Passivity, Quietism, and the Church’s Non-Response to Mounting Injustice

Christians are very divided regarding our response to injustice, especially the mounting injustices directed towards Christians and the church. Yes, we generally agree that we should love and pray for our enemies. We even agree that we should rejoice in the midst of loss and hardship, as Jesus taught:

• Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets. (Luke 6:22-23)

However, does rejoicing preclude active involvement? We generally would say that it shouldn’t. We regret the fact that the church became largely quiescent under Hitler and Jim Crow, and boast that, if we had been there, we would have been involved.

However, there seems to be a disconnect when the injustice occurs to our fellow brethren in Christ. One pastor wrote to explain why he wasn’t going to march with other churches protesting their unjust and discriminatory expulsion from the NYC public schools where they had been renting space on Sunday mornings. He claimed that we are to rejoice when we are persecuted. Although this is true, the pastor also claimed that rejoicing precluded “fighting for one’s rights”:

• Unfortunately, one cannot rejoice at persecution while fighting for one’s rights in persecution. The two cannot go together, even if one mixes one’s protest with prayer.

However, the Bible doesn’t seem to separate rejoicing from protesting. Take the example of Paul and Silas who had been imprisoned at Philippi for preaching the Gospel:

• About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them. (Acts 16: 25)

As a result, a powerful earthquake sprang open all of the prison doors. The jail-keeper, thinking he had lost his prisoners, was about to kill himself. Paul intervened and the jailer received Christ. However, this isn’t the end of the story. Officers subsequently informed them that they were officially released and that they were to leave. Paul surely rejoiced at this, but this didn’t prevent him from exposing the injustice:

• But Paul said to the officers: "They beat us publicly without a trial, even though we are Roman citizens, and threw us into prison. And now do they want to get rid of us quietly? No! Let them come themselves and escort us out." (Acts 16:37)

Rejoicing and protesting can coexist! They did in the mind of Christ. Although He willingly went to His execution, this didn’t prevent Him from protesting the injustice:

• Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour--when darkness reigns." (Luke 22:52-53)

Here is my letter to the pastor:

I want to take issue with your position to not march on behalf of the churches now being coerced to leave the NYC schools.

While I agree with you that we should rejoice in all circumstances, including this discriminatory action, I don’t think that rejoicing precludes either being prophetic by denouncing the injustice or by taking legal action.

However, you believe that there is only “one appropriate response,” and that rejoicing does preclude legal action. Therefore, you wrote:

• Unfortunately, one cannot rejoice at persecution while fighting for one’s rights in persecution. The two cannot go together…

Instead, I think that they must go together. We might rejoice in the midst of our health problems, but this shouldn’t keep us from going to the doctor. We might rejoice in the midst of seeing our brother’s home in flames – we know that the Lord will work even this for good - but this shouldn’t prevent us from helping him put out the fire.

Even if you feel no overriding concern or justification to preserve your place in the NYC school, your brethren do. And we are responsible for them:

• Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins. (James 4:17)

I think that today many Christians are afraid of appearing chauvinistic – a focus on me and mine - in their concern for their brethren. However, it seems that this is the very posture that Jesus would have us take:

• "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:34-35)

When the brethren loose their jobs, buildings and even lives to discrimination, we have a responsibility to combat the injustice and to stand beside them, even in protest, even as we encourage them to rejoice in our Lord. If we are neglectful of this central responsibility, the world will not see our mutual love and will be deprived of the witness of our oneness. They will conclude, “We do not see their love for one another. Christ therefore seems irrelevant to them.”

I don’t think that our passivity will win hearts. During my brief period as a teacher in a public school, I too thought that Jesus had been teaching passivity – to turn the other cheek at the misbehavior of the students. This only won me the deserved contempt of the teachers. They didn’t find anything virtuous in passivity but rather, a clear display of folly. Instead of bringing glory to my Lord, I had briefly demonstrated that the teachings of Jesus (wrongly understood) had no place in the real world.

Instead, I have found that the teachings of the Bible display great wisdom (Deut. 4:6-8) that will impress others with the Light of wisdom. If we simply rejoice while we allow our homes to burn and our brethren to be murdered, we will only earn scorn of others. However, if we show them another way (and I think that it’s the Biblical way) of rejoicing in the confidence of our Lord, as we proceed in wisdom, people may be drawn to this wisdom.

You admit that the children of these schools will suffer loss as the churches are banished from their midst. Well, aren’t these children worth our efforts to stand our ground? Mustn’t we plead for them? Mustn’t we expose the works of darkness (Eph. 5:11)?

Please forgive my unsolicited advice. I think that we are entering increasingly troubled times – times through which the brethren must stand together in worship but also in word and in deed. I pray that you will reconsider.

