I’m wanting to spend some time this week with a much-repeated phrase: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” We hear that phrase time again, used to justify this action or that one. As I pointed out yesterday, everyone assumes that they are the “good men” and their rivals the “evil.”
I don’t like the saying. I used to. But the more I hear it used and abused, the more I feel a need to analyze it. And under analysis, it just doesn’t hold up.
Even though it probably wasn’t created by Edmund Burke, this saying does seem to have arisen out of ideas that were popular in the 18th and 19th centuries. Man was king. There seemed to be no limit to what men could do. Who needed God? God could be acknowledged as a creator who set in motion a marvelous creation… and nothing more. If anything was going to be accomplished, it would be done by men.
If evil was to be defeated, it would be by good men, unfettered by the need to look to God for approval of their actions.
All of which makes me understand why non-Christians spout such phrases and marvel at the fact that Christians will repeat them. All that is necessary for the defeat of evil is God. It begins and ends there.
Look at the book of Revelation. What would the recipients of that book/letter have thought if someone had come and said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” I think they’d have said, “Here, read this. It says something different.” They were being called to “do nothing” in the eyes of the world. They were to pray. They were to be faithful. They were to expel false teachings from within their own community, but as far as the evil empire was concerned, they were to do nothing. (which would have drawn the ire of the “all that is necessary” crowd)
For God had promised to take care of evil. Maybe not as quickly as we’d like, hence the cry “How long?”. But it is God who is responsible for stemming the advance of evil. Even when we are called to be help in that, we need to understand that the victory does not hinge on our action. As Mordecai told Esther, “If you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place.” (Esther 4:14) If good men “do nothing,” God will raise up deliverance from another place. It doesn’t depend on us.
All that is necessary for the defeat of evil is God. It begins and ends there.
That’s my first criticism of this saying. It’s godless. We live in a society where saying we trust in God is admired and actually trusting in him is ridiculed. Sadly, that “god-free” attitude has permeated the church, as well.
Let’s make “In God We Trust” more than a phrase stamped on a coin. All that is necessary for the defeat of evil is God. Let’s act like we believe it.
If we had a god who chose not to partner with mankind to defeat evil, this would be true.
Since we don’t, it is false.
You bring up the Esther narrative, wherein Mordecai argues exactly the opposite of what you’re asserting. To what “other place” do you think he’s referring, if not some other person?? But, he continues, if Esther chooses not to act, evil will triumph over her family.
If Abram ignores God, what happens in The Story?
If Moses never puts his fear in the back seat, what happens in The Story?
If Jesus chooses, not the way of baptism into the sins of Israel and the world, but some other way, what happens in The Story?
Who are the two witnesses in Revelation?
Perhaps in a different story, humans are allowed to sit on the sidelines because a god has chosen to work independently of them. But not *this* Story. In this Story, *this* god has chosen from the very beginning (have dominion… be fruitful and multiply… guard and care for…) to defeat evil by partnering with humankind. For humankind to do nothing is to place themselves in the lukewarm category in Laodicean terms.
Besides Jesus, no particular human (and their activity) is essential to the defeat of evil – that much is clear from the Esther narrative, the story of John the Baptist in prison, the way Paul tells the story of his own life, etc. But if men and women made good by the blood of the cross and the power of the Spirit do not take up the panoply of God from Eph 6 in spiritual warfare… God will defeat still defeat evil, but they will be part of the evil that he defeats.
Nick,
But the emphasis shouldn’t be on whether or not evil will triumph. Our participation is for OUR benefit, not God’s, not even the cause of good. The cause of good will triumph with or without us… that’s why the quote is so wrong.
I don’t know that that is true, Tim. What would that triumph even look like if ALL humanity chose to sit out the war against evil?
Remember… “us” includes Jesus the true human.
And even on a smaller scale than the global, cosmic, eternal one…
if no one had shared the gospel, in deed and word, with me – evil would have triumphed in my life.
