Preface

Plowing the Field

Questions aren't necessarily bad.  As a matter of fact, without the quest to discover, the curiosity to uncover and pursue, life could scarcely find fulfillment.  It isn't that we ask no questions, but that we discover the right questions to ask.  If any avenue of inquiry is worthy of questions, then by all means, why not religion?

First, may we allow ourself to indulge in any dark corner of our minds concerning the validity of religion?  Surely everyone of us has certain conflicts or passions which tend to dispute religion at some juncture.  Therefore, before we can easily discover the reality and abiding hope of a particular religion, it may well be advantageous to plow the ground, to turn up the soil that preparation may be forged to understand what THE TRUE RELIGION actually is.  This is to say assuredly that apologetics plays an invaluable role.

Let us consider these questions:

• If there is truth to be known, how can we know it?
• If there is a God in Whom truth is centered and truth reflects His character and essence, how can we know Him? 
• What is the duty of humanity?  Can any person discover God through intellect and tools of intelligence (observation, logic, reasoning, testing, etc.)?
• How do we gain understanding with respect to those enigmas which appear to defy the existence of God:  Presence of evil, pain, suffering, death, loss, loneliness, etc.?

Certainly, anyone would be remiss to suggest that the struggle with such questions constitutes a breach of respect for the sacred.  The Psalms echo with replete inquiries reflecting such concerns.  Arise, O Lord, in Your anger,  Lift Yourself up because of the rage of my enemies... (Psalm 7:6).  The book of Job also stands as a classic search with keen disturbance regarding evil and plights of the dedicated soul.  On the other hand, the one who persists in his quest to see the light does not walk the threatening darkness alone.  He who loves truth will sooner or later reach that disposition where darkness dissipates.

However, we need to make a necessary distinction, for the claim within ourselves that we really pursue truth may arise from impure motivations and clouded perceptions.  The reference to truth within this context must not be confused with the multicultural expressions and mixture of human frailties attached to the definition.  Ultimately, the truth with which we seek to deal here goes far deeper and extensively beyond faulty perceptions than the flimsy references exuding from a fallen human nature.  Hence, truly to pursue the truth rises from an uncompromising and unmitigated honesty that rarely, if ever, finds demonstration within the scope of humanity.  Only one Man has ever laid claim to such honesty with unprecedented authority, and those of us who have encountered Him understand why!  Therefore, as we speak of those who love the truth and pursue it in the context of our own world at large, such status must of necessity be considered relative to the ultimate expression demonstrated in that one Man.

Relevance

May we hone our sensitivities in the search to uncover truth wherever truth lies.  Allow us to open with the following brief story, which, we believe, will afford the basis for our journey:  This brief story illustrates the relevance of truth surging from the abyss of human desperation. Following this account we will zero in on some provocative questions.

In a war-torn and poverty-stricken country a celebrity fought to restrain the tears at seeing people all along the street obviously starving. She found herself especially disturbed to see a little girl tugging at her dress while her watery eyes looked up at her in a desperate plea.

"Please, Miss," she spoke in broken English, "do you have some food?"

The celebrity gazed at the starving little girl and could not bring herself to speak for a moment, but she struggled to swallow the lump in her throat and managed to whisper, "I will take you to get something to eat."

"Please to thank you," the little girl responded, "but could I take the food with me?"

"Oh, it's all right, honey," the celebrity assured, "I'd be pleased to have you eat with me."

"Oh, Miss," the little girl cried, "you don't understand. The food is not for me. It's for my little three-year-old brother who is now too weak to walk. You see, he is all I have left and I am trying to keep him from dying."                                                              --Unknown Source

It is said that stripping from life all that embellish and excite life with genuine hope leaves the very core of the character, the distinct foundation upon which all other addenda attach.  If the character reflects purity, the attachments do not determine the course.

Question:  Since this little girl obviously faltered from malnutrition herself, did she not embrace a concern for something she perceived to be greater than herself?  Was she not willing to sacrifice herself for that only little brother she had?  Of course, the story revealed the answers to these probing questions to be in the affirmative. 

If this is indeed the case, what is the truth for this little girl?  Facts may easily be repeated in a detached, almost cynical, fashion, but when life and all the elements connect in a series of events, as with this story, facts give way to the deeper, underlying reality which unquestionably reveals the dimensions of purpose and direction.  Indeed, there always remains the other than awareness that life can never be divorced from that greater power and underlying sustenance inherent within the natural and supernatural disposition of ultimate reality. 

