"I'm from the Confidential Committee on Moral Abuses."

"... you are too prejudiced. You do not let your eyes see nor your ears hear, and that which is outside your daily life is not of account to you. Do you not think that there are things which you cannot understand, and yet which are; that some people see things that others cannot?" - Bram Stoker, Dracula

I was told something about a week ago that really didn't register in my mind right away, but over the course of this past week, it has settled into my mind and just lodged there. It has tied into two incidents I've read about this past week, so it has, at least in my mind, become relevant. This is a departure from my normal writing, so be warned.

During a telephone conversation late last week, someone related to me a comment that someone else made to them. I dismissed it at the time, but it has come back to haunt me. This week, I have seen two fellow bloggers, who I consider to be excellent writers, fall victim to the attitude that produced this comment. The comment was basically this (and I paraphrase):

"When someone does something that could be perceived as being wrong, they should be treated (or punished) as if they had done wrong, whether or not they actually did."

The basic problem here, which is the same basic problem that befell the two bloggers I mentioned, is that this is a case of someone imposing their own standards and perceptions on those around them. I shouldn't have been, but I was stunned to learn how widespread this attitude is, especially in my geographic area.

I feel the need to add a disclaimer here. First of all, as with anything else I write here, this will be an exploration of my own feelings and opinions. These feelings and opinions are right for me, but may not be right for anyone other than me. Also, this will contain some thoughts on the religious basis for this attitude. If you are uncomfortable with religious discussion, this may not be the post for you. You don't have to agree with me. I'm okay with that.

If you just read the paragraph above and you are still reading, then read it again. It would actually work as a good summary of my point. At risk of getting ahead of myself, I must say that the only person we are accountable to for our thoughts and actions is the person in the mirror. If you believe in a higher power, you also hold yourself to the standards inherent in your system of beliefs. The problem occurs when you impose your beliefs and standard on other and hold them accountable for not living up to your own personal code.

"Do not judge, and you will never be mistaken." - Jean Jacques Rousseau

One of the examples of this I encountered this week was a blogger who did not think it was appropriate for another blogger to participate in "viral marketing" of her blog. His opinions are, of course, valid for him. Then, he began to cross the line into insulting the other blogger, including criticizing her writing in vague terms simply because he objected to the methods by which her blog was promoted. Did she do anything wrong? By his standards, then yes, she did. But whose standards define wrongdoing?

The other example was a person who disagreed with another about what purpose blogging should serve. This second person tackled serious and sometimes troubling life issues in her blog, while the first person was of the opinion that blogs should be for entertainment only. Once again, both of these stances are perfectly reasonable and appropriate. When the first blogger again crossed the line into personal insult and then stooped to insulting another blogger who took up the issue on his blog, the magnitude of this problem increased.

What right do we have to insult our fellow bloggers because we disagree with their writing style, the topics about which they write, or the ways in which they market their blogs? What right do we have to impose our values and standards on our fellow residents of this wonderful community and judge them? The simple fact is that when we judge others by standards which we hold, but which they do not necessarily hold, we will always find them wanting.

"If you are pained by external things, it is not they that disturb you, but your own judgment of them. And it is in your power to wipe out that judgment now." - Marcus Aurelius

One of the sentiments that I hear often, both online, and from people I know locally, is the disillusionment with "organized religion." Now I consider myself a Christian, albeit one with slightly different beliefs than many, if not most other members of "my" faith, especially those that reside in my extended geographic area. You see, the region in which I live is filled with people who practice an extremely legalistic version of Christianity. These people live by holding everyone with whom they interact to their own standards and values. They tend to view themselves, as I've mentioned previously, as the world's police force. These people use this scorched earth policy to cut down everything in their path that does not adhere to their personal system of values.

Today, while I was doing some research (yes, I'm one of those strange writers who actually enjoys research and attempts to do it as thoroughly as possible), I came across the single Biblical verse which seems to engender this attitude more than anything else.

