unbelievers. A world with many evil people. A world that will not experience full healing until the return of Jesus. Kony is but one man in a long list of cruel men in Africa who have ruled or created havoc across the continent (think of people like Idi Amin, Muammar Gaddafi, Robert Mugabe, Félicien Kabuga).[1] In fact, Kony may not even be the worst figure in recent African history![2] In saying this, I am not denying the horrors that have occurred at the hands of Kony and his people.  Abducting 66,000 children since 1986, and committing who-knows-what horrors certainly qualifies him as heinous and worthy of justice (although I must admit, I’m a little uneasy about what “justice” at the hands of a Ugandan and/or Congolese army looks like). However, we must not think the battle is done should Kony be eliminated. He is only one of many problems we must face.

Second, the makers of the Kony 2012 video make two statements (well more than two, but only two that I’ll mention) about Kony worth noting: “Nobody knows him”, and he’s “not important enough” to garner U.S. attention. The first statement is generally true (I’ll come back to the second later) – few people knew about Kony. But that is likely true of the vast majority of “international villains”. Of the four names I listed above, you probably knew the first two, fewer of you knew the third, and I suspect very few knew the fourth! (By the way, Kabuga is “accused of bankrolling the Rwandan genocide, inciting bloodshed through his radio station and even supplying the machetes and hoes used in the massacres… of more than 800,000 Rwandan men, women and children in 100 days.”[3]) I decided to look up a “World’s Most Wanted List”, a list once headed by Osama bin Laden. Not surprisingly, the internet provided several such lists; the most recent that I read listed Kony as number seven, Kabuga as number six[4]. I knew only one of the remaining eight names, and that is only because of his association with bin Laden. So, saying that most people did not know about Kony is true, but that should not surprise anyone, nor should it necessarily serve as an indictment against anyone. Sadly, we live in a world with too many bad-actors to keep up with them all.

Third, how rapidly the video went “viral” demonstrates how easily we can stir passion about an issue. But, passion must be balanced with knowledge. I am reminded of how often things get spread that, upon some investigation, turn out to be fraudulent, out-of-date, or incorrect on some level. In fact, “Snopes.com” and other websites exist to help us discover the “real”, the “false” and the “partially true”.  So, we should absolutely stir and act on passion, but we must do our homework first. Check the information before passing it on. Make sure as best you can that it is solid and current. For example, where is Kony now – Uganda or someplace else, as best as we can determine? Is “International Children” a solid agency? Whether they are or not does not change my point here that we should check them out, as we should any agency we don’t know. I am willing to bet that the vast majority of people who passed the video on knew little or nothing about them.

Fourth, I heard many respond to critics of the project with the sentiment “doing something is better than doing nothing”. Sadly, that is not always the case! For example, giving money to a need is sometimes helpful, but sometimes counterproductive. Simply giving money away may develop a sense of entitlement in the recipient and may not really solve the core problem (see, “Welfare System, United States”).  I am not saying we should not give money to causes, but we need to give money, training, equipment because it helps, not just because it makes us feel better to do “something.” Doing a “right” something is the key. True compassionate care focuses on the needs of others,

Fifth, the campaign should make us evaluate how we expend our energy and resources. I should be generous with my time, money, and talents, but I’m limited in what I can do. The world has far more needs than any one person or any one ministry can address. How do I decide what to address, what is “most” important? What is most important: Justice against Kony? Or against Kabuga? Or against the abortion doctor down the street who takes who-knows-how-many lives? Or against the Mexican drug cartels just across the border? Or compassion for the homeless man in the shelter? Or mercy for the remote village that desperately needs a water well? There is no right or wrong answer – all these needs, and more, are important. How you prioritize them shows something about the passion God has given you. And remember to be gracious to those whose priorities and passion are different in kind or intensity than yours!

