Passive
In my religious heritage, and honestly, in the culture within which I was raised, being a passive person automatically makes you the neighborhood doormat. A passive person, as defined by our society, often does not stand up for one’s self, refuses to sling mud, and “turns the other cheek,” among countless other, non-violent stances. We’ve grown up with terms like “preemptive war” and “self defense,” that ingrain notions of self-preservation, greed, and violence within our moral structures; anything to protect or keep our freedoms. Passivity is not acceptable. It’s my way or the highway, or something similar…
I would argue that, as a follower of Jesus, we are extended the opportunity to not only live and act in non-violent ways, as he modeled for us, but to also speak in non-violent ways.
An ancient writer named James once penned a letter to to some religious comrades. It’s easy, being a religiously elite (at least by my own perception) member of society to think I’ve got it all figured out, especially when it comes to the religious stuff. I would contend that I would fit right in with the folks to whom James writes his letter. I think I know all the answers (not so much as of late…), I show favoritism, I’m greedy with my money and often times, my tongue becomes a weapon.
Now, as you can probably see from my description above, I’m not perfect… nearly, but not quite… (sarcasm) This stuff James is writing about the tongue is a pretty important subject for us to grab hold of, especially if we think we are following Jesus down a path of non-violence. My feelings on war is that we shouldn’t have it, long story, really short. And the idea of passivism, the idea that all violence is unjustifiable, to which I agree, must be poured down into the nooks and crannies of our lives. For example, the way we talk.
Here’s what I’m getting at. To sum up James 3: keep your tongue in check, otherwise, everything else is bogus. We can be extremely violent with the things we say, and not just the “I hate you’s” and “you’re a ________ “(insert expletive). Nowhere is this concept more profoundly observed over the internet, and more specifically, in blogs. We can say whatever we want because we’re in an impersonal arena. But, if we ever hope to see this world won to the love of Christ, our words must be carefully chosen. Words not chosen as weapons to injure and degrade, rather to extinguish pain, offer healing and authentically and sincerely usher in the Kingdom of God.
The old nursery school rhyme: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me, is probably the most bogus statement I’ve ever heard. If we really are people of peace, not only will we refuse to throw sticks, stones and grenades, we will also refuse to sling mud and malign our brothers and sisters, of all age, race, sex, and religious orientation, among other things…
Call me a hippy, but I’m thoroughly convinced that love rules. Christ’s love is one that acts differently AND talks differently, because it’s a force that seeks to fill it’s ranks with EVERYONE. We don’t take lives, we don’t make excuses, we apologize, we take responsibility, we live in love, Christ’s love. We do whatever it takes to usher in a new Kingdom, a new empire, a new cabinet. Love rules.
We’ll chew on this concept with our kids tomorrow night and see what they think…
Great post, Logan!
I was also thinking about “if looks could kill.” My non-verbal communication often kills rather than giving life and love.
Hope Hank is doing better.
Allen
Interesting thoughts.
So if someone attempts to rape your mother/wife/daughter, you would turn the other cheek.
If you see someone setting your or your neighbour’s house on fire, you don’t call the police.
If you see a mugging in the street you also watch passively.
You cannot be a pacifist and then call for someone else (ie. police) for help, as that is just violence by proxy! You have to endure it with joy.
You cannot claim for any losses on your insurance either, as that is NOT turning the other cheek.
I do not believe that Jesus was as passive as is portrayed. He made a whip and went into the temple to attack the money changers and traders, overturning there tables. We can’t pretend that he did it non violently, just having a whip is an offensive stance.
Additionally do we honestly think that the traders just watched him do it without reacting. Jesus must have had to fight through their resistance and overcome it.
Jesus, as a man, was a builder (not just a carpenter). He would have had the physique of one, not to be messed with, despite being peaceful.
In order to hold to a true pacifism we need to explore all the possible situations that might occur and see whether our pacifism could also be endured by all those involved.
Hey Frank! (or Francis…)
Thanks so much for the response. And thanks for reading, I wasn’t sure if anyone actually took the time.
That said, I want to be as straight-forward as possible. I feel a little defensive because of some of your responses. Now, I realize that this is public forum and I run the risk of such feedback. Further, it is very difficult to actually know someone via their blog or through other similar forums, so it would be pretty silly for me to fire back with hostility. So, I’m going to reply, as best as I can, outside of a defensive posture, with a series of questions.
