Random crumbs falling from a TED talk

An interesting TED talk here on the psychology of evil, by Philip Zimbardo, leader of the notorious 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment.

His basic premise is that there are three contributive factors to the production of evil in people.

1. Disposition of the individual - are they a bad apple?
2. The situation - are the apples in a bad barrel?
3. The system - the legal, political, economic and cultural background that creates the situation.

It is, I think, excellent analysis.  The individuals WILL bring good and bad to a situation, the situation WILL provide a varying degree of temptation to act out negatively and the milieu of law, politics, economic and cultural factors WILL systemically produce certain types of those situations.

It also, it seems to me, is a perfect match for the biblical account of sin.

1. According to Scripture, sin is an individual, responsibility bearing choice.
2. The Bible also says that different situations bring about certain temptations to sin that other situations do not.  (Though, fascinatingly, God seems to use these for good!)
3. Sin gives rise to systemic sin within a population, often until it results in a tragedy of such great magnitude that in God's common grace some of the errors of the age are realised.  Then new ones are formed...

Some fascinating quotes:

Starting with the idea that God created Lucifer, who then rebelled against God and 'became' the devil:

"Paradoxically, it was God who created hell as a place to store evil. He didn't do a good job of keeping it there though."

Some interesting angles there on the nature of the world into which God placed the garden and Adam and Eve.  Biblically, it sure wasn't a perfect world.  Adam and Eve, but particularly Adam, were charged with protecting that garden from evil and chaos, and even to extend the goodness of orderliness of the garden out into the world.

In regards to Abu Ghraib:

"So another report, an investigative report by General Fay, says the system is guilty."

But the question for me is, why do we blame the system?  That people act in certain ways in certain situations doesn't absolve a person of responsibility for actions.  That there is a rich complex of influences going on is worth recognising, but doesn't make the reality of individual responsibility a non-issue.

And this very interesting set of experimental conclusions: (I've added some bible verses in brackets afterwards, because I think there are some striking resemblances)

"So what are the seven social processes that grease the slippery slope of evil? 

Mindlessly taking the first small step (Psalm 1:1)

Dehumanization of others. (Disregard for Gen 9:6, or from another angle, Romans 2:1) 

De-individuation of Self. (Colossians 3:1 - be who you are!)  

Diffusion of personal responsibility.(Genesis 3) 

Blind obedience to authority. (Matthew 15:14 and Ephesians 4:14)  

Uncritical conformity to group norms. (Galatians 2:11-12)  

Passive tolerance to evil through inaction or indifference. (Genesis 3 - Adam, I'm looking at you.)"

From the Master's Apprentices to the Animals

This is the third post of a series on Genesis 1-3 which started here, with part 2 here.

Another of Doug Green's thoughts on humanity is that if we were, as is fairly commonly held, that dominion and mastery is at least part of the divine image which we are to fulfill, then the first domain of dominion ought to be ourselves.

That is, if we are made to be Masters of the Universe (TM) under Yhwh, little gods representing the Big God, then the primary arena for that rule to be expressed ought to be our own person.

This, says Doug, is one of the most obvious features that marks us off from the animals. The mark of true humanity is that we exercise appropriate dominion and control over ourselves. And so, after the fall, we end up being humans who are less than human because we do not exercise dominion over ourselves.

He cites the story of Esau as paradigm of fallen humanity. Note how many things present Esau as animal-like. His body was like a hairy garment. He inhabited the open fields. He was a hunter. In order to be like an animal, like Esau, Jacob covers himself in the skins of animals.

Thus, we should not be surprised that Esau lives by instinct. He sells his birthright to satisfy hunger. This is the nature of fallen humanity.

Interestingly, 'beastly' is also how Peter describes a certain set of false teachers, while the ultimate judgement on Nebuchadnezzar for his pride was to become like a beast. (More on 'loss of reason' as a product of the fall in another post)

This is beautiful because it gives a positively glorious perspective on the Christian ethic of self-denial and restraint. Western capitalist culture sees nothing in this ethic other than repression (or oppression?) of natural instincts, the curbing of true humanity. Our age can see no positive virtue in deciding, for example, not to have sex before marriage. Why suppress yourself? Why not be who you are?

Yet Scripture holds the exercising of self-control as a mark of true humanity. We are not utterly beholden to our instincts. Nor should we be. Being re-made in the image of God (back to true humanity) by Holy Spirit includes the fruit of self control! Our age is pretty up on asceticism being stupid, but not so much on unbridled self-expression being stupid.

I'm very glad that Jesus that he did not obey his instincts but was truly human, and set his face towards the cross.

Tonight I really feel like ...

I ought to have something inspired and inspiring to say. Some thought that plumbs just one depth of the human experience. (This is a lot harder to do when in a headlock from your wife. Much nicer though.)

You know, those times when you feel that the depths of your heart are in tune with the souls of those who have gone before, knowing just what they've been through, and they're looking on, understanding just how it is for you. And it just feels like it's that kind of night when that thing should be communicated.

Do you ever get those nights?