Not eternally, no – God’s good justice would have eventually obliterated the evil that had won. But a short-lived triumph is still a triumph. Bernie Madoff is being punished, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t have some victories under his belt before his eventual defeat.
Nick,
Some of it, I guess, comes back to our definition of “doing nothing.” If we’re talking about a war where our weapons are the sword of the Spirit and prayer, our defense made up of things like salvation, faith and truth, then yes, we cannot afford to sit that war out.
The problem with your hypothetical, of course, is that Jesus has acted. (By “doing nothing” in the world’s eyes, giving up his life on a cross) That’s not in question at this point. We can’t undo that nor make it happen through our actions.
I can’t read Revelation and come away thinking, “Gee, I hope men do what they’re supposed to do to make this happen.” God doesn’t say, “Here’s what will happen, if you’ll work with me on this one.”
As for smaller scale skirmishes, your point is true. As Mordecai told Esther, if you don’t act, you will be destroyed. But God’s triumph would not be hindered. Israel could have avoided much suffering, including suffering by innocents, had they chosen to live by the covenant. But their faithfulness didn’t thwart God’s plan of redemption.
Grace and peace.
I agree with Tim…and with Nick. The question centers on what is “evil” what is “good” and what is the difference between “doing nothing” and “doing something.” There are times when it is a matter of gospel ethics that we are called upon to act. Jesus sent his disciples out to “make disciples.” This involves far more than just holding Bible studies, if my reading of the gospel of Matthew is correct. On the other hand, in apocalyptic literature Tim is absolutely correct – mankind is told to wait patiently and allow God to deliver his people.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrestled with this very issue. At one point he is quoted as saying it does no good to bandage those who have been crushed by a wheel; we must ram a spoke in the wheel and stop it from crushing people. Yet, he was a man utterly convicted by the sovereignty of God. His conclusion for his life? Act (or not, as the case may demand) in full faith and leave the judgment up to God.
Tim’s point is valid. Too often this phrase has been used to “guilt” people into action when both the motivation and the action itself are morally questionable. But Nick raises a valid corrective – at times “not to act” is to “act in opposition” to the will of God.
Paul,
As I was reading the comments, I had already reached your conclusion: both Tim and Nick raise valid points. Nick is right in pointing out that inactivity is luke-warmness. Tim is right in insisting that the victory belongs to God.
We are called to be faithful. When God gives us opportunities, we must use them in faithfulness. Failure to do so becomes unfaithfulness, which can damn. Yet, we must also recognize that it is God working in us “both to will and to do” His will. When we cooperate with God, we win; when we try to do it ourselves, we lose – even if in the world’s eyes we have “won.”
Tim, your call for wisdom and discernment is well taken. But I still love that famous saying. The point of the Esther passage is to inspire her to step up against evil and make a difference, actively. God’s name is not mentioned but His sovereignty is strongly implied and it is no reason for Esther to sit back and let God handle it on His own (a passive stance that you are not necessarily advocating). Also, Paul advocated an activist stance toward evil when he wrote; “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:21). Still, discernment must always apply and this we agree.
Tim, you wrote; “It can be used to justify almost any action as long as the person doing it considers himself good.” But the entire Bible and any part of it can also be used to justify any action by opportunists and that does not discredit the Bible or any part of it.
