Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.
Meek is a word that we do not use often, so it bears
definition. The best way to define
it may be by example. Our highest
example of meekness is Christ who, when he was being led away to be tortured
and crucified, like a lamb before its shearers did not open his mouth. His life, safety, and dignity were all
under threat, but he did not speak a word to stop it. When he was being crucified, far from condemning those who
killed him, he asked his Father to forgive them because of their ignorance of
what they did.
It is easy to look at the example of Christ, particularly in
this instance, and work up some rationalization that excuses a lack of
meekness. The most common way
might be to say that he did not open his mouth because he had to die in order
to save the world. It is probably
better to think that his meekness was an essential factor in enabling him to
die for the sake of the world. We
might also look at Christ’s zeal in cleansing the temple as a counter to
meekness, or as a rationalization of our own lack of meekness, but here I would
note that it was zeal for his Father’s house and not for himself that drove
him. But lest we see the example of
Jesus as too high or as something other than simple meekness, I will offer
another example:
St. Monica (who was St. Augustine’s mother) is another
wonderful model of meekness. She
lived with an abusive husband, taking his abuse and forgiving him, humbly
submitting to him throughout their marriage. After many years of marriage he did finally become a
Christian and stop abusing her, but he died shortly thereafter. So for basically all of her marriage,
she lived meekly with her husband in an environment that threatened her dignity
and safety. No one supposes that
this was easy for her, and no one supposes that she could have done this
without the help of the Holy Spirit, but by his help and her willingness to
continue on, she did live meekly.
It is also notable that when she was with other women who also lived
with abusive husbands, when they would speak about the things their husbands
had done and what they had done in retaliation, she would say nothing. She did not retaliate, she did not
gossip or defame her husband. She
bore the suffering. So we have
another picture here of a saint not opening her mouth. (This post will not be insisting that
people stay in abusive relationships or dangerous situations. Don’t worry. Stick with me.)
The contrary American ideal might be Blessed are the self-promoting, for they shall get their way. This idea of self-promotion takes some
explanation. It looks different
for different people and in different regions. For some it is aggression to force others to treat me how I
want to be treated and to do the things I want them to do, for others it is
being passive-aggressive, for others it is being “assertive.” These are all approaches to our
neighbors that tell them “You cannot behave in this way because I don’t like
it.” It is a spirit that insists
on its own dignity and that often demands that others change their behavior in
order to suit my physical or (more commonly) my emotional needs or desires.
This is another value that has been lifted wholesale from
the culture and inserted into church life. If there is any adaptation or syncretization, it is simply
to change the language or the method of self-promotion. We wrap it up in Christianese, invoking
the will of God or the dignity of man, but the beneficiary of the dignity is
me. I might, for instance, insist
that my congregation sing only hymns (or sing no hymns) because I prefer them,
but I will put it in terms saying that this is what the church really ought to
be doing in order to honor God. I
might point out how the Holy Spirit has shaped me and gifted me in order to
fill a certain position in the church and insist that I am being mistreated if
I am not given the position or at least the opportunity of having the
position. I might demand that a
certain doctrine be given more or less attention based on my feelings toward
it. I might simply complain that
people are ignoring me or hurting my feelings during times of fellowship or
community events.
In themselves, these things may not be bad. It can be true that a congregation
might benefit from different music, or that a person’s gifts are not being
utilized, or that a true doctrine might benefit from more or less focus, or
that a person may be (either purposefully or inadvertently) mistreated. The problem isn’t that these issues are
raised, but that my desired outcome is complied with. The question to consider is what I expect when I raise the
concern and how I respond to the result when I don’t get my way. Will I break fellowship with my
brothers and sisters (or even my Father and Mother) when I don’t get my way, or
will I submit meekly for the sake of loving God and loving my neighbor?
I have seen situations where this has been done well and
where it has been done badly. I
want to focus on situations where it has been done well. In one church, a few people wanted to
sing more hymns. The pastor,
knowing his congregation, insisted that we sing contemporary music because the
vast majority of people there could not connect with the older songs. The pastor explained his reasoning and
the church did not incorporate hymns into their weekly worship. The people could have gotten frustrated
or angry, they could have left the church over it, but instead they submitted
to their pastor, stayed in the congregation, and didn’t sing hymns in
church. And the church was
strengthened, because newer and younger people felt welcomed and at home, and
they benefited from the guidance and encouragement of older Christians who were
there.