Sixth, the video forces us to think about when America as a nation should insert herself into the affairs of another country. The Kony video asserted Kony “wasn’t important enough” to garner U.S. attention. I’m not sure that is a fair statement. Fundamentally, should the U.S. actively pursue every evil actor in the world? Opinions about when the government should get involved run from never getting involved outside of the United States to getting involved on every front. Most of us lie someplace between those extremes, and we won’t always agree. I suspect that some of the same people who say we should help pursue Kony are the same people who argue we should not have done xxxx (you fill in the blank).  

I hope Kony is brought to justice. I hope the campaign challenges us to think “outside the box”. Whether or not we agree with it individually, I hope it forces us to carefully think about our own convictions. And I hope each of us acts upon the convictions we hold, for the glory of God.

---

    [1] I’m not singling out Africa, per se. I mention it simply because it is Kony’s turf. Obviously, countries on other continents have faced (or are facing) the same sort of cruelties!

     [2] For more on recent African history, read Martin Meredithe, The Fate of Africa: A History of Fifty Years of Independence (New York: Public Affairs,Inc.,2005)

     [3] See footnote four below

     [4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/04/the-worlds-most-wanted-list. Accessed March 26, 2012

Justice for Caylee?

Casey Anthony was found “not guilty” of murdering her child.(For those outside the United States, this was a highly publicized trial of a mother accused of murdering her two-year old daughter, Caylee).

As soon as the verdict was announced, Facebook buzzed with opinions. Most of the comments I read reflected amazement that she had been acquitted. Some posted comments about “no justice for Caylee”.

I did not watch all the trial, and I really don’t know if the mother is guilty or not. I have an opinion, but I’ll keep it to myself. So what happened?

(1)    Keep in mind “not guilty” does not necessarily mean “innocent”.

(2)    Within our judicial system, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

(3)    A jury decided she was not guilty. Not the state, not the judge, not the judicial system, not the press (well, the press didn’t get to officially decide). A jury of twelve regular people, like you and me, made the decision.

(4)    For the jury to find a defendant guilty, the prosecution must convince the jury “beyond a reasonable doubt” that she is guilty.

(5)    The jury, apparently, was not convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In fact, a Reuters news story stated that “State Attorney Lawson Lamar praised prosecutors' efforts and conceded that their circumstantial case was not enough to remove reasonable doubt for jurors.” Lamar added, "This is a dry-bones case. Very, very difficult to prove." One report claimed the problem was lack of convincing evidence, not superlative legal work by the defense. Regardless of the reason, the jury wasn’t convinced. And since we were not in the deliberation room, we don’t know why, exactly, they were not convinced.

So, where does “justice” fit into this scenario?

Some cases are messy. We want justice for the victim; we want the guilty party convicted. But, even if we think someone is guilty, even if the jury’s opinion is that the defendant is guilty, if the jurors aren’t convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt,” justice cannot allow them to say “guilty.” Justice must also protect the accused. And so sometimes we’re left frustrated. (I have no idea in this case what the jury thought. I’m just making the point that justice requires a higher standard than opinion).

Our system isn't perfect. Perfect justice hasn’t happened in Caylee’s situation. The guilty party is free, whether the mother actually did it, or someone else did it (and I'm not saying who is to blame for this). Sometimes justice doesn’t happen in this world. But I am grateful we have a perfectly righteous judge who will eventually sort everything out. He knows the truth in this case.

Personally, I am grateful God doesn’t always deal with us on the basis of justice. In myself, I deserve judgment because by nature and practice, I am a sinner. But He has dealt graciously with me when He forgave me of every single sin (Col. 2:13). Jesus satisfied God’s righteous demands for sin when “He who knew no sin became sin for us” (2 Cor. 5:21). Justice: The price paid in full. Grace: Someone else paid it for us, and God freely gave eternal life when we believed in Jesus, the “someone” who satisfied God’s justice.

What the heck is hell?

Some words just don’t sit well in our culture. One is “sin”. Another is “hell”.

What is the destiny of those who do not believe in Jesus in this life? What is “everlasting punishment” (Matt. 25:46)? What the heck is hell?