Having thus made this declaration without equivocation, we must readily concede that not everyone rushes to espouse this perspective, but the rejection of the very existence of truth can only lead to a contradiction impregnated with ultimate meaninglessness.  Consider this:

The Barbs of Relativism:  If ultimately there can be no such thing as genuine truth, is it the truth that there is no truth, and if such a statement is true, does not that absolutely contradict the statement itself?  Further, a statement cannot be entirely true and entirely false both at the same time!  Such defies logic. 

Moreover, if there can be no absolute truth and ultimately meaninglessness will be everyone's destiny, what point is there to make such a statement that there is no absoloute truth, since there can be no sense or benefit derived from employing such a statement if one believes that nothing really makes sense anyway.  The very statement contradicts the perspective embraced.

But one may scramble to his feet with what he perceives to be full gear, howling like a wicked wind intent on demolishing every structure, to the very destruction of the foundation, "But since there can be no ultimate meaning, it is to our own credit to create meaning, even if such eventually vanishes into the abyss of meaninglessness!"

Yet, is such a search for a counterfeit meaning not corresponding to the demand for meaning and order?  The urge to order and arrange the world in which one treads says something, does it not?  What reality demands that something be created, unless instinctively there comes within one's world of awareness that which affords the very demand?  If one concludes that this urge to counterfeit meaning merely expedites survival in life, what indeed is that he seeks to counterfeit if real meaning cannot exist apart from the flimsy invention?  Can there exist a reality unattached to anything other than the mere invention of the person?  Such reasoning would in itself defy logic.  Something can not exist without external context that provides an attachment; at least, such a proposition can not be sustained in any research or laboratory.  What one suggests by such an unfounded conclusion that the counterfeit can exist apart from that it is counterfeiting emerges into the absurd.  The very existence of the counterfeit proves the existence of the genuine!

Theoretically, if one really believes in ultimate meaninglessness, he would say nothing since there could be no real point in saying anything whatsoever!  Otherwise, recognition that something moves him to acknowledge that there can be no ultimate truth defies the existence of the very something that moves him, for that would imply some meaning from beyond!

Meaning Compliant with Reality:  Well, be that as it may, getting back to the little girl, the events definitely showed movement with underlying meaning.  The girl could not have concerned herself with all the hypothetical and philosophical approaches springing from an ivory tower of mental gymnastics.  She found herself in the midstream of life, caring not to promote some detached and distorted avenue of escape.  She did not once reveal an inward look or a cautious step in which she refused to place herself at risk.  She couldn't care less for herself, for her life found meaning only as she could secure the one whom she loved deeply.  While her life proved anything but pleasant, she was driven by a force beyond herself, that of outgoing love,

Hence, genuine truth can be no illusion, no faint hope of the weak.  Life itself defies such a conclusion! 

These events in the story reveal through the expression in words, deeds, and demeanor a shift from the fact of events to the underlying meaning, that which motivates, the force that could not be restrained by the pressures and obstacles resisting the movement.  Simply, communication that goes deeper than words or action took place.  To wit, the celebrity presented both a risk and an opportunity with respect to the little girl's cry for help.  The little girl made herself expendable for the sake of her dying brother.  The brother became the overriding concern.  All else paled in importance by comparison.

Truth

Truth will always reflect a vastly greater dimension than the facts which provide expression pointing toward that truth (see "A Case in Point for Events that Shape Life" on the Focus on Events page for this website; click this link to go there).  Truth remains independent from all avenues and bias proposed to interpret it; yet, the mind should be absolutely open to all avenues of light which may uncover the reality independent from human bias and predispositions.  Dr. Phillip E. Johnson has published two great books that deserve attention:  Darwin on Trial and The Wedge of Truth, both highly recommended for the earnest and serious researcher, but especially The Wedge of Truth speaks to the basic mindset to espouse truth and divorce faulty presuppositions that force research into predetermined categories to support a popular bias among those who refuse to consider all evidence.  One of the unrelenting bias reflected in many theories and research by these so-called science based schools begins with the absolute assertion that there can be no supernatural intervention into the natural order of things, that the universe is its own reason for existence.  

For those who desire to follow apologetics closely, Ravi Zacharias can challenge our thinking as few others can.  Click on this link to discover doors that can unlock new dimensions for us.  Let us pursue the many recordings dealing with various aspects of the subject. 

Another valuable and relevant link addresses this very issue quite convincingly.  Click here to meet Josh McDowell and his expertise on the subject of truth.  He asks the questions:  Is it true because I believe it?  Or Do I believe it because it is true?  Perspective makes all the difference in the world! 