How do you define pacifism?
Does taking a passive posture automatically mean you are in a defensive posture?
Did Jesus ever stand by and “endure” oppression with joy?
Is it okay for us to isolate one seemingly violent act as a defining characteristic of Christ?
Who makes lasting and deep rooted change in the world, five-star generals or Gandhis? I am firmly convinced that Jesus was not an even mix of both…
I believe that until we are willing to read scripture, not as a means to justify our own behavior, but to form us into a totally different, other worldly, kind of people, we will continue to be people fight to protect our own self interests.
Do we exist to prove a point or fight injustice and oppression? What did Jesus live for?
Frank,
You can see my reply below to Logan and also to you for more. However, I do want to add something. Ideally, we would be like Christ who, died by my hand and did so so that I would not have to experience the wrath of his judgment. So the Christlike thing to do is not necessarily in line with our own fearful motivations of loss, hurt, being in the wrong. Secondly, the passive nature that Logan wrote of is not one of indifference. It takes a stand but in Christ’s name. I am of the idealistic notion that my place is to serve as Christ served. My job is to love the rape victim and rapist. In some ways love comes in the form of punishment but not for my own vengeance or getting even but for the rapist benefit.
Now that said, even handled in the most Christlike way, I cannot forget that my actions do not make me holy or blameless. While, our culture has raised things like rape, murder and molestation to the highest rated sin. We forget that what got Christ put on the cross was little white lies, gossip, stealing, cheating and denial. Which is worse the thing that got him there or the thing itself. In God’s eyes, evil is evil. “You have heard it said, you shall not murder. I tell you if you hate your brother you are a murderer.”
Motivation my dear brother is the defining factor of holiness and even then we still need God’s grace to make the “best of” moments of our life even remotely a shade of righteous.
In the end, I struggle to know if I would “turn the other cheek” in any of the described circumstances. My hope is for the strength and mercy of Christ to be my guide. Unfortunately, my own desire and will often supersedes my commitment to Christlikeness. Lord come quickly.
Grace be upon us,
Les
Yo Bro,
I am a little late on this discussion. Don’t be defensive. There is a lot of truth in what Frank says and there is a lot of truth in what you are saying. This is the irony of our situation. If it were not for Jesus the saying would be true, “damned of we do, damned if we don’t.” We must be careful in all situations of thinking that any action or lack there of is ultimately holy. It is difficult to argue against the US involvement against holocaust but it is also difficult to argue that gaining information by “any means necessary” from Muslim radicals is OK. It is impossible to argue against the nature of the Old Testament wars that God himself initiated and say that we serve a passive God.
In other words, perhaps it is more about motive. What god(s) are we serving by our actions. Frank, Christ was to be sure aggressive, if not violent, about what was going on in His Father’s house. But he was not concerned for his own safety or desire and I don’t even think he was all that concerned about his Father’s house. Perhaps, a better interpretation is derived from a realization that Christ came into this world for me, while I was still a sinner. He died for me, his enemy. He embraced violence as his only means to an end in the cross. The temple changers were his primary concern in the temple that day. He was worried about the danger of consumerism in our lives when we make the one place, where money and capitalism have no power, begin to take on the power.
In the end, His motivation was his creation not himself as God or God’s begotten.
Hey Les!
I may end up writing a new entry to keep a relatively short response, but I’ll take a swing at it here and attempt to make a very long description as short and concise as possible. So, here we go.
My feeling here is that we’ve got some old definitions that are hanging us up. And, that is not just within this discussion but, in religious circles in general. Here’s my lame analogy, but it’s all I can think of this morning. In awfully simple and watered down terms, our current definitions of God within the context of todays world mirror the idea of us trying to travel on an interstate highway with a horse drawn carriage. It’s just ridiculous and doesn’t register. So, as we strip away the layers of theism that, over thousands of years, we’ve loaded God down with, a new, bigger, more awesome God emerges from the restraints.
No longer am I doing good or acting justly because my only drive is to “be holy as he is holy,” rather I do good because it’s the right thing to do. Thus, if God is love, then for me to love frivolously and wastefully is to love him. If God is the ground of all being, then simply existing in the silence that is wilderness is a meditation and praise to the One who is “over all, in all and through all.”
Better late than never. First, my intent is to add to your comments not to argue as I am not sure that this is a debate in as much as a think tank. For that I am thankful.
