Category Archives: Politics

Good men doing something

16 Replies

We’re taking time this week with a much-repeated phrase: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

In the context of conservative churches, this saying has become a dangerous inducement to abandon Christian principles in the name of “doing something” about evil. All of that love your enemy, don’t seek revenge, wait on the Lord stuff just doesn’t cut it. Christian men need to do something about evil. With their tongues. With their fists. With their guns. Otherwise… well, you know what the quote says.

And yes, the Bible says we are here to serve and not to lord it over others. Says that we are citizens of heaven and not of this world. But we have to do something about evil! With our tongues. With our e-mails. With our vote. Otherwise… well, you know what the quote says.

What about things like non-violent resistance? What about denouncing injustice from outside the system? What about overcoming evil with good rather than answering it with evil? What about prayer? Nope. Sorry. Not good enough.

What about having the patience to let the Lord act? What about fighting evil empires with the same weapons the early Christians did? No way! If you haven’t noticed, they got thrown to the lions.

When we lay aside the fruit of the Spirit and embrace the works of the flesh, what do we think is really going on? Does that somehow become spiritual when done for a “good reason”?

When good men are induced to fight evil with evil, the result is still evil, no matter the initial justification. When we throw away the Kingdom’s armor and take up the world’s weapons, the triumph belongs to the world and not the Kingdom.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to use evil’s tools to try and defeat it.

Photo by Konrad Baranski

Good men doing nothing

7 Replies

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.” I mentioned yesterday that the quote has been used ad nauseum to promote this action or that one (often conflicting actions, with both sides claiming to be the “good” side). I say that not in condemnation of the quote, but as justification for spending several days looking at it.

While I’m still unconvinced of the worth of the saying itself, I will admit what others have said: much of my angst in this situation comes from the misuse of this quote, particularly by Christians. Vern commented yesterday: “It’s probably better to limit the quote to the political/social arena and not apply it at all to the living of Christians.” Much of my distress comes from the fact that the “all that is necessary” saying is frequently used to move Christians into the political/social arena! The quote is used to say, “If you aren’t active in this arena, you aren’t doing anything.”

And, in the midst of our prolonged back and forth, Nick made a couple of key statements:

However, (and I’m certain Tim will talk about this later in the week), the quote is rarely used to criticize people who are, in fact, doing *nothing*. Literally, truly, nothing.

It is used to criticize people who aren’t following the quoter’s recommended course of action. Ask any pacifist how often they’ve been rhetorically bludgeoned with this quote. Anyone who thinks that pacifism (or even QUIETISM, for crying out loud) is doing nothing has a painfully shallow view of spiritual warfare.

Sometimes, doing nothing is precisely what is necessary for one person. But that’s completely different from the idea that all men and women made good by the blood of the cross and the power of the Spirit should choose to do nothing against the forces of evil.

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.

Nick could see where I was headed with some of this. Tying in with yesterday’s post, I want to talk about the idea that “merely” praying is “doing nothing.” (Just typing the phrase “merely praying” makes me gag a bit) That’s definitely our culture talking. Dan Bouchelle posted something the other day, quoting an African Christian who said, “You Americans sure can sing, but you don’t know much about how to pray.”

In general, we don’t believe in the power of prayer. I saw an extreme of this a few years ago. I was participating in a Church of Christ Internet group, and one member wrote something like: “We pray because God commanded us to. We know that it’s not going to change anything.” Wow! How sad.

Those who don’t believe in the power of prayer will often use phrases like “sit around singing Kum Ba Yah.” Don’t know why that poor song carries the brunt of their wrath, but it’s come to characterize someone who believes that God can and will intervene in this world… even if it’s not in the way we would want.

Maybe that’s why I’m troubled by the lack of God in this quote. It feeds that worldly mindset that says, “If I don’t do it, it won’t get done. God certainly isn’t going to do anything.”

Prayer is doing something. It is action. The problem is, relying on prayer takes more courage than most of us have. It requires a loss of control. It requires patience… some prayers in the Bible weren’t answered for decades. Decades! It requires us to accept God’s plans, rather than stepping forward and shaping our own story.

