Evil Part II

There's this bible story that really makes me think, and raises many questions in my mind about evil.  Thing is, it's very graphic.  I think it's the most upsetting bible story I know.  I don't think they could put the events in it on Game of Thrones.  It's in Judges.  Here's how Wikipedia summarizes the plot:

The Battle of Gibeah is an episode in the Book of Judges. The battle was triggered by an incident in which a concubine belonging to a man from the Tribe of Levi was raped to death by members of the Tribe of Benjamin. The Levite had offered his concubine to the mob in place of himself (whom the mob originally sought to "be intimate with"), saying "bring out the man that came into your house, so that we may be intimate with him"^[1] and then locked the door for the night. In the morning the Levite found his dead concubine at the door, butchered her into twelve pieces, and sent the pieces throughout all the territory of Israel and Judah.

The outraged tribes of Israel sought justice, and asked for the miscreants to be delivered for judgement. The Benjamites refused, so the tribes then sought vengeance, and in the subsequent war, the members of Tribe of Benjamin were systematically killed, including women and children; when Benjamin was nearly 'extinguished', it was decided that the tribe should be allowed to survive, and all the men from another town, Jabesh Gilead, that had refused to take part in the punishment of the Tribe of Benjamin, were killed, so that their daughters could be wed to the surviving men of Benjamin.^[2] The first king of Israel, Saul, descended from these men. Due to this war, the Tribe of Benjamin was subsequently referred to as "the smallest of all the tribes."

 As I understand this story, it's a lot like the one with Lot in the equally tourist-raping city of Sodom (in which story, it's trying to rape tourists, and not masturbation which the bible seems to indicate might possibly result in going blind).  It's like that one, only there is no pair of angels to protect him and his family.  So this Levite man decides: "I'm not sacrificing myself to the mob to be raped.  I can't imagine getting my own bible story that way.  Look at all of them. I might die.  And I'm not giving them my wife.  I love her too much.  Wouldn't get a bible story for doing that, either.  I guess it will have to be my concubine, as I love her, but not as much as myself or my wife."

  In the morning, he finds the young woman dead on the threshold of the place he's staying (I don't know if he was visiting in Benjamite country, or if Benjamites were in his country and it was his own house) and is overcome with grief and outrage.  So he cuts the body into pieces and sends the parts to the corners of the kingdom, demanding something be done.  And war ensues.

   Now clearly, if he had sacrificed himself, there probably wouldn't have been a bible story, nor a war.  If he'd shut the door and said they weren't coming in, no doubt they would have broken in, and the man and his wife and concubine might all have ended up dead.  Or just hurt.  Again, no war, no bible story.

   Now clearly, the whole "Come out so we can rape you!" thing is evil of the "going way, way too far" type.  But is the man sending his concubine out in his place an evil act too?  A "not going far enough in his duties as protector" kind of evil?

   And then comes a sloppy question: was it evil to appeal to the other tribes to bring vengeance upon the tribe of Benjamin, or was that his right?  Everybody in the Old Testament is pretty vengeful, God especially.  But should the Levite man have been quiet about it, so there would be peace?  Or would that have been helping evil be safe?

   Was it evil for the Benjamites to refuse to give up their own guys, who were guilty of raping a girl to death?  Or was that just protecting their own people, and insisting upon the right to settle it "in house"?

   Was it then evil to kill not only the miscreants who were guilty of the rape/murder, but also to go on a Benjamite-killing genocide that makes one have to think of Hitler a bit?  I mean, the guilt was murdering this girl, so the punishment is killing everyone in the tribe, including many young girls and boys? Killing so many young Benjamite women that they needed to import wives for the remaining Benjamite men?  Isn't that both hypocritical, and also very much beyond the "an eye for an eye" limit on vengeance? (that would limit their vengeance to killing a concubine of each of the Benjamite perps, as I understand it)

   Was it wrong of the men of neighbouring Jabesh Gilead to refuse to kill Benjamite women and children?  Or was it instead evil to kill all the men of Jabesh Gilead for refusing to do so?

