Friday, October 11, 2013

Human beings essentially Good?


I'm convinced the false idea that man is essentially good is a huge underlying problem with our world today. Awesome Slice, Mr. McAllister!



On Human Nature

Although John Stuart Mill’s essay “On Liberty” was published in 1859, it continues to influence our thinking today. This is particularly true of the idea that human beings are essentially good. “Don’t tell me how to live!” essentially sums up Mill’s view of liberty. Yet in his essay, Mill not only tells us how we should live, but who we are! Human beings are essentially good, he declares, and his view of liberty hinges upon this idealistic perspective of human nature. Mill writes, “To say that one person’s desires and feelings are stronger and more various than those of another is merely to say that he has more of the raw material of human nature, and is therefore capable, perhaps of more evil, but certainly of more good.”

Many theologians and philosophers of Mill’s era were skeptical of the individual’s passions and one’s willingness to choose what is right over what is pleasurable. Furthermore, as historian Gertrude Himmelfarb observed, “[Mill] took for granted that those virtues that had already been acquired by means of religion, tradition, law, and all the other resources of civilization would continue to be valued and exercised.”

Today these structures of tradition and authority no longer hold sway in our culture, whereas the idea of the essential goodness of humanity has taken on a life of its own and is now imbedded in our modern psyche. Moreover, the assumption held in Mill’s day—that truth is knowable and should order our lives—is no longer believed by many, who instead would agree with the words of Nietzsche: “Truths are illusions of which one has forgotten that they are illusions; worn-out metaphors which have become powerless to affect the senses.”

On the contrary, the Scriptures witness specifically to the reality of sin and our need for God, and the experience of our world undeniably witnesses to the reality of darkness in our hearts. If this experience has not inspired a change in philosophy, perhaps it is because the illusion of human goodness brings us greater comfort. Yet, does it really? Do we not find it incomprehensible how one could abuse or torture a child? And do we really believe that given time and progress we will learn to love our neighbor as ourselves? Surely the horrors of the twentieth century alone have proven the idea of the essential goodness of human beings to be false.

Jesus himself said in Mark 10, “No one is good except God alone.” But just before declaring this, Jesus showed us how we may know the power to love and to do good—by coming to him in humility, as children aware of their need for a Savior. “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them,” he said, “for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth: anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.

Stuart McAllister is regional director for the Americas at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.

2 comments:

  1. Laura,

    If human beings are essentially evil, then God's creation is not good which contradicts what God says in Gen. 1:31 when He declares the goodness of His creation. If human beings are not essentially good, then sanctification is not possible. Most classic Wesleyan theologians argue that human beings are essentially good, but existentially evil. While this may sound like a minutia, I believe that the distinction has significant ramifications for Wesleyan theology.

    Grace and peace,

    Russ Frazier

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Russ, good to hear from you. Since I'm not a theologian and don't think in those terms, I suspect I used some "loaded terms" that didn't register as potential hot-buttons. :) Certainly, you made me think, and I'm open to being wrong, but here is where I was coming from. In the sense that John Stuart Mill calls man "good," I understand "good" to = man doesn't need God and he doesn't need an essential change of "heart" or "will." I certainly am not espousing the Calvinist idea that we are "totally depraved." Hope that helps you understand my point. I think it is an accurate depiction of our fallen humanity.

      Delete