Prayer is not the only action Christians should take against evil. But it is by far the most significant. When someone says, “All we can do is pray,” it doesn’t mean all hope is gone. It means that we still have our greatest weapon.

All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to stop relying on God’s power.

All that is necessary is God

16 Replies

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.

Good men, evil’s triumph, and a spurious quote

8 Replies

Edmund Burke

There is a saying, usually attributed to Edmund Burke, that has been called “the commonest political quote you will find anywhere on the World Wide Web.”* It goes something like this:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

It goes “something like this” because the statement exists in many different forms:

  • All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
  • All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing
  • All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
  • All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing
  • All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for a few good men to do nothing
  • All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for a few good men to do nothing
  • All that is necessary for the evil to succeed is that good men do nothing

And so on.

It’s rather obviously an apocryphal quote. In fact, you can’t find anything of the sort by Edmund Burke, unless you count the quote: “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”(Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents) You can find, interestingly enough, his thoughts on maxims in general:

It is an advantage to all narrow wisdom and narrow morals that their maxims have a plausible air; and, on a cursory view, appear equal to first principles. They are light and portable. They are as current as copper coin; and about as valuable. They serve equally the first capacities and the lowest; and they are, at least, as useful to the worst men as to the best. Of this stamp is the cant of not man, but measures; a sort of charm by which many people get loose from every honourable engagement.
(Edmund Burke, “Thoughts on the cause of the present discontents,” 1770. In The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, edited by Henry Froude, Oxford University Press, 1909, Volume 2, page 83, lines 7 to 16.)

The saying that evil men will triumph if good men do nothing is a good illustration of what Burke is saying. At first blush, it sounds reasonable enough. It’s easy to remember, at least in general terms. It’s general enough that it’s been used as a rallying cry for human movements of all stripes, for almost everyone considers themselves to be “good” and their opponents “evil.” It can be used to justify almost any action as long as the person doing it considers himself good.

I’d like to spend a few days talking about the concept, since I’ve heard it used to promote all sorts of political, social and military action on the part of Christians. Before I begin to analyze what’s being said, I’d like to hear your thoughts on the inactivity of good men and the triumph of evil.

Appendix: Martin Porter offered some helpful suggestions for avoiding bogus quotes:
Principle 1 (for readers)
Whenever you see a quotation given with an author but no source assume that it is probably bogus.
Principle 2 (for readers)
Whenever you see a quotation given with a full source assume that it is probably being misused, unless you find good evidence that the quoter has read it in the source.
Principle 3 (for quoters)
Whenever you make a quotation, give the exact source.
Principle 4 (for quoters)
Only quote from works that you have read.

*This phrase comes from an analysis of the many variations of the Burke quote: http://tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkequote.html

Biblical interpretation along party lines

18 Replies

Funny how our politics can shape our theology. I wish the opposite were true all of the time, but I can’t help but think that our biblical interpretation often gets molded around our civic ideology.

The other day, someone passed on a writing supposedly by David Barton. In this piece, the author says that he feels that the Bible teaches us to respect the office of the President, but not the President himself.

I disagree. I haven’t fully agreed with any president since I was old enough to realize how the world works. If you’ve read this blog much, you probably realize that I’m neither a political activist nor a believer in the theory that America is God’s new chosen people. But I believe that the principle of respect toward rulers is taught in the Bible. Yes, I know that Jesus called Herod a fox and the Old Testament prophets could be pretty hard on the kings they spoke with. But there are some pretty clear New Testament passages that talk about honoring the king and respecting authorities.

Some brothers in Cuba were angered when prayers were offered for Fidel Castro at a national preachers conference. I wasn’t present, but I agree with the principle. We are to pray for leaders, pray that there be peace so that we may go about the task of proclaiming the kingdom of God.

I don’t think we can say, “I don’t like what this man is doing, so I’m free to not respect him.” When Paul and Peter taught the need to honor the authorities, they were talking about the pagan Roman rulers, men like Nero.

The article that I read offered no textual evidence as to why Christians should feel free to disregard the command to honor those in power. Political reasons were offered, of course. But it’s a dangerous thing to start down the road of ignoring what the Bible says just because we don’t like it.