Stephen
Terry, Director
Meekness
in the Crucible
Commentary
for the September 3, 2022, Sabbath School Lesson
"Now Moses was a very humble
man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth." Numbers 12:3, NIV
In few other ways is the divide
between those who are attached to this world and those who follow Christ toward
a heavenly realm more starkly revealed than in their differing attitudes toward
meekness. The world sees meekness as an undesirable trait, equating it with
weakness. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, it derives from a
Norse term meaning "soft." This is not a word one would associate with the brutal
Viking raids of the Middle Ages, so was likely viewed by them as a negative
character flaw.
Even in modern times we find such a perspective often in the media which has a
penchant for portraying life as a Darwinian struggle for survival of the strongest,
often interpreted as the one capable of treating others the most brutally. Not
only is this the case in movies and television series, but it is also played
out in real life internationally and shared on twenty-four-hour news channels
where it becomes difficult to see a meaningful difference between the brutality
taking place in real life and that inundating us as streaming entertainment. In
1972, the television series, "Kung Fu," starring David Carradine as Kwai Chang
Caine an errant practitioner of the martial art, seemed to offer a meeker,
humbler way of dealing with adversity, but in the end, he ended up solving the
problems of each episode by assaulting others. He just didn't use a gun to do
it as is common with much of American television. The position offered up by
the media moguls seems to be that while non-violence sounds very noble, it
simply does not work in real life. This sentiment has been echoed by others
many times in conversations I have had with them, so often it almost seems
ubiquitous. The conversation often goes like this.
"Why do you want to own a gun?"
"Because if someone threatens me
or my family, I need to be able to defend us."
"You would kill them?"
"If necessary!"
"What about trusting in God's
protection?"
"I believe God gave me the gun
for protection."
Despite Jesus stating that the
meek shall inherit the earth,[i] it seems
his words have been paraphrased into "those with weapons will inherit the
earth." Ever since the Battle of the Milvian Bridge which enabled Constantine to
rule over the Roman Empire weapons have converted millions to an aggressive, violent,
"no-holds-barred" Christianity. Those who became converts at the point of a sword
then saw no disconnect between the pagan blood they shed or that of heretics
and the passive submission of Jesus Christ. This is not only a departure from
the compassion and grace of Christ, but also antithetical to the views of those
who, rather than defend themselves and their families, went to martyrs' deaths
in the Colosseum and other venues, being slain with weapons, set afire, torn by
beasts, beheaded and subjected to all manner of unspeakable horrors. Eventually,
even the Christian church, employing the same tactics as those earlier
persecutors, found purpose in torturing and executing those who disagreed on
points of dogma. Claiming to be soldiers of Christ and wearing the cross as a
symbol of their faith, they destroyed many during the Inquisition.
We look back on those times as
an aberration and see ourselves to be different, but our readiness to resort to
weapons as a panacea for discord tells a different story. If we felt threatened
in our person or family, especially if that threat was seen as non-Christian,
we would not hesitate to end the threat quickly and violently. This would
ensure our right and place to exist on the earth. So why did Jesus say that the
meek would inherit the earth? Perhaps it is about choice. We have a choice
between inheriting the earth as it is now through force of arms, or we can inherit
the earth as it is to be when Jesus returns. The choice we make demonstrates to
all how real one is to us over the other. If we believe the earth as it is now
is to be our reward, then by all means, take up the sword and claim all we can.
But the message of the Bible, even during the violent, genocidal times of the
Old Testament, has long been that there is something better to aspire to, something
God alone can give.
Religion has long been used to
drive armies into battle, promising the assurance of a desirable afterlife. The
Viking slain in battle was to be honored in the halls of Valhalla, while those
not slain as warriors could only look forward to the cold hell of Niflheim. For
Christians, those who died in battle in the Crusades to capture Jerusalem were
promised many heavenly rewards. Both pagans and Christians coerced conversions
through force. There are those today in several religions who believe that if
we create a perfectionist utopia, even violently, we will find heaven here and
now.
This may constitute the greatest
difference between the meekness of early Christianity and the bombastic posturing
that passes for Christianity today. Early Christians made little claim to this
world's goods,[ii] living and dying in the hope
of a future reward. After a few centuries and with the help of the power of
Rome, this changed and church leaders built ecclesiastical fiefdoms modeled
after the secular, imperial realm. Loyalty to a cleric and his espoused
perspective became more important than loyalty to the teachings of Christ.
Bishops became mini emperors exercising autocratic rule over their domains. As
earthly wealth and power grew, the incentive to leave it all for the sake of
the gospel grew less and less. Congruently, the desire to protect those realms
through the force of arms grew ever greater. Some, seeing the error, created religious
orders that made a vow of poverty in this world's goods a central tenet of
their dogma. But even then, they were a minority.
If we look at Christianity as a
whole. Jesus becomes a paradox. How can he be as violent as some believe him to
be yet gentle and humble as he declares himself to be?[iii]
Why were people like Phineas said to be rewarded by God for their violent acts
in the Old Testament? How then can Jesus' humble death upon a rude cross,
rather than resorting to violence against his accusers, be seen as the personification
of God's character? If we were created in the image of God and are to aspire to
the restoration of that image in us, which image is it? Can God fault us for
killing others who we deem to be evil if he does the same? On the other hand,
can we be faulted for not placing the safety of our families foremost when
Jesus did not preserve the safety of those who followed him?
Though we might wish to lean in
the direction of judgment and severity of sentence when faced with this kind of
dilemma, Ellen White cautioned "it is better to err on the side of mercy than
on the side of severity."[iv]
While she wrote this in the context of school discipline, the principle applies
generally. Failure to deal kindly and empathetically with others has caused
great harm to the church and to those so treated. That failure derives from the
idea "I understand the truth. You do not. Therefore, you must be taught to be
meek and humble before me." Such arrogance does not teach meekness. Instead, it
teaches the exact opposite is expected of those in positions of spiritual
leadership. Ellen White reproved this thinking many times in her writings. One
of her foremost works confronting this type of behavior is "Thoughts from the
Mount of Blessings" where she calls repeatedly upon the teachings of Jesus to
challenge the arrogant judgmentalism that Christians seem to fall prey to so
easily.
The world is a harsh place. In many
cities in the United States, people are shot to death daily. Evil only seems to
become bolder and bolder over time. Our leaders sometimes seem little more than
gangsters interested in building personal empires with those voting for them
hoping to profit from those empires. Some Christians even believe that God wants
us to prosper from supporting those aspirations, but the words of Christ tell
us that we are to minister to those who are struggling. The widow, the orphan,
the sick, the prisoner, the homeless, and all those in need are to be the Christian's
ministry. When we put our needs first, our safety first, our possessions first,
even our families first that cannot happen. It witnesses to either a failure to
understand what meekness entails or an outright rejection of the idea of
meekness.
We don't mind oppressing low-income
workers with an impossible to live on income if it means cheap hamburgers and
french fries. We don't mind putting out portable outhouses for the homeless if it
means we don't have to provide them shelter. We don't mind donating a turkey to
the Mission for Thanksgiving if we don't have to pay higher taxes to feed the hungry
year-round. Jesus said to do for others what we would wish them to do for us. That
is the real essence of meekness. It is what God did in the person of Jesus,
lowering himself to our level so he could lift us up to where he created us to
be.