Good and Bad

We are all pretty sure that we are clear on the concept of "good" and "bad." I'm personally pretty sure we aren't. And I do mean "we." Paul, quoting the Psalms, wrote, "All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:12). "No one does good"? "Not even one"??! Now, maybe Paul was speaking literally and maybe Paul was using hyperbole, but in either case the concept that "people are basically good" cannot fit into "No one does good, not even one." In any case, good at best is rare, not common. How can that be? We all know people who do good. We all know bad when we see it. We know Christians who do good and Christians who do bad and we know unbelievers that do good and unbelievers that do bad. This isn't confusing ... is it? This is why I conclude that we do not have a clear concept of "good" and "bad."

Part of the problem is that "good" and "bad" are relative terms. A "good man" and a "good dog" do not meet the same criteria. A "good pizza" is even farther out. In some cases "good" and "bad" are completely subjective. Is "good food" good because I like the way it tastes or because it is beneficial to my body? It all depends, doesn't it? Then there's the old problem of us not knowing at all. Take the story about a peasant farmer whose son broke his arm and it was bad, right? Maybe, but when the warlord came to the village the next day to take off all able-bodied boys to war, his son didn't go. Good, right? Same event; different evaluation, where the ultimate good wasn't known at the time and, frankly, might change again in the future.

So what was Jesus talking about when He talked about "So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit" (Matt 7:17)? I ask because we can see by now that we have a hard time with "good" and "bad." Now, I could give my view on what Jesus was talking about, but I'd like to start a little lower down -- more basic. If "good" and "bad" are relative, to what standard is Jesus referring here?

You see, we tend to orient good and bad around our own perceptions. Sometimes that's fine. It's okay if I liked that meal and someone else did not. It was good to me and bad to them and that's fine. But in the bigger issues like morality or even circumstances, whether it is good or bad is not up to us as individuals. It is not "What is good and bad to me?" but "What is good and bad to God?"

What kind of arrogance does it take to conclude that surely God perceives good and bad based on how I feel about it? It just isn't so. The only way to get that right is to ask God's perspective -- God's will -- and discover from that what the "Definition of Good" (God) thinks is good. I think we'd find that, by that criterion, very few do good and very few do what they do for the glory of God (God's idea of ultimate good). Our normal standard of "good" is "good to me" and that, generally speaking, is bad.