Moreover, truth not only pervades the totality of reality, but also demands the focus of all creation. Those who either ignore truth or turn aside with deliberate hostilities to embrace philosophies or distortions underpinning misperceptions of what genuine freedom means will sooner or later meet with serious consequences. Furthermore, society’s very survival depends, not only on recognition of this principle, but on a mindset reflecting this principle. Falsehood and deception have always been the hallmarks of deteriorating societies which embrace the notion of liberty to the exclusion of accountability and responsibility.

Unfortunately, societies of past history reveal a strong tendency to undergo a cyclic movement from breaking the bonds of tyranny or repression, to freedom, to irresponsible and arrogant abuse of freedom, to anarchy, back to dictatorship. No previous society has ever survived indefinitely. Dare we think that we will be the one exception?

Relativism in society:  Such advocates as these who embrace irresponsible and excessive freedoms include the proponents of relativism, an arbitrary declaration that absolute truth does not exist. Such mindset provides fertile ground for pluralism. Indeed, from this perspective each individual person must create his own truth, which is to say that each one determines for himself what individualized brand of truth he proposes to work for his own value system, Thus, whatever is considered right for others may not necessarily be right for him. No one has a right to judge others. That is to say, exclusivity must be abolished.

While this subject has been explored elsewhere within pages of this website, it might prove helpful to expand our scope beyond what has already been covered. Also, see Focus on Events page.

Allow us to illustrate the case in point. Everyone would agree on certain basic laws of physics. Take, for example, gravity. Should any person entertain foolish notions that since there can be no absolute truth, he may leap from the very top of a tall building without hesitation. After all, if he chooses to accept that which only meets his own notions or definitions of what is true for himself, he may conceivably conclude that he does not acknowledge gravity. Gravity will have no effect.

To be perfectly honest, we have really never witnessed masses who have such conviction in the absence of absolute truth as to display such disregard for any of the laws of physics. Those we have read about in the newspapers or have seen on television news who resort to plunging themselves from a tall structure deliberately seek to commit suicide and not to defy the laws of physic. Foolish indeed, everyone would allow. But wait. If physically we operate daily within the context of gravity without so much as a thought to its effect upon us, where do we draw the line when we move into principles and directions that remain just as real but somewhat less obvious, more subtle or even less tangible?

Do we not see?  While we function within the context of a circumference greater than ourselves, we do perceive ourselves to be a part of a larger world. Even the most aggressive terrorist in the world who deludes himself into believing he is the hub upon which all the universe turns moves from the present point toward goals. He may abuse, exploit, manipulate and control people toward his own illicit ends, but he nevertheless perceives himself as being a part of a larger picture. Else, he would have a tendency to retreat into a fantasy world divorced from any contact with people, events or things and suffer a substantial break with reality.

Hence, the context bears a cardinal pivotal point in establishing the presence of absolute truth!

In our age of technology and scientific breakthroughs, we have witnessed the awesome effects of movies. We can view in slow motion the speeding automobile in collision, enabling the human eye to see details which could not be observed in motion filmed by normal speed. In like manner, we can actually see how a bulb opens into a beautiful flower in film that has speeded up the motion. Does not this suggest relativism?

Indeed, everything in the whole universe can be perceived to be relative. But let us not halt at this level. We observe our world in real time. When we use film either to slow down or speed up the unfolding events, we do so to bring into real time to observe what takes place when the perception of time is either slowed down or speeded up. Therefore, both the slowed-down motion picture and the speeded-up motion picture place events into real time that gives a closer analysis to the details of the actual short or long time the events unfolded. Hence, the motion pictures are relevant to the real time frame in that they have been transformed into a useful tool to see things that otherwise are too fast or too slow to observe in real time length.

To state the matter a bit differently, we do not live our lives in a slowed-down version or a speeded-up version, but have the ability to create that tool which adds to our understanding of events that happen too fast or too slow for clear analysis. Consequently, the relative nature of the tool becomes useful on the absolute time frame upon which normal human activity takes place. This rightly suggests the question when relativism comes up, relative to what?

On the contextual level, even lower absolutes become relative to broader expansions that point to higher absolutes. The time-space continuum itself points to a far greater context.

Referred to as infinity, this absolute cannot be other than a nebulous concept and/or a mathematical conjecture. The finite world cannot house that which exceeds its own circumferences. Thus, we have absolutely no measuring rod or point of reference to indulge ourselves within realms totally beyond our finite world that we may even catch an inkling of such a reality.

Allow a simple illustration. If we desired to find a comprehensive definition of the ocean, we would exercise poor choice to ask a fish, even if it were possible for the fish to communicate. Why? Unlike humans who are able to understand the ocean in a certain measure by visiting the ocean, even to its depths, the fish has no point of reference beyond the ocean itself by which to develop comparisons and relationships to other realms beyond the ocean.