  All this was in the Book of Judges.  It's mostly supposed to be about ethical dilemmas.  Often brought to a wise judge who can settle matters like this. And this one's a dilemma, alright.  With no sign of a wise judge stepping up and making sure things are settled tidily.

Obviously, what this made someone with my concerns think about, is family troubles and divisions: In Brethren circles, a division is a war.  A global war.  And men, women and children are swept away, right off the battlefield and are heard from no more in Brethren circles, during these ecclesiastically  cataclysmic things.  The grievances aren't, of course, that someone's concubine was murdered, so much as someone's Authoritah wasn't respected, or someone got killed/excommunicated or something. What tends to happen in the local divisions is more like:

A man's concubine is raped and killed/excommunicated.  The man then sends letters to the assemblies all around, demanding justice.  So he is excommunicated for lying.  By the Benjamites.  Anyone who tries to defend him gets excommunicated/killed also.  The end.

   Now, when there is a secret being rigorously kept (for instance, let us say someone in power stole money or molested someone's child), should someone stir things up?  It might cause a big civil war.  It will be nasty.  It will ruin Sunday's service almost entirely, no doubt.  Is it worth it to keep the secret and avoid that trouble?  Or might inaction result in more people being hurt, as this man is almost certain to continue on in his wicked ways?

  In the circles I grew up in, they were pretty quick to judge adulterers and people who got divorces, but afterward it came out that they weren't at all quick to deal with fraud, extortion, molestations and rapes that had been brought to their attention.  They were very big on the absolute necessity of making sure they didn't take communion next Sunday with a guy in the room who'd gotten a divorce, but the stories of labouring brothers and their misdeeds pretty much never got taken seriously at all.  Sacred cows to a man.  Apart from taking "the wrong side" in a division or on a doctrinal issue (cf. Paul Johnston), I don't know of any cases of a labouring brother "losing his job."  Ever.  Despite the kinds of things that were/are reportedly being done.  Those things weren't/aren't ever even looked into. People were and are hushed up to avoid trouble.

   I think these are pretty dark and deep waters.  I'm not confident I know what ought to be done.  I only know that I have a very deep-seated mistrust of the keeping of all of these secrets.  I grew up hearing my dad's friend whispering all manner of these secrets in his ear each week, and nothing ever coming of it.
  Eventually most of the people he gossiped about died (it has been a few decades, after all).  And he does seem to have been right about much of it.  And there seems to have been worse stuff that had been successfully hidden so that even he didn't know about it back then.  Much comes out later.
   I do know that growing up hearing these things about the men and women in my church wasn't good for me.  Made me pretty cynical and mistrustful, anyway.  Made me tend to view Christians as lying hypocrites, just like my dad's erstwhile friend does.  (Just like my dad's erstwhile friend is.)  Meant that every single time a Christian lies and is a hypocrite to or about me, this has a lifelong nexus inside me to connect into.  Makes me go "Yup.  Another brick in the wall. My worldview is once again affirmed."

  I mean, it seems to me that the choice is either put up or shut up.  Either get the goods, grab a buddy and go to the person, to try to deal with the thing, going above his head if he won't hear you, or shut up about it. I was always taught from the bible that this was how to proceed.  Seldom if ever saw anyone try it, let alone make it work.

  I only know of one instance when my dad's friend kind of did that biblical approach to dealing with a problem.  He got the pamphlet I wrote, gave it to the elders who were gunning for me, and got me kicked out.  Didn't speak to me first, though I grew up knowing him, however.  Hung up on me when I phoned to apologize for the pamphlet to him after being kicked out.  Has always refused to discuss the matter (or any matter) since.  So this leaves me kind of wondering how to feel about it all.

  Does it inevitably cause trouble to try to fix trouble?  When a man is in a responsible position and there are persistent rumours of exploitation or wrong-doing, is there any obligation to investigate the allegations, or is it proper to not look into any of it and not act unless proof comes to light all by itself?  Should we ever try to deal with it and dig into it and make it not recur?  Is there a way to do it?  Why wasn't that done in my case?  In the other cases?   How different would it have made things?
   What's worse: handling a thing clumsily, or hushing it all up?