We live in times wherein the very existence of evil is being dismissed and denied. Moral relativism is rampant. It is not the time for godly people to be passive toward evil. Good men doing nothing is all too common. We live in a culture of sexual anarchy, family disintegration, rampant dishonesty, glorification of sin, rising pedophilia, spiritual confusion, moral relativism and so much more. 41% of all US babies are born out of wedlock. Tim, that represents over a 6-fold increase since I was a child. That’s enormous and catastrophic to a culture in the long run. Silence and/or passivity can be quite unloving and is cruel (although wisdom and grace must guide our words and actions). If Christian believers had not rose to oppose slavery (and it was evangelical Christians who first did this, sacrificially), how much longer would it have lasted and how many more people would have suffered far more? If preachers had done nothing in the name of Civil Rights, would we have made the progress we did on that score? Martin Luther King, Jr. did not say “Let go and let God.” And the evangelical Christians today who are rising to gracefully defend marriage are just as courageous and godly, and are subject to just as much hatred and opposition from others. The reputation of Christianity would be more stained had we not risen to oppose slavery or abortion or the dismantling of the family. But we must do so with a higher trust in God and led by His grace with discernment.
Joel,
The comment about the misuse of the quote was not said to discredit the quote. Your point is well taken about how many things can be misused. My rejection of the quote is not based on that misuse.
As for what my point really is, I’ll try to clarify, although it doesn’t seem that I can do that well:
This is not a call to inactivity. It’s a call to humility. The defeat of evil does not depend on me. And its triumph is an impossibility.
Quoting Romans 12:21 is very appropriate to this discussion. What is the evil under discussion? Taking vengeance. Meting out justice ourselves instead of trusting in God’s ability to make things right. Repaying evil with evil.
I’ll discuss more of the “doing” aspect of all of this in the future, but I’m convinced that many of the evils you name have resulted from good people “doing something” but doing worldly things, rather than spiritual things. Rather than using the weapons God has given us, we’ve tried to use the ballot box, we’ve tried to use guns, we’ve tried to use brute force and social power. Years of political activism by the religious right have not slowed the decay you speak of; they have accelerated it. Years of crusade mentality by the United States military have not helped the cause of Christianity; they’ve hindered it.
As for the what ifs of the past, it’s hard to say. No, it’s impossible to say. What if Christians through the ages had taken the Sermon on the Mount seriously? We’ll never know.
One more thing needs to be repeated: I’m not advocating passivity. You haven’t heard me say that Christians should do nothing, although much of what we should be doing would be considered “doing nothing” by the worldly. Today’s post is about recognizing who we are and who we aren’t. And who God is.
That’s right – and today’s post is about the objective validity of this quote – not yet talking about the unethical and manipulative purposes to which it has been put. I’m trying to stay *tightly* focused on today’s OP – whether or not anything more than God’s activity is necessary for the defeat of evil, whether in current short-term skirmishes or in the ultimate perspective.
Was it necessary for the one and only truly good man to do something in order to prevent evil’s ultimate triumph? Absolutely.
Is it necessary for him to continue acting in order to defeat evil? Yes – “the last enemy to be defeated is death.”
The shocking – to me, anyway – truth of the Incarnation is, as Paul wrestles with in 2 Corinthians, God has put His power in these jars of clay. He has made those jars of clay an integral part of his plan to defeat evil. The two witnesses in Revelation are integral to the narrative.
As you’ve said, how we define “doing,” and whether we’re discussing local and short-term evil or the ultimate victory of God, those are questions for future posts. At this point, I’m trying to interact *solely* with the statement, “All that is necessary for the defeat of evil is God. It begins and ends there.”
Scripture doesn’t teach that. Not about the God we meet most clearly in the face of Jesus. That God, while possessing infathomable power, has *defined* good itself as a concept that includes human flourishing and human partnership with Him to work out His will. Good cannot win if all humanity does nothing – not for God’s definition of good.
Nick, I think I see your point. Seems a bit like arguing to what point man is involved in his own salvation. The man who refuses to do anything, even believe, won’t be saved. Yet it’s an affront to God to claim that our works have any part in obtaining our salvation.
One element seems to be missing here. God frequently uses the ungodly to bring about his will. Evil is often defeated by other evil. When the “good men” of Judah wouldn’t do what they should, God used the evil Babylonians to wake them up. Yet the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem was not the triumph of evil; it was still God’s work. Maybe we should say that if good men won’t do anything, then God will use evil men for his purposes.