Thus, the ocean must be understood within the context of its broader relationships.

Those who would contend that we simply move the lines back and back beyond the knowable when we speak of an ultimate Being, God, would ask, But where did God come from?

This question betrays a flaw in thinking. Like the fish that does not find itself qualified to provide a comprehensive definition of the ocean, humanity seeks to capture the infinite within the context of the finite. Could we get beyond ourselves and our universe, we would find ourselves into dimensions which would become evident of a supernatural expression with a unique frame of reference, within which completeness and wholeness would leave no more question that God Himself is His only reason for existence. He is the ultimate glue, the binding reality Who holds the whole creation together (…He is before all things, and in Him all things consist—Colossians 1:17).

Yet, God, the ultimate reality, Who is Truth, allows the universe to degenerate! However, such degeneration does not come as a reflection of the constitution of purpose, meaning and direction God designed. What do we say with respect to this evil which has intruded into the very creation of the Creator God Himself? Yes, why does God allow evil at all?

While we intend to deal at some length with this aspect later, here is something which will crack the door a bit for us. Why do we love our own families, wives, children or friends? Can we say that we love them because we are required to do so? If we could possibly be forced to exercise love, would that external expression really be we ourselves? What we are seeking to communicate is this: Can love be expressed without a choice? If people loved us without a choice, we could never be absolutely sure whether those people would definitely love us if those very persons had a choice in the matter?

Of course, no law can make us love. Laws can demand that people act as though they loved a ruthless tyrant. In such cases, people are reduced to puppets for fear of torture and death. They reflect only the demands of the dictator.

What are we saying? God demands not love, but loves us unconditionally. Listen to Paul’s words: But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for all—Romans 5:8. Then, when we reciprocate God’s love through our own kindled love for Him, we do so freely, without losing our own identity.

Thus, God is no tyrant, forcing us to act as puppets in His hand. Love must come from the genuineness of the deepest recesses of our beings.

Of course, such a concept baffles the human mind.  Nevertheless, when we do have the liberty to choose, people often choose against God and in so doing, choose against the Truth, Who is God!  Genesis, chapters 1-3, records the creation and the fall of humanity through Adam and Eve.  Having a choice to continue in their unique and wonderful relationship with the Creator, they chose against the Creator by usurping the role of God Himself by becoming their own gods, to decide for themselves alone what is right or what is wrong, rather than obeying their Creator.

Herein, we are brought to the point of considering the very origin and nature of evil.

Parenthetically, no matter how eloquent the most informed and persuasive Christian apologist may wax, there forever remain inexplicable gaps which leave the human spirit still groping in the dark with respect to final and comprehensive resolution to all problems of evil in this world. That does not suggest that some evil cannot ever find resolution, but we may need to await the Creator’s intervention to render the evil forever harmless and give us a gratifying scope within the infinite dimensions to understand all the whys and wherefores of evil.

To reiterate, the origin of evil came through the fall because God gave humanity a choice. To some people, this statement lacks punch, but it does represent a logical strategy with respect to the absolute difference between God and His creation. Do we not see? The creation is not God, nor is God the creation. Should the ideological bases of such distortion be pursued seriously, evil would become an intricate and inseparable component of reality, revealing the pollution of deity, leaving the whole universe forever in the grips of evil, an inescapable conclusion based on the logical reasoning of this shadowy approach. Many eastern religions seek to resign to that philosophy through semantics, attributing to the good and bad a role to balance existence. Little wonder that the only escape from evil is eventually to reach absolute oblivion, loss of any and all consciousness. After all, life is to be escaped, from their perspective.

In recent times the shadow of eastern religious tenets has given birth to a myriad of religious sects in the United States, as well as other nations, sects such as the New Age movement, with the proclamation that the all is God. One must only scratch the surface of these so-called "new movements", which, ironically, have roots in the most ancient of religious expressions, to discover the embedded evil rising to a prominent role in the whole theological system.

Furthermore, let’s cut to the core. Let's look around and take a moment to compile some of the endless examples of the horror invading our consciousness. Little innocent children targeted for abusive action, sexually assaulted, kidnapped, tortured and murdered pervade the airways almost like expected news, the usual daily dose.

As if this in and of itself alone is not enough, let's go further and take a moment to assess the suffering of the elderly, carted off to inadequate nursing homes to be ignored and despised. Then, let's take note of homeless people scorned, some of which have encounter circumstances too great for them to cope with, sheltered under bridges or in boxes, an eye sore for those who frown upon what they call lazy, filthy bums.

