So Much for the Divine Spark
March/April 2007 Editorial
by Elwood McQuaid
That was then and this is now.
Most
of us have had such sentiments thrown at us when we’ve lamented the
current state of affairs and extolled the virtues of the “good old
days.” Well, since the genocidal Saddam Hussein was snatched from among
us at the end of a rope, I’ve been giving the viewpoint some thought.
Is society ascending or descending? Are we moving forward or backward?
Several
decades ago two ideas surfaced that have become staples of what some
have coined the post-Christian era. The first notion wafted to us from
the minds of liberal theologians who, finding sin and depravity
decidedly discomforting, concluded that within every man and woman
there resides a divine spark that renders all people essentially “good
at heart.” All that is needed to fan the spark into a flame of virtue
and magnanimity is encouragement. And voilà! Natural goodness bursts to the surface.
Darwinian
evolutionists promoted the second notion: that through a process of
natural selection, everything evolves upward toward an eventual state
of functional perfection. All of this occurs outside the stultifying
strictures of biblical restraints and moral refinements.
So
within the halls of liberal seminaries, and then passed along to pew
sitters, was the prevailing conviction that “every day, in every way,
I’m getting better and better.” Such chest-thumping appraisals of the
human condition eventually morphed into the popular mantra, “I’m okay,
you’re okay.” Evolutionists kept pace by inventing formulas derived
from the tadpole-to-frog phenomenon and applying them to old bones to
“prove” the existence of an ever-evolving natural and social
environment.
Yet
the pestiferous question arises: Were the “good old days” better or
worse than today? According to liberal theologians and atheistic
evolutionists, the answer must be that the “better” is now and the best
is on the way.
Since
Jewish people recently celebrated the Feast of Esther (Purim), it may
contribute clarity to the Bible, history, and the evening news to read
the book of Esther and give some thought to the sentiment that “that
was then and this is now.”
The events recorded in Esther transpired in the fifth century b.c. in Persia, modern-day Iran.
During the reign of Persian King Ahasuerus, an aide to the
king—Haman—hatched a plot to exterminate the Jewish people in all of
the 127 provinces of an empire that spanned from India to ancient Ethiopia.
Haman’s
wrath against the Jews was precipitated by Mordecai, a Jewish man who
refused to bow before the egocentric, megalomanic politician. So Haman
wrangled a decree from the king, condemning to death “all the Jews,
both young and old, little children and women, in one day” (Est. 3:13).
His feigned justification for committing this colossal atrocity was
that Mordecai’s people were different from all the others; they did not
keep the king’s laws and, therefore, were desirably expendable.
But
God had providentially placed a Jewess, Esther, in the palace. Through
her, the plot was uncovered. Wicked Haman was hung on the gallows he
had prepared for Mordecai, and the Jewish people were given a holiday.
What
is striking about the story is that virtually every aspect of it is
currently taking place in the very land where the drama of Esther
occurred more than two millennia ago.
Because
he hates Israel and its Jewish people, the 21st-century Haman, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, almost daily vows to destroy the Jewish nation—every man,
woman, and child—in a single day and with the most devastating device
available: a nuclear weapon. Although penetrating the mind of a madman
is an insuperable challenge, we can deduce at least one of his motives:
Israel
and its 6 million Jews stand between Ahmadinejad and the throne of a
global caliphate that he envisions for himself. Like Mordecai of old, Israel will not bow before the Persian despot or surrender and accept servile dhimmi status under Islam.
There
are two things we must remember: (1) Despite what liberal
pseudotheologians and their evolutionist sidekicks claim, God is on His
throne, and His infallible Word is still relevant. (2) As with Saddam
Hussein, Haman had a noose awaiting him. What form Ahmadinejad’s noose
will take is as yet unknown. But of this we can be sure: Israel will not perish at his hand in a day. Israel has a future; her oppressors do not.
Haman was then. Ahmadinejad is now. And there is little difference between the two.
Progressive,
evolutionary, ever-upward theory turned into a secularist religion is
humbug. History is not on an interminable upward curve. Pure evil is
ever afoot on this planet. And rather than being good at heart, “the
imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen. 8:21).
So much for the divine spark.