Second, I agree with you while at the same time hoping that we may realize that this is only a small part of the truth of God. Yet, such notions of old versus new are not new. What I mean is, that to say that God is the same today and always, or unchanging, is a very biblical and Spirit-led notion of our relationship with God. Thus, the old (i.e. Old Testament) definitions are as viable as the new (New Testament and Spirit guided) definitions. We cannot escape the reality of an ever broadening definition of God as this is God’s revelation OR kingdom come being brought to fruition. As miniscule beings in the scope of history thus far to presume we may know better than Paul or the Fathers or St. Francis of Assissi is beyond arrogance as we can only define God from a historical perspective and at times from present realities (though such a notion is still historical as outside of worship we rarely operate out of anything but hindsight where God is concerned. Even worship is only present for God as we are operating out of motivations that he generates and we in turn reflect upon for defining moments. Wow that’s completely random and ultimately an un-provable claim, sorry.)
Yet, all of this must be taken with very humble stance. We do not know more today about God than those who walked with him in the form of Jesus. Distance in fact places us at a distinct disadvantage in as much as maturity might bring us to better understanding. So in a sense we grow closer to God while risking a greater misconstrued understanding of who he really is. Hence, Israel forgot who God was while in Egypt as time led them further away from the God whom Joseph worshiped and followed. It was then God who in part revealed himself for that generation and future generations as deliverer.
As such, I believe that God always defines himself in terms of past, present, future and eternity. We will never be advanced enough to do anything but travel down the mega-highway in a baby carriage. In fact, both your and my attempts of defining God by saying we are using old definitions is well unimaginably deficient.
Hence, the defining of God is impossible and historically a quest that has been avoided. Hence, in many traditions the very name of God has been unmentionable or un-type-able as G-d or even further YHWH. We cannot strip away layers, we can only add. In stripping we actually only add new clothes that in time will also prove unfit for wearing. Out with the old in with the new is both a sad motif here and unnecessary.
THE POINT
Bear with me here. If God is a jealous God and he created us in His image, then by nature we are also going to have tendencies toward jealousy. We like God will have self preserving tendencies in all that we do. God created for his benefit. Thus, we are not motivated simply by a complete and selfless love but a love that loves neighbor as oneself. Thus, I am holy because he is holy and in my holiness I go around bleeding holiness on everyone I meet. We “genuinely” love only because he first loved us. We saw fit to selfishly embrace his saving grace like Paul, who wished that he himself could be accursed and cut off for the sake of all Israel but he knew that this was impossible because if he was accursed he wouldn’t be able to be the instrument God was using to actually save all Israel, in the end.
Thus, in your analogy of love, love is love, whether wastefully, careful, unhindered, frivolous or intentional. Love cannot simply be love based upon modern notions or adjectives we place in front of love. God loved violently at times but in the same breath it was love that was merciful. God’s love came in grand hail storms and also in gentle breezes.
In the end, we always are driven by our holiness as God is always driven by His. We would not know the right thing to do aside from our quest to be holy. See the discussion where Paul talks about the law and the Gentiles in many of his letters but especially Romans. Lastly, we MUST be careful to separate anything we do in God’s name from His holiness as we might find ourselves in with Buddha or others who founded a new “spirituality” often times in the silence of the desert. You said that when you said, “If God is the ground of all being” but again, Buddhism is the epitome of self-idolatry. God is nothing more than the awareness of self. But such meditation and praise is in effect our means of holiness that essentially is the reason we are able to serve, love and live for God. In the end, I think we are saying similar things but we must not discount that even the old definitions (whatever those are) while often legalistic are just as dependant on God’s redemptive work through and because of his holiness as ours are today. In fact, I am not so sure that our new definitions prove any less legalistic and demanding of the human initiative than our old ones. Mind you, I think when we say old we are referring to something that is less than a couple of centuries old. Whew, that is far from concise and a lot of philosophical banter but hey, I’ve never been one short of words
.
Hi Les and Logan.
I really wish I could respond a little more than this. Unfortunately I have to borrow a laptop as mine fried so I rarely get online with time to address things properly.
Firstly Jesus was the God of the Old Testament. –Before Abraham was I am. etc.
Secondly God doesn’t change. Therefore what Jesus said would entirely be in context with what He had taught in the O.T.