Again, consider those who find themselves distressed because others have misjudged them or prejudged them. Add this to the court cases in which justice underwent contempt in favor of protecting the guilty at all cost, turning victimizers loose, often on a minute  technicality, to place society at high risk. On and on we could go, but is not the point well made?

Thus far we have presented the problem somewhat in perspective. We have suggested certain reasons for evil in our world, but now please bear with us. We seek to get to the very elementary reasons.

Consider what would happen if pain never entered the human experience. Survival would most certainly be in question, for pain, as well as much of our consciousness of other evils, crashes into our awareness with the necessary communication that something is wrong and demands attention. Pain communicates in a way that mere words could rarely achieve. If we experience severe pain in our backs, we curb our activity accordingly and seek to find out just what causes such a pain. The pain prods us to act such that we protect our bodies from further degeneration.

The same may be understood with respect to emotional disturbance or mental anguish. Communication takes place. Such problems compel us to seek help, to discover what it is and to correct the problem as much as is possible.

If we turn to the Scriptures, we learn in short order that many of human ills result from our rebellion against a righteous and holy God. Every action brings consequences, whether good or bad. In this manner, we experience the communication of God through judgment. God’s judgment cries out to us in no uncertain terms, No, this shall not be! Evil can never find permanent residence in God’s domain. Consider this admonition: Behold, all souls are Mine (God’s), the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine; the soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:4).

Apart from communication, reason and sense would be difficult to extract from suffering and loneliness or emotional and mental distress. But it really isn’t very difficult to place all these mishaps within the scope of communication.

Then why do innocent people suffer? In an indirect way, those victimized from all sorts of evil without having had themselves soiled by any kind of evil participation have also a communication that something needs to be changed. A bad politician needs to be voted out, where such can be done. An abusive father needs to be incarcerated or provided effective counseling.

A sad appendage to the scenarios herein encountered by many of us represents what may be understood as an inexcusable case. A sweet, innocent and caring little girl will never be able to play with other children, for from birth she has no legs or arms. What did she do to deserve such an estate?

It is not helpful to say to the parents that innocent people are victimized by the fall. While such a statement reflects reality, why must the innocent suffer? Why do people perish in floods, storms or earthquakes, people who had nothing to do with the natural order of things accounting for the disasters?

No answer could ever be forthcoming if we had hope in this life only, but still there is a communication here as well. Nature cannot be our fortress or security. Only the One Who created nature can be our security.

Moreover, God has never kept silent regarding all these evil avenues. He spoke in His Son, Jesus Christ, Who died on the Cross to become our judgment. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God—Romans 3:23. That is to say, sin and evil have in some measure tainted every person who has ever lived upon the face of the earth. When we call a person innocent, such as a little child, we speak in relative terms. Not a one of us escapes this judgment. Only one Person Who has ever set foot on earth has been completely, perfectly innocent. Yet, this one Person became our judgment so that we could be liberated form guilt. Ironically, He who knew no sin became our sin, to die that we might in turn live. He alone had every right to refuse to suffer, but love drove Him to the Cross.

The communication of the Cross shouts loud and clear. Death has been defeated! The fear of death or pain need no longer dictate our actions or reactions. We begin to find purpose and meaning in suffering and difficulties in life, for the light from beyond the universe reaches into the void of our beings with purpose and meaning. Yes, if need be, we, too, can go by way of our crosses, whatever unfolds in events. Love dictated the Cross. Our love dictates our sacrifice, also. Only through self-giving do we find genuine liberty and life.

Have problems with that? Indeed, some would lament that Christianity poses a more serious problem. Look at the battles of history, the Crusades, for example. Many atrocities have been committed and endorsed by religion, even the Christian religion.

How do we justify these grave misdeeds among those who proclaim the name of Christ?

Indeed, a point needs to be made. Almost as many different branches of religion under the banner of Christianity exist as eastern religions altogether.

Dr. Billy Graham underwent fire from the press once with respect to a scandal involving a certain widely popular minister. Dr. Graham at first declined to comment, but the press would not allow the matter to be evaded.

At that point, Dr. Graham came back with a question of his own, "You hear of airline tragedies through the news media, but what about the many thousands of other flights that take place successfully? Do you hear of them through the news media?"

Certainly, the worst of so-called Christian abuses make the headlines. Little is ever said of genuine Christians who sacrifice greatly to assist and aid those in distress throughout the world, many even laying their lives on the line for the sake of Christ.

Absolutely true, the genuine provides an opportunity for some to counterfeit! But does the counterfeit discredit the genuine?

For a moment, let us look at the atrocities throughout the history of our world perpetrated against humanity by avowed atheists. Many millions under Joseph Stalin met brutal death. Whole families fell prey to this godless tyrant. Wholesale suffering became the hallmark under the iron fist of this relentless sadist.