Some, like Rob Bell, define “eternal” in terms of intensity of time, rather than duration. He seems to see hell as something temporal, something we experience in this life. He says hell “refers to the big, wide, terrible evil that comes from the secrets hidden deep within our hearts all the way to the massive, society-wide collapse and chaos that comes when we fail to live in God’s world God’s way.” (p. 93). He also implies those who die in unbelief will not necessarily remain in unbelief; God provides a “way out” (p. 109-110). He clearly doesn’t see hell as everlasting torment.

Some, like Edward Fudge, believe that the person who dies without believing in Jesus ceases to exist. Unquenchable fire cannot be extinguished and consumes until nothing is left. And “everlasting” simply means “the disintegration of the wicked will never be reversed” (Two Views of Hell, p. 33).
 
The more traditional view of hell sees it as conscious punishment that lasts forever.
 
Which is it? What the heck is hell?
 
To be honest, I find either of the first two views easier to accept than the traditional view. The thought that someone can suffer forever is difficult to swallow! But here’s where we must be careful. I cannot decide the truth of a doctrine based on my emotions or feelings. Never. I must always let the truth of God’s word provide the answer.
 
Here’s the end result, my answer to the question, based on my understanding of what the Bible says: The fate of those who have never believed in Jesus is unending, conscious torment away from God as the consequence of rejecting God’s solution in Jesus Christ that fully satisfies His holiness and perfectly displays His love. You can stop here, but I’d encourage you to work with me through the process to see how I came to my conclusion. The answer lies in carefully looking at the nitty-gritty details of the Scriptures.
 
Wherever we end up in our view of hell, we must begin with the character of God and the message of His Word. Many who do not buy the traditional view of hell have in their argument something to the effect of “God is love. He loves us too much to...” The first half of that statement is absolutely true. God is love, and I fear too many believers don’t understand the depths of that love. I applaud ministries that help believers understand and experience God’s love. The second half of the statement can become a problem if we decide what God can or cannot do.
 
God is love, but God is not only love. A cursory look through the Bible reveals dozens of “God is” statements. Some speak of His relationship to us, like “God is my helper” (Psalm 54:4), and some speak of His character, like “For the LORD is good” (Psalm 100:5). And, we find statements like “The LORD is the righteous one” (Exodus 9:27), “God is a righteous judge” (Psalm 7:11), and “holy is the LORD our God” (Psalm 99:9), or, even stronger, “Holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts.” (Isa. 6:3, Rev. 4:8). “Hebrew uses repetition to express superlatives or to indicate totality. Only here is a threefold repetition found.” (Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, p. 76).
 
God is love.
But God is also holy.

Because he is holy, He is absolutely pure and separated from any evil.

God can never act according to one attribute in a way that violates another attribute. God cannot act in love in a way that violates His holiness. Nor can He act in holiness in a way that violates His love. I know this principle applies to any combination of His attributes, but we find the answer of eternal destiny most intensely at the intersection of holiness and love. When we apply this to the question of the destiny of those who do not believe in Jesus, the solution God provides must satisfy His love, His holiness, and every other attribute of His. He cannot act contrary to Himself. So, where do love and holiness meet?

In the person of Jesus Christ.

In Him, God satisfies His holiness and His love. John 3:16 begins, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son.” On the cross, Jesus “bore our sins in His body … so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness” (1 Pet. 2:24a). God made Jesus, who was sinless, “sin on our behalf” (2 Cor. 5:21a).  Jesus is the propitiation (or, satisfaction toward God) for our sins (1 John 2:2). God showed His love by sending Jesus; Jesus completely satisfied God’s holiness by dying on the cross for our sin. So, Paul concludes, God is both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:26). So, we receive the benefits (justification, eternal life, forgiveness of sin, etc.) by faith alone in Jesus alone as John 3:16 concludes, “whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

So, we have two types of people in the world.

Those who have believed in Jesus for eternal life, and those who have not.