"Abstain from all appearance of evil." - 1 Thessalonians 5:22 (KJV)

It seems to be such a short, simple verse. It is anything but that. This verse has led to much prejudice, anger, hurt, hatred, and condemnation. First of all, who is the judge of what "appears" to be evil? Almost everything that we do in our daily lives has the potential to appear evil to someone.

"It is hard to imagine anything that doesn't appear evil to someone! Worshipping God on the first day of the week appears to be evil to the Seventh Day Adventists. Referring to Jesus Christ of Nazareth as the Messiah appears to be evil to the Jews... disregard for the Pope appears to be evil to Catholics. Saluting the flag appears to be evil to Jehovah's Witnesses." - David Padfield, The Appearance of Evil

This sets an impossible standard of behavior for every person except the person who is serving as judge. By this standard, the very progenitor of the Christian religion, Jesus himself, would be guilty of violating this standard at nearly every turn for associating with prostitutes and tax collectors, for violating the sanctity of the temple and the sabbath, etc. This brings us back to the original statement. If every person were to be judged by the standard that if they did something that appeared to someone else to be "wrong" then our prisons would be full and our streets would be empty. We would all be tried, found guilty of "appearing to do wrong" and sentenced. What basis is this for fair justice?

"In this sense, "the appearance of evil" talks about evil that has not happened or is not really evil at all but only seems evil in someone’s eyes! It feeds suspicion. It feeds all the darkness inside us that loves to judge people. It accuses brothers and sisters in the Lord that have done nothing wrong but create an appearance of evil in someone else's eyes! It destroys fellowship and trust. It fosters gossip and talking behind someone's back. It serves to create discord in community and undermines the love that should mark Christians fellowship, the very things that Paul was trying to avoid in his exhortations in 1 Thessalonians!" - Hans Deventer and Dennis R. Bratcher, The "Appearance" of Evil

I stumbled onto the intelligent and well-written blog of young journalist Tia Lynn Lecorchick while researching this. Her take on this phenomenon echoes my thoughts on the subject. If you search the world for wrongdoing and evil, you will find it.

"Eyes viewing life through the lens of perversion will undoubtedly pervert everything and anything. People who look for evil everywhere, find it, whether it exists or not. There are small pockets of Christians (the perverted pure) that taint nearly every activity, situation, scenario, and object." - Tia Lynn Lecorchick

To add to the confusion, the verse in question seems to be a mistranslation of the Greek source. I'm not sure if Epi can shed any light on this subject, but the Greek root that was translated for the King James Version of the Bible is eidos. Theologians seem to indicate that eidos is never used to signify appearance in this context. The same verse in Greek (transliterated here) is: "apo pantos eidous ponèrou apechesthe." According to scholars, this form of eidos seems to indicate more a function of form than of appearance. The verse is seemingly more correctly translated in the New Revised Standard Version as: "Abstain from every form of evil." While the definition of "evil" is still up to the individual, the responsibility, or compulsion, to judge what "appears to be evil" has been removed. Thus, "evil" can now be determined by the person engaging in the behavior (or the local authorities).

"Do not quench the Spirit,
do not despise prophesying,
but test everything; hold fast what is good,
abstain from every form of evil."
- 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 (NRSV)

Further, this verse is often taken out of the context in which it was intended (as are so many things when it suits our needs). What Paul seems to be saying is that we shouldn't deny people of their gifts, but we should question everything and examine it for ourselves. Then, when we have questioned our beliefs sufficiently, we should hold on to what is good, and put away that which is evil. Wait... it says that we should think for ourselves and not judge others? It certainly appears that way, which is almost contradictory to the most common usage of this verse.

"Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this-- not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way." - Romans 14:13 (NASB)

Now all of that seems to be common sense, right? I was thinking, as I did my research and considered what I had found, that this evidence was indisputable. I was wrong. I found several authors who firmly support the interpretation of this verse that led to this post. Now, as I said, these people are entitled to their own opinion. It is not my place to deprive them of that. I will include some thoughts from the dissenters here as well, but I will provide some objective commentary.