This fact, of course, cannot justify or excuse in anywise those counterfeit Christians who have also on a lesser scale committed acts of atrocity. But do the counterfeit Christians discredit the genuine Christians who faithfully follow the teachings of Christ? Unfortunately, in our society this dishonest practice of allowing the counterfeit to represent the mainspring of the Christian religion seems to be in vogue. True Christians must often endure the scandal reflecting this gross miscarriage of just dealings.

But Christianity functions within the context of a broader, deeper and dynamic dimension than the general public can perceive, except as the honest person responds to what light he does receive. For this reason, Christianity can not fit into the framework of the world where self-centeredness, self-serving goals and exploitation originates. Those who seek to live out the Christian life in the flow of that individualistic philosophy run at odds with the genuine Christian character. Christians who are dedicated cannot mold into the lesser restrictions of worldly values without sacrificing the unique character of genuine Christianity.

A modern-day parable illustrates this principle vividly. It is said that once long ago in the New York City area a small church struggled to sustain its membership. God sent an angel to encourage that church by giving to a select member of that church a beautiful divine truth. That truth glittered with such bright reflection that the church member desired to share it with everyone in the church. The first person the member met to share the beautiful truth was none other than the pastor himself.

The pastor brightened up and suggested to the member that he allow the pastor himself to share the truth with the congregation since he held that role as leader. After the pastor received the beautiful truth, he indeed joyfully shared that truth with the church. A discussion followed and everyone came to the conclusion that such a wonderful truth needed to be protected and kept for generations to come.

A committee appointed to study the matter by consent of the church later made a report. The church agreed with the committee that a very special monument be built to house this beautiful truth. Over a long period, an elaborate building was erected to house this beautiful truth.

Only one problem came up as people trailed by to keep viewing the divine truth in the context of its beautiful edifice. Indeed, people grew very worry in an effort to recall just what the divine truth had been. All seemed lost somehow in the effort to preserve the beautiful truth.

Does this parable speak to our modern age? Is God’s revelation to be hoarded and enjoyed by the church? How may it be protected and kept? Or should truth be shared with everyone? And how may it be shared?

This brings to mind another parable or allegory.

This parable (or allegory) illustrates a timeless truth: Materialism looms like a mirage promising refreshment and meaning to life, but in the end takes on the nature of quicksand, drawing the pursuer into its trap.

Three burley brothers, dedicated lumberjacks, proved worthy of recognition for their consistent hard work and productivity.

One day as Tom, Henry and Jake completed a phase of their task, they took a break to quench their thirst. Then, an amazing phenomenon exploded into their consciousness. A light brighter than the sun burst into the deep forest shadows, almost blinding them. Before they could even speak, there came a sound, at first like the roar of thunder, then modified into a gentle voice.

"Tom, Henry and Jake," the distinct words sounded with a kind of echo, "your dedication has been noticed by the king. As his messenger I bring to you the good news of the king’s approval. He wishes to reward you each. You will notice that you each have three sparkling diamonds in your own bag. These stones are very valuable. But bring them to the king, and he will reward you more than a hundred-fold of their value. Nevertheless, the king will allow you to keep the stones and use them for the lesser wealth, if you choose."

"But," Tom, the oldest brother questioned, "we have never been to the king’s castle. We would not know the way there."

"It’s very simple," declared the voice. "Just beyond those near bushes to the east, you will find a rock-paved pathway. Just continue on that pathway until it ends at the king’s castle."

With those words the light vanished and the voice ceased.

At first the brothers glared into the direction the light had shown. Then each moved toward his own bag strung across the branches of a small tree. Sure enough, the bags contained the sparkling brilliance of diamonds.

Since the brothers had no family to consider other than themselves, they decided to pack a few supplies and start down the path toward the king’s castle. The path indeed revealed new, unfamiliar landscapes as they journeyed day by day.

Around one curve in the path a vast, lush landscape greeted them. A large, beautiful dwelling drew them with magnetic invitation. Brilliant flowers hugged the building like an adornment and huge, old oak trees provided a cool umbrella in an inviting fashion. Bright green grass softened the steps like a carpet as the three brothers decided to ask about lodging for the coming night.

The old couple invited them in to spend the night. During the course of conversation Jake, the youngest brother, asked many questions about the property.

"We sure would like to sell this place," the old man finally said. "We are getting too old to care for all this property."

Jake opened his bag and removed the diamonds. He allowed the old couple to examine them. Then, Jake offered, "Since these diamonds are very valuable, I’ll give you two of them for this property. Then, I can live the rest of my life with what I receive for this last stone."

