My Struggle with Passivity

My Struggle with Passivity

I struggle with an approach to faith that demands passivity in the name of love.

I believe the Bible perfectly reveals to us how to live in relationship with God. I also believe that the Bible reveals to us who God is and what He is like.

Those who conclude that passivity in the face of violence is the Biblical way as revealed in Christ come to that conclusion based on Christ taking a passive path on earth.

There are several problems with this passivity approach that I will address going back in time through scripture.

Problem 1: The counting of the swords.

During what we know as The Last Supper, Jesus asked the disciples to count the number of swords they owned, concluding that the few they had was enough. Enough for what? Surely a few swords isn’t sufficient for much. Could it be that this was his way of speaking to the continuity between the God of the Old and New Testament? Passive submission was the path Jesus HAD to take and is a path we can take but it is not the only path.

Problem 2: The cleansing of the temple

I love that the Bible doesn’t clean up the actions of Jesus up to make him look proper. This is nowhere more true than when Jesus cleansed the Temple.

Jesus took the time to make a whip of cords. This was not some rash emotional outburst but a thoughtful, intentional act. He threw over the money tables, money and scales were flying everywhere. Jesus was angry and revealed a God who justly acts to protect those being abused. Whips are not made for tables. They are made to swing at people.

Since this story struggles to fit in our sanitized version of Jesus, and by extension, God, we make this event less by robbing it of its powerful impact. We claim the whip was for show and that Jesus surely couldn’t have hurt anyone with it. Why make a whip? Every parent and teacher knows you never make an idle threat. Whips are not idle tools.

Problem 3: The Exodus from Egypt, Sodom & Gomorrah, etc.

I cannot, as some theologians are comfortable doing, easily dispense with the God who acts from a place of holy justice simply because Jesus didn’t primarily act (see Problem 2) with justice. Jesus came to earth and God had one plan - the cross. Jesus did nothing to thwart the will of the Father in that objective. Passivity was the mandate that led to the cross.

One might say, “Yes, but Jesus was God made flesh and he didn’t resist. We too are to take up our cross and follow Jesus’ path of passivity.” True, but two things here. First, resistance would compromise the will of the Father for the cross. Second, God showed up in person for the Exodus on multiple occasions and He was anything but passive. He engaged in justice on behalf of His people to free them from slavery. The end result was God’s active hand in the actual death of the firstborn males in Egypt and the subsequent drowning of the Egyptian army.

You can say a Prophet, King, or biblical manuscript writer heard God wrong. You cannot say God got God wrong. He revealed Himself perfectly as God the Son on the cross, whose love knows no end, and He revealed Himself perfectly as God the Father, whose justice has no restrictions, in Egypt.

Problem 4: Extrapolation based on the passivity of the disciples.

They had no organizational structure. They had no financial means. They had no path to resist. They had one option - run! This is what the disciples did and the church dispersed and spread.

They were outnumbered, outstructured, outorganized. They ran and did not resist. To extrapolate based on their limited options as though the historically revealed nature of God had somehow changed is, I believe, an interpretive mistake.

Transition:

I don’t understand the necessity to conclude the God of the Exodus is incompatible with Jesus. They are the same God. My Father spanked me. That action was not incongruous with His love. No, it was born out of love and it saved me from many transgressions. The “fear” I had for my earthly father was not unhealthy or unbiblical. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

I don’t understand the need to resolve tension and paradox. For some reason, Christians feel compelled to resolve paradox for a God whose ways are beyond our own. We need to find more comfort in the paradox of His nature as revealed in both Testaments.

Conclusion:

I cannot find a biblical path that demands I sit by and refuse to defend the defenseless. I refuse to conclude that the overarching message of scripture is that I cower in a corner with my students if an active shooter shows up. I refuse to conclude that my only option is to stand in front of one bullet to passively save one student in the name of love, then breathe my last breaths watching that shooter wipe out my students. No, I believe my faith in Christ compels me to do everything in my power to stop the one seeking to do harm to the innocent.

For those that disagree with me, and there are many, I respect you. Your narratives have been the dominant voice in my circles for most of my life. I merely seek to present an alternative voice for those who seek a way to reconcile the God of the Exodus with Jesus the Messiah.

Those that disagree with me will certainly rush to disprove my thoughts and save people from my horrible ideas. That is okay too. (Recently I was called an anti-Christian who spits in the face of God for suggesting Christians live within their means.) In classes and seminars and sessions, I have wrestled with your thoughts for decades.

I believe God’s first position is one of love. To that end, we should also be quick to listen and slow to anger. To those that seek to hurt me, I will love them. To those who seek to harm the innocent and defenseless, I will stand in your way, aggressively if necessary. To do less is, for me, an act, not born from love but of selfish self-preservation. To me, that is not loving and I believe it breaks God’s heart.