"So, in summary, do not dabble with questionable beliefs. Do not even consider them! Avoid them at all costs. "Stick to the trunk of the tree," as we have said many times in the past. Do not skitter out along the branches where only squirrels can safely go. If we hang from a twig, we will find ourselves fallen to the ground—not even on the tree any more.

Another way that we could put it is stay away from the edge of the cliff. If we get too close to the cliff, we might fall off. If there is an earthquake, it will shake us off! Some things are out of our control. If we are at the edge of the cliff and something big happens, we might not have a handhold. We would tumble over the edge and be lost. The smart thing is to stay as close to the side of the mountain as we can, hang on for dear life, and never let go. As much as lies within us, we should not even think about evil. Stay away from it. Avoid it.

Paul says to avoid even the appearance of evil. That is how far we are supposed to stay away from it. Not just if we are doing evil or thinking evil, but even if somebody might come along and think that what we are doing is evil."

- Richard T. Ritenbaugh, "Avoiding the Appearance of Evil" (from Forerunner Commentary)

Ritenbaugh advises us to cling to the side of the mountain with all of our strength and never question our beliefs, because if we do, someone else might have a problem with it. Another writer who agrees is J.M. Farro in his Appearance of Evil.

“In avoiding the appearance of evil, I am not sure but I have sometimes unnecessarily deprived myself and others of innocent enjoyments.” - Rutherford B. Hayes

Now, I gave you fair warning that a deep discussion about religion was ahead. I'm fairly sure that little if any of these issues were consciously involved in the blogging dispute that I mentioned earlier. It is just this emerging attitude in our society that we have some right to determine what behaviors and beliefs are correct and suitable for others and that we have the right to attempt to enforce our feelings regarding what is right and appropriate for others. We are responsible for ourselves. We should not attempt to regulate our world to match our system of beliefs. If you are offended by something, or disagree with something, then don't expose yourself to it. If you think someone is behaving in a way that you don't like, don't associate with that person anymore, or at least let them know that you feel that way and don't hang around when they engage in the behavior of which you don't approve. It's that simple.

"When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself." - Wayne Dyer

Believing in some code or standard of behavior does not give anyone the right to act as the world's police force. I know that when I do something that does not meet my own standards, I am my own worst critic. I don't need someone who thinks that they are superior to me to hold me to a code that may or may not be mine, and I definitely don't need to be held accountable or "punished" for failing to live up to that code. Yet, this attitude is one of the central reasons I left my job. These legalistic people were not in agreement that my methods of teaching were the best methods. They questioned the appropriateness of my passion for the job and my desire to improve the lives of my students. They questioned that students with greater needs were given more attention. Now, thankfully, I don't get paid to be sensitive to these people's feelings. I think that this legalistic atmosphere is sending society down a slippery slope. Take responsibility for your own actions and leave others to do the same.

“The more one judges, the less one loves.” - Honore de Balzac

My apologies for the rant and the theological investigation. If you're still reading, I assume you didn't mind that much. I took my title quote from the excellent and relevant movie, Blade Runner.

During my research, I did come across something that I found interesting and somewhat humorous. I was reading some denominational publications about things that appear to be evil when I came across a tract condemning the practice of blogging, except in the case of "professionals and specialists who use blogs to serve a proper and beneficial purpose." (Denee)

"Blogs being labeled as therapeutic is merely a shallow excuse. Some say illicit drugs are therapeutic—does that mean they should be used? Obviously not. In the end, blogging for personal expression is a waste of time." - Kevin D. Denee, Blogs and RCG Youth

I've always been a fan of personal expression; be it books, music, poetry, painting, sculpture, architecture, glass blowing, blogging, finger painting, whatever. As human beings, we have not a right, but rather an obligation to express ourselves in our own unique way. We all contribute our own threads to life's tapestry. We are free to choose any texture and color we wish, no matter what anyone tells us. Those naysayers and world police, after all, only have what power over us that we give them.

"The freedom we are looking for is the freedom to be ourselves, to express ourselves." - Don Miguel Ruiz, The Four Agreements