The elderly couple radiated with glee at the prospect of moving into the city where everything would be available to sustain them. Thus, they accepted the offer.

Tom and Henry expressed disappointment at the decision of their youngest brother.

"But guys," Jake bubbled, "this is the deal of a lifetime. Don’t you see? I don’t need to increase my wealth by wasting time to go to the king. This is everything I could want. I can stay here, get married and settle down to a life of ease. I’ll never have to swing an ax again."

And that’s exactly what Jake did after his brothers continued on their journey. He met the ideal lady and was soon married. They had three delightful children. They had a life of ease and comfort, of excitement and plenty, day after day, on and on.

"But something’s missing," thought Jake. "Only, I can’t put my finger on what it is. I have all that money can offer. Maybe I envy my brothers for becoming filthy richer than I could ever hope for. Maybe I should have gone with them. That must be it. I am comfortably rich, but maybe if I were even richer, I’d really be happy."

Year after year from that time forth, Jake grew more and more restless. His wife and children could no longer console him. Jake would continue through life without realizing what exactly was bothering him even though he suspected he might not be rich enough to bring real happiness.

The other brothers, Tom and Henry, on the other hand, continued down the path after leaving their brother Jake behind. Eventually, Tom and Henry came to a small village. Suddenly they came upon an old man sitting on the side of the road with a small basked. He had no legs and immediately was recognized as a beggar.

"Maybe we can help this guy a little when we return from the king," Henry said. "Then we’ll have a hundred times more and even better able to help a little."

But Tom questioned the beggar closely and found that he had a family dependent on what little he was able to bring home. Then, Tom turned to his brother, Henry, and said, "This man and his family need lots of help right now. I am going to give him one of my diamonds, which could provide all the help they will ever need. He does need help right now and may not make it till we can return this way."

"You do what you feel you have to," Henry conceded, "but I am going to bring all mine to the king. Then, I might be able to share a little."

In the course of the trip, Tom met another family in dire need and gave up his second diamond to the amazement of Henry, who scolded Tom a bit for his foolishness.

On down the path the two brothers met a lady under a tree beside the path. Her eyes were red and swollen from weeping. A young boy obviously sought to comfort the lady. Tom stopped and questioned the two and found that this mother had lost her husband, who was also the boy’s father. Tom also learned that they had lost their home and had eaten no food in a few days. They had been unable to make payments on their house. They were forced to give up their home and had no place to live and no way to eat, except rarely when they received a little food from others passing that way.

"Tom," Henry called, "remember you have only one diamond to present to the king."

Tom did not hesitate, but presented the diamond to the lady, though she was reluctant to accept. Tom urged her.

However, the lady learned the real story from Jake. In a vision the brothers had been promised a reward of more than a hundred-fold for the return of the diamonds to the king. Then, she knew that Tom would have nothing to give to the king. Thus, she would only take the diamond if Tom would allow Albert, her young son, to go on the journey with the two brothers to explain to the king in hopes that the king would reward Tom also in some way.

At first, Tom resisted, expressing willingness to discontinue his journey, but since the lady would only agree to accept the diamond if Tom would continue along with Albert, her son, Tom agreed.

Tom, Henry and Albert soon followed the path around a curve to spot the castle in the distance. Before long they all made their way through the gates and entered the grounds where they were escorted before the king.

First, Henry presented his three diamonds to the king. Then, to the shock of everyone, the king burst forth in a harsh tone, "Henry, you did not return the diamonds to me. You have clung to them to make them your own. You wanted more. That was your only motivation. You have not yet learned the lesson that only what you invest in others do you keep. Jake did not learn that nor did you. What you do receive is what the diamonds are now."

As Henry looked at the diamonds in his hand, they began turning to dust.

Immediately, the king turned toward Tom and commended, "Tom, you are the only one who truly brought the diamonds to me. Your compassion and love caused you to invest those precious stones to meet the needs of those you met. Those very people in need are my people whom I love, rule over and care for. Hence, your diamonds will gain in your life a wealth beyond the mere brilliance of the stones themselves. Your reward will be that which cannot be destroyed nor diminished in any way. Go in peace to dwell in the riches of my kingdom. You will be my son and heir to the throne."

Allow us to focus on this fantasy with a few observations relevant to real life situations.

The three brothers could represent three distinct approaches to life and life situations. What is our take on the differences in character and dispositions of each individual brother from the other brothers?

Of course, Tom, the oldest brother, had been around longer than the other brothers had. Do we suppose the added experience could have been the significant factor in the generosity and selflessness expressed by Tom? Do we find in real life that the oldest member of the family is always the kindest and most thoughtful of others? Or have we observed that in reality the youngest member of the family sometimes turns out to express concern and care for everyone else more than the other members of the family? How about the intermediate members of the family?