If we drop down a couple of verses in John 3, we discover the fate of those who have not believed in Jesus. In verse 18, we read “he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

The person who has not believed in Jesus has been judged already. A consequence of their unbelief.

 So, now, let’s look for the pieces that define this judgment.

Let’s start with Matthew 25:41: “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels’”. Whatever this “eternal fire” may be, we see its original purpose was for Satan and his fallen angels for their judgment. This judgment of the devil is carried out in Rev. 20:10, “And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone…”

That leads us to this word “eternal”. How long does the judgment last? The Greek term is aionios (αἰώνιος), which simply means “eternal”. One major Greek dictionary gives these three meanings: (1) without beginning, (2) without beginning or end, or (3) without end. We are left with no choice but to understand this fire as “without end”. In Matthew 25:46, Jesus contrasts eternal punishment and eternal life. The implication is clear: whatever duration “eternal life” covers, “eternal punishment” covers the same time. If eternal life in unending, so is eternal punishment.

Revelation uses different words to mark out the duration of this judgment. In Revelation 20:10, we are told the beast and the false prophet will be tormented “forever and ever” (τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων). Twelve times this phrase pops up in Revelation, including passages like Rev. 4:9 that says the one who sits on the throne (Jesus) lives forever and ever. See the connection? The time period in Rev. 20:10 is the same time period as Jesus’ “life expectancy” – it is unending!

Let’s assume I am correct that the duration of the punishment is unending. The next question is, does this mean, as Fudge believes, that the “disintegration of the wicked will never be reversed” or is the person conscious during this time? I think the Bible paints the picture that the person is conscious. Revelation 20:10 tells us the beast and the false prophet (both humans) are “tormented day and night forever and ever”. A very strange description indeed if they had ceased to exist. Plus, the timing of this description is intriguing. The beast and false prophet were cast into this lake a thousand years prior to this time when the devil joins them. It really doesn’t matter if you take the thousand years as a literal thousand years or as some undisclosed long period of time, these two are still experiencing torment long after entering the lake. These two did not cease to exist, and nothing indicates the experience of those who are later cast into the lake of fire will be anything different. (By the way, other passages support the idea that the unbelieving dead continue to exist consciously after death, but I want this to be a post, not a book!)

I can hear the cry now, “That’s not fair! Why should God punish forever someone who committed sin for a finite lifetime?” And that is a valid question. We have to go back to the character of God. That’s why we had to start with Him. If God is truly just and righteous, then the destiny He determines for the unbelieving dead must be just. He cannot act contrary to Himself. So, let’s assume I am correct in how I put the Scriptures together on this tough topic. I am convinced that our sense of “that’s not fair” comes from an inadequate view of the holiness of God and an inadequate view of the depth and scope of our sin. Isaiah got it when he had his vision of the throne room: “Then I said, ‘Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts’” (Isa. 6:5). I really believe if we understood the scope of our sin and the greatness of the one sinned against (God), we would grasp that the penalty fits the crime. I accept by faith in His perfect character that He is fully just in His dealing with the unbelieving dead.

Last but not least, I have heard people describe hell as the unbeliever’s “payment” for sin. I do not find this anywhere in Scripture. Humans are incapable of paying for sin (the price is too high)and Jesus already paid the price in full. We cannot pay for something already paid for! Thus the destiny of the unbelieving dead as the consequence of not believing in Jesus, the solution God provided to the issue. If they never believed in Jesus for eternal life, what options are left? In a debate with the Pharisees, Jesus made this telling statement: “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:58). The option left for the destiny of the unbeliever is to be cast into the lake of fire, a lake created not for mankind but for the devil and his angels.

So, pulling all this together, what the heck is hell? I understand the fate of those who have never believed in Jesus as unending, conscious torment away from God as the consequence of rejecting God’s solution in Jesus Christ that fully satisfies His holiness and perfectly displays His love. What a motivation this should be for us to share the gospel with a lost world!

I hear one more question. What about the person in deepest, darkest, downtown Dallas who has never heard the gospel?  That’s my next post…..