Thirdly, and shockingly, the four gospels ARE NOT A NEW TESTAMENT RECORD.
They actually record Old Testament events, and if anything they should perhaps be firmly placed prior to the blank dividing pages between the two testaments of our bibles.
Mt 26v28 “This is the blood of the NEW COVENANT which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
MATTHEW 26V28 IS WHERE THE NEW TESTAMENT STARTS.
ie.NOT MATT 1v1
Everything prior to this verse was spoken to an O.T. people who were trying to walk an O.T. walk of legalism.
The ministry of Jesus was mainly an illustration through parable and action of the impossibility of satisfying God by mankind’s efforts of legalism. He spent much of his time showing that externals couldn’t hide the internals. Therefore not killing someone would never resolve the hatred which remained hidden. The same with lust and adultery.
Matt5v20 ……except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees you shall in no case enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
The list of do’s and don’t which follow Matt 5v20 are a list of impossible requirements for those who are trying to perfect themselves by effort! This includes turning the other cheek.
The rich young ruler who came to Jesus saying, “what good deed must I do to inherit eternal life” is a good illustration of this point. Jesus tells him to obey the Law. The young man declares that he always has. (Ha Ha Ha). Jesus simply gives him the impossible task
of giving away all his money.
This task is not a requirement for eternal life! It was an illustration of the impossibility of self effort. When his disciples exclaimed at the severity of the requirement, Jesus said ” with men it is impossible, but not with God, for with God all things are possible”
Please don’t dismiss the outrageous comments here without revisiting the idea of where the New Covenant actually starts, as it affects the whole interpretation of why Jesus said what he said and to whom.
I am sure this will stir up a hornets nest. I am sorry I haven’t time to write more and it may be some time before i can read any follow up.
God bless you for your desires to walk with HIM though.
Frank
Hey Frank,
Thanks for the reply. Sorry to hear the computer has been giving you trouble. I’ve enjoyed the conversation, if we can really call it that…
I just have a couple thoughts ignited from your last reply. I’m not sure how we got off on this discussion, but it’s a good one none-the-less. I would argue that Jesus’ life was not so much lived as a narrative for the impossible, but it was a life lived that helps us realize the possibility of tapping into something other, something higher and greater. We would define that “something” as God. I also don’t believe Jesus walked, lived and interacted as he did to specifically point out how far we are from “satisfying God.” There is so much more. He came that we might have life, and live it to it’s fullest.
I would also argue, referring to the rich young ruler, that again, he’s not challenging him with some new philosophy or allegory, trying to get him to understand some deeper theological meaning to the statement, rather Christ is telling him, as he does us, to do exactly what he says; “sell all you have an give it to the poor.” Now what is happening is in this simple statement, we see Jesus really isn’t that concerned with theology and religious chatter, but he’s much more concerned with issues of the heart. Thus I agree that he’s not necessarily addressing a requirement for eternal life, but on the flip side, I think the kind of eternal life Jesus speaks about all through scripture is one that starts right here, right now. “Your Kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as is is in heaven…” So, in a sense, he is addressing an issue with eternal implications.
And don’t worry about any hornets nests being stirred up. I agree that it’s pretty important for us to consider the context, time period and audience with anything we read in scripture. Without doing so, we lose and often distort the core of the message.
Thanks again, and hopefully you are able to find a computer that is a bit more reliable. I would suggest an Apple… personal opinion…
Logan
Frank,
You should know that Logan and I are family, he’s my bro-in-law and we take care of our own, JUST KIDDING! I was not offended by what you said at all (in other words, no hornets here). However, I think that the danger is that Christ was not speaking of a future eternity but a present eternity that was a result of the kingdom coming near. As in both here and now and not yet present. In other words, Jesus was not speaking parabolic so we could continue to be slaves to sin but rather that we would not be tied up in our sinfulness but released to share the Gospel, in spite of our brokeness. That said, we do not live as those managing sins but as those freed from our sins, no longer held back or captive. We are rendered without excuse where those who need the gospel are concerned because it is our very sinfulness that reveals the good news. Without sin, there is no need for gospel. Yet, along the journey the kingdom continue to manifest itself in part through the Spirit within the Body of Christ, the church. It is not what eternity looks like in whole but it is a glimpse of the perfection that is to come.
We do nothing good in our own right but only empowered by God in us.