Does Jake appear to be a bit more impulsive that the others? Did he do wrong by spending the value of his diamonds to acquire a nice place to settle down? After all, did not the king specifically advise that each had a choice with respect to the diamonds and their use? How do we see the issue here? Would we have made the same decision as Jake if we had been in his shoes? Anyway, what could possibly be wrong in wanting the security of our own possessions for the duration of our lives?

But did Jake find that genuine security as events unfolded and time for reflection proved plentiful? Did his restlessness speak of his missing the boat, so to speak?

Then, consider Henry, the intermediate brother. What is our take on Henry? Did he turn out to be the truly faithful one in that he clung tenaciously to his diamonds, perhaps anticipating great rewards for his faithfulness when he would meet the king? How did Henry’s ideas of faithfulness conflict with his other brothers’ ideas?

What religious group in the New Testament did Henry’s attitude and disposition most closely resemble? After all, did Henry guard his possession for the purpose of securing his future ease of life on a much higher plateau than Jake did? He put all his stock in the future, did he not? Otherwise, why did he consider the plights of others to be beyond his interests?

Perhaps we could look at it in this light. Jake interpreted the king’s message as an avenue to embellish himself and find the easy life. He would not feel badly for giving up the greater rewards to find immediate gratification?  But, did the satisfaction endure?

On the other hand, Henry lived for the future. Perhaps he considered it a greater merit on his part that he protected the investment the king had given him. Perhaps he would delight to  receive the greatest reward with pride and a bit of arrogance in reaching forth his hand to show the king how faithful he had been.

Do we think the king himself saw through this attitude in Henry? What, do we suppose, the king saw in Tom that neither of the other brothers had? After all, Tom had no diamonds to present to the king; yet, the king declared Tom to be the only brother to return the diamonds? Do we suppose that the king envisioned a far greater context for right behavior than the brothers other than Tom were willing to see and acknowledge?

This perhaps represents the key to the whole parable. Jake and Henry revolved around self and self interests. Those two expressed the attitude a little differently, but each had himself always in mind.

Tom, on the other hand, functioned within the circumference of a much broader world. People in need were never outside the perimeters of Tom’s love and concern. He cared not to receive the wealth at the expense of those in need.

May we suggest that the broader context provided greater vision and purpose for Tom? His journey proved his true character, that of a caring and loving person even when he perceived that he was losing the diamonds as an opportunity to enhance himself.  Yet, he gave of them willingly and gladly to help others.

But allow us to look more closely at this subject of evil.  In reality, evil did not intrude into the created order within the context of the fall. The serpent, a reference to the former chief angel of heaven, Lucifer, tempted Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:1-6). Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12-15) earlier became overcome with his pride, that emphasis upon his own separate entity from God to the exclusion of his being the good creation of God. Therein he sought to usurp the throne of God. Of course, there could be no contest. Satan (Lucifer) was cast immediately from the very presence of God.

In analysis, the individual component of God’s creation, Lucifer, tried to reproduce himself universally to fill all being with his image to supplant God Himself. Thus, in tempting Adam and Eve following his fall, he sought to destroy God’s purpose in creation. Thus, Satan will eternally be the cardinal foe of God, darkness opposed to light.

If we might interject a rather crude illustration, we may better glimpse the principle. The brakes of an automobile serves in the total scheme of the vehicle’s functioning. Just suppose the brakes could say, "I’m going to reproduce myself to replace all other components of this vehicle!" Ridiculous? Quite true. The vehicle could not function.

We must conclude, in like manner, that on a higher and far more sophisticated level, existence would have been doomed if by an impossible event Lucifer could have succeeded in displacing God. Hence, as God remains forever pure, unadulterated goodness, holiness, righteousness, etc., forever and forever, Satan remains always His counterpart—unmitigated evil, darkness, deception, egocentricity, etc.

Furthermore, in our existence within the scope of a world of polarity, good and evil, the opposites will exist and wield a powerful influence for either good or evil.  Therefore, we must become sensitive to the presence and pitfalls of evil such that good may prevail through truth. 

As a matter of fact, evil is no stranger to any one of us.  Within this web page we have already dealt with the origin and nature of evil.  But allow us to reiterate from a different avenue.  Allow us to focus on evil from this slightly different perspective, evil's very nature and disposition. While we have indeed given attention to the subject of evil as it has touched upon various issues as a recognized associated influence, we are compelled to sort out the real presence and scope of evil that we may come to grips with this detrimental influence upon us all.