(I realize that we’re running the risk of overanalyzing all of this. For example, if a man does nothing, can he be considered truly good? If not, then the whole statement becomes a practical impossibility.)
So no one shares this particular concern about this quote. So be it. I still find it overly worldly, lacking in godliness.
(emphasis Nick’s)
At the risk of sounding overly pedantic, I would raise the important difference between meriting/deserving/earning our salvation (any claims of which are indeed an affront to God) and merely obtaining/grasping/laying hold of our salvation. The only reason I bring it up (I recognize the potential for rabbit-chasing) is that I think this conversation is talking exactly about this idea.
I do think that the quote is often used in Deist ways, and I do appreciate the implications of its Enlightenment roots. At heart, though, I hear it as a call to action. What I look forward to in the coming days is the shredding of the assumptions typically driving its use. Not a call to ACTION, but a call to a specific – typically nationalist – course of action. Actually, I find that is isn’t typically used as a call to action at all, but as a pejorative against indirect action, compassionate responses, and non-violence.
It’s probably better to limit the quote to the political/social arena and not apply it at all to the living of Christians. In that public arena the quote works well without qualification I suppose. But if you bring it into the realm of God and His economy it totally fails to make any sense. Can mere good men (in contrast to God-men) do anything to triumph evil? Peter’s good intention got him called Satan by Jesus. In Genesis the knowledge of good and evil are on the same tree. How can one defeat the other?
I’ve been working on my own quote recently which goes something like this, does this course of action have anything to do with Jesus coming, dying, being raised, ascending to the throne as Lord over all and coming into my (and or other’s) spirit to regenerate me, to sanctify me in my soul, and the building up of His church of which I am a member and part of of His bride. If what I am doing is being done apart from that, I’m pretty sure sure it is not worth doing.
In the eyes of man, abolishing the system of slavery was a great thing. In the eyes of Paul and Jesus it was evidently not a battle worth fighting. We are called to fight, but we have to be clear what is is we are fighting and what we are fighting for and how we fight (how about the good fight of the faith). The cause of “good” is not the cause of the Bible. Of course if you consider only God is good then that is a battle worth fighting for. If you consider “good” as being mere morality, equality, fairness, or a strong USA, I’m pretty sure God doesn’t give a flip about that.
All in all I think it is a good saying. Even though it is a political one and from a worldly standpoint (a rallying cry for us against them). But I think it is one of those worldly things we can borrow to teach spiritual matters. Who was Jesus talking about when he said he was about to spit them out. Was it the cold people, the hot ones, or the lukewarm ones? Same principle is it not? Yes it was the power of God that utterly ruined the pride and arrogance of Rome. His people did not raise a hand against that beast. Or did they? Was is not the prayers of the saints that God heard. Was it not the steadfast loyalty of His saints under brutal torture that they did not recant His Lordship.
In spiritual matters – it is the response of our hearts, not as men of this world which we once belonged, but as new creation. Sometimes though, we hold on to the world which we been so much a part of, the politics, the entertainment, the sports and so on and so on, we forget who we belong to, and we end up doing nothing in the realm of the Spirit. And that just might be an evil thing.
Jhn 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. ( mankind was his weapon of choice, not to sure it was not retaliation, for causing the problem in the first place ) (you break it you fix it)
Well like some others here I agree with both Tim, and Nick, so by necessity that also means I disagree with both. :) Nick, Bernie Madoff as your example of “evil” couldn’t you think of someone who better deserves that crown.?
Tim said, “Nick, I think I see your point. Seems a bit like arguing to what point man is involved in his own salvation. The man who refuses to do anything, even believe, won’t be saved. Yet it’s an affront to God to claim that our works have any part in obtaining our salvation.”
Tim, no one here thinks we can climb Jacob’s ladder, and reach “Heaven” but,
Read John chap 17, and tell me again how what we do has no part in obtaining our own salvation.