In another situation (in the same church as above) a young
believer who wanted to grow in his faith and to worship through traditional and
often high church practices demanded of the pastor that these practices be
incorporated into their regular worship.
The pastor, knowing his congregation, did not incorporate them for the
same reason that he did not incorporate the hymns. The young believer also demanded that the teaching be deeper
and deal with weightier issues.
The pastor again refused, knowing that his congregation was made up
primarily of people who were new to the faith that needed to be nourished with
milk before being forced to eat solid food. The young believer stayed in the church for a while, but
eventually left to join another church where the worship was more accessible to
him and the teaching dealt with issues that were more immediate to him. But when he left, he left on good terms
with his pastor and his congregation.
Fellowship was not broken, and there was no sense that the congregation
was doing something bad or wrong.
There was simply a recognition that this congregation was not in a
position at that point to feed the young believer as he needed. Older and more mature Christians were
able to fit into this congregation nicely, but this young Christian lacked the
maturity to be nourished within that congregation.
In another instance, a person had a grievance with the way
he was being treated within his church community. He brought the grievance to individual members of the church
to discuss how he felt he was being mistreated. The person with the grievance and the members of the church
had an interest in treating one another well, and through those conversations
they all found ways to adjust their behavior and their expectations for their
relationships. In this case, the
person with the grievance pointed out where he felt his dignity was being
violated and that it was hurtful to him.
And, truthfully, relationships were strained and became more difficult
immediately after that point. But
this person was not given his way and it did not become an excuse to break
fellowship. Rather, the people
worked through the difficulty for the sake of loving their neighbor and the
negative baggage was able to be weeded out when it appeared; the baggage could
not have been weeded out if it had not first been exposed.
So given these three examples, which honestly included
varying degrees of meekness in actual practice, how might they have been
different had the value at work been self-promotion? In the first two examples, people might have left the church
and formed their own church that suited their desires better. They might have formed a faction within
the church by consolidating like-minded people to insist that things change or
even oust their pastor. They might
simply have left hating their church or feeling hurt by it. In the third example, the person with
the grievance could have insisted that he be treated differently, refused to
listen to others or understand the reasons for their treatment of him, or broken
fellowship with the church unless he was treated exactly the way he wanted. Or those with whom he spoke could have
refused to listen and simply told him why he was wrong or justified their
treatment of him without listening to or understanding his grievance. All of these would be examples of
self-promotion and defensiveness rather than meekness.
So what do we do when we will be legitimately hurt if we
stay in a negative situation? What
do we do when we frankly but humbly bring up a grievance and we are not
listened to? This is a difficult
question to answer, and others have definitely addressed it better than I
will. But I will point to our two
examples of meekness from the beginning.
When our lives, safety, or dignity are threatened, we have to pray. Is it God’s will that we stay in the
situation where will be hurt, or is it his will that we leave? Sometimes it is his will that we stay,
as was the case for Jesus and for St. Monica and generally for St. Paul and St.
Peter when they suffered persecution.
Sometimes it is his will for us to escape, as was the case for St. Peter
when the angel freed him from prison.
But without meekness, we will always believe that it is God’s will for
us to escape. Our inclination is
toward self-promotion or even toward simple self-preservation. Meekness, a willingness to humbly submit
and receive even physical suffering and death, allows us to recognize God
telling us to stay and to suffer for his sake.
A note of contrast for those in or having come from abusive
relationships: meekness is not the same thing as believing you deserve to be
abused or treated badly. One is a
work of the Holy Spirit and is in many ways a resting on God’s strength so that
persecution or abuse received is somehow not destructive to a psyche (I don’t
understand it, but I see it in the lives of the apostles and many of the
saints). The other is the result
of deep woundedness that excuses the abuser and insists that you are causing
the abuse or that he is justified in abusing you or that you deserve to be hurt
because you are worthless or simply worth less. If we have this latter spirit, we will often be unable to accept
that God might want us to leave a damaging situation just as we might be unable
to accept staying it one if we tend toward self-promotion. If we lack meekness but are currently
in a harmful situation and do not know whether to remain or leave, then we can
bring the situation to the Church or to trusted older Christians and ask for
help in discerning what we ought to do.
And, of course, we can continue to pray and continue to listen for
direction.
God, grant us the grace of meekness, that we may willingly
suffer what you call us to suffer without opening our mouths, out of love for
you.
No comments:
Post a Comment