Functionally godless.

Work with me as I tease through my thoughts.

I just finished reading a chapter out of Richarld L. Rubenstein's "The Cunning of History: The Holocaust and the American Future." While there are about a million things in that book that I could talk about, a few pages out of his last chapter really caught my attention.

Prepare yourself for a long quote:

"When men and women reflect on the theological significance of Auschwitz, they tend to reduce the issue to the problem of theodicy. How, they ask, could the all-wise, all-powerful Lord of History have permitted so great an evil? Undoubtedly, the question of God and human evil is one of the most serious problems arising out of the Holocaust. However, there are other issues of more immediate consequence. To the best of my knowledge, no theologian has attempted to deal with the problems implicit in the fact that the Nazis probably committed no crime at Auschwitz. The natural temptation of theologians would be to assert the existence of either a natural or a God-ordained law binding upon all men and nations in terms of which the Holocaust can be judged. Unfortunately, even if it were possible to prove that such a law exists, it is difficult to see what practical difference that would make in the arena of contemporary politics.

Let us assume that such a law exists and that leaders of the major religions could agree on its contents. What would the penalties for violating it and the means whereby it could be enforced? In an earlier age, men and women genuinely stood in awe of the punitive wrath of divinity, but is this any longer true? Does not the Holocaust demonstrate that there are absolutely no limits to the degradation and assault the managers and technicians of violence can inflict upon men and women who lack the power of effective resistance? If there is a law that is devoid of all penalty when violated, does it have any functional significance in terms of human behavior? Is not a law which carries no penalties functionally equivalent to no law at all? Even if it could be demonstrated that it exists, can if not be safely ignored? We are sadly forced to conclude that we live in a world that is functionally godless and that human rights and dignity depend upon that power of one's community to grant of withhold them from its members" (90-91).


The earlier age that Rubenstein mentions very much so describes the Biblical ages. If you did not live according to the will of God, if you did not follow his laws concerning human rights then you were in danger of being punished by a wrathful God. God gave his people those rules because he knew that they would follow them if they were truly engaged in a relationship with him and the people knew that there would be consequences if they did not obey. It can be concluded that if God created laws essentially protecting human rights that human rights were being violated. The socially strong had no incentive to respect the rights of others if they were able to gain some good from violating the rights unless the strong were followers of God. If the only incentive to respect others comes from a fear of God, then it makes sense for Rubenstein to conclude that we are living in a functionally godless world. Every violation against another man that occurs strengthens Rubenstien's statement.

So what kind of implications are there when a God-fearing people live a godless world? We see the implications in every instance of religious persecution. In our modern world, Christians and other religious people cannot escape the secular world and as long as we remain in the strong, morally barren secular world, Christians can be expected to be persecuted. And the more separated the church and state become, the more danger we are in of national persecution.