Tag Archives: culture

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.

Form versus function

16 Replies

As I read through the comments this week, I couldn’t help but think about a missiological principle, that of form vs. function. It has to do with what is done and why it is done.

We know that. We do. We feel comfortable substituting the holy kiss with the warm handshake. We look at John 13 and say that Jesus was teaching about service, not creating a new act of worship through washing feet. Many people feel that “raising holy hands” can be accomplished with the heart. [Sometimes we misuse the word “cultural” by saying “That’s just cultural.”]

There are other areas where we feel that the form and function are inseparable. Most feel that pizza and Sprite aren’t suitable replacements for the elements of the Lord’s Supper. Most members of the churches of Christ feel that water is an intrinsic part of baptism, to such a degree that the term “water baptism” sounds foreign to our ears.

How do we decide? How do we know when fulfilling the function is enough and when to insist on the exact form?

Theology and worldview

4 Replies

Kwast's model

Yesterday, I began a discussion of the value of theology. The insights in the comments section was excellent. One thing Adam Gonnerman pointed out is that the term “theology” is imprecise. If we were to limit ourselves to the true meaning of the word, we would only study God when doing theology. For the purposes of this discussion, we’ll stick with the general usage of the word.

When talking about culture and worldview, I often use a model that was developed by Lloyd Kwast. It views culture as having four layers. The outer layer is “Behavior,” looking at what the culture does. Below that layer lies “Values,” what the culture views to be good. Under values, we find “Beliefs,” what the culture sees as true. And underlying it all is “Worldview,” what the culture understands to be real.

When we read the Bible and merely look at what is done, I think it’s like looking at a culture and merely observing behavior. We’re not really going to understand what is going on. I won’t try and find parallels for each of the four layers, though you’re welcome to do so in the comment section. I will say that I think theology is the functional equivalent of worldview in this model. In other words, theology is to our faith what worldview is to our culture.

Theology underlies the behavior, beliefs and values of the church. If we merely look at the surface, we won’t really understand what is going on. To merely read 1 Corinthians 16 as a model for church funding is to miss the significance Paul placed on that offering. To imitate Jesus’ washing of the disciples’ feet without exploring all of the richness of meaning that was present in that act leaves us with an empty ritual instead of the powerful example of God serving man.

Do you think the comparison is valid between worldview and theology? What dangers do you see in a surface-level reading of Scripture? What problems arise if we dig too deep in our studies?

And dare we ask… how does our worldview influence our theology?