Lambs for the Secular Slaughter

If you think that the secularist agenda will allow the church to be the church, you are mistaken. If you think that this militant, monopolistic religion has any limits when it comes to humbling the church, you need to look to Denmark. According to LifeSiteNews:

• The nation of Denmark has voted to force churches in the established Evangelical Lutheran Church to perform same-sex “marriage” ceremonies inside their sanctuaries, although one-third of all the denomination’s priests say they will not participate in such rituals. Danish parliament voted by an overwhelming 85-24 margin to compel churches to carry out unions for same-sex couples that are identical to heterosexual marriage celebrations.

• Under the new law, priests may opt out of performing the “wedding” service for theological reasons.  However, a bishop must arrange for a replacement.

In Denmark, at least, it no longer matters what the church or the priest believes. He is now coerced to compromise his faith at the altar of an intolerant secularism that has only contempt for the Christian faith.

• Although the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from dictating church doctrine, religious institutions have already been subjected to government censure or private lawsuits if they refuse to allow homosexual couples to rent their facilities for a ceremony that deeply offends the church’s core doctrines of marriage and family.

• The city of Hutchinson, Kansas, recently adopted a non-discrimination statute that would require houses of worship that rent their facilities to the public to allow same-sex “marriages” on the premises.

Tragically, this is becoming commonplace as government has quietly established the militant and intolerant religion of secularism, which is forcing all other religions to submit to its dictates.

It no longer seems to matter that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits religious coercion:

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

When the church is coerced into performing an act that goes against its teachings – especially within its own house – this unambiguously prohibits “the free exercise thereof.” What then is to prevent secularism from coercing the pastor to officiate? Already, in Denmark, the priest is legally compelled, even in his own church, to find a substitute if he opts-out.

Where will this abuse of the faith end? It now seems that the Constitution only matters to the secular onslaught when it can be twisted or reinterpreted to support their secular agenda.

What does the Christian do when faced with such threats? I think that before all else, the threat must be recognized, faced and exposed (Eph. 5:11). The hypocrisy must also be exposed – that today’s secularism, while posing as “neutral,” is actually intolerant, repressive and totalitarian.

Many Christians will object that exposing sin and hypocrisy doesn’t measure up to our calling - that it doesn’t reflect Christian love. However, this stance represents a misunderstanding of Scripture. Jesus called the religious leadership “hypocrites” and “vipers.” However, this was something that they needed to hear. Hard soil requires severe plowing.

John the Baptist castigated King Herod for taking his brother’s wife. This too was love, albeit “tough love.” It landed him in prison where, eventually, it cost him his head.

Although prayer is imperative, we also need to be mentally prepared for the tough times that are now banging at our door. This means that we must draw together and find comfort and encouragement from one another:

• And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching. (Hebrews 10:24-25)

We also have to remind ourselves that we aren’t sorry hapless victims, even though we experience intense persecution. We are victors and over-comers (1 John 5:4-5) by the grace of our faithful God. These challenges are confronting us because God is allowing them for good. Therefore, we have to channel anger and bitterness in positive and loving ways.

Although it is manifestly clear that the government has no Constitutional right to coerce the churches into performing homosexual marriage, there is even a more important question. Are we offending our Lord by complying? In other words, is it sin to help facilitate a sinful act? Is it sinful to participate in the legitimization and public acceptance of a lifestyle that is sinful?

I think that the answer has to be “Yes!” Likewise, it would be wrong to drive the get-away car in a robbery even if we didn’t directly participate in holding the gun or taking the money. This is called “aiding and abetting” and is considered criminal. Consequently, if an action is sin, any activity to support it is also sin.

Yoking ourselves with those who are actively living in ways contrary to our Lord is sin. God had destroyed King Jehoshaphat’s navy for this reason:

• "Because you have made an alliance with Ahaziah, the Lord will destroy what you have made." (2 Chron. 20:37)

The righteous King Jehoshaphat had abetted the wicked Ahaziah, and the Lord regarded this as unfaithfulness. Although we need to love those who are trapped in the gay life, we cannot become yoked together and abet what is sinful before our Lord:

• Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord.” (2 Cor. 6:14-17)

Christian support for gay marriage gives society – and even our own people - the wrong message. It communicates that gay marriage is so acceptable that the church can support it materially. This violates our Lord’s commands to warn against even the appearance of sin. He warned Ezekiel that he must speak up against Israel’s sins:

• "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself.” (Ezekiel 33:7-9)

How can we warn when we are actually facilitating the very thing that we are supposed to warn against! Besides, we are all “watchmen.” We are all to be the light of truth, according to Jesus:

• "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:14-16)

How can we be the light exposing the darkness when we are passively or actively abetting the same evil!

   

Do coercive laws relieve us of our moral duties? The Apostles didn’t think so. When they had been brought before the court and forbidden from preaching the Gospel:

• Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! (Acts 5:29)

Threat of punishment does not relieve us of our responsibilities before God. Whenever there is a choice between obeying God or the law, God must come first.

What happens when we justify compromise in just one little area? Adam and Eve merely shared a single hand-picked fruit. However, the consequences of this compromise became a virtual avalanche of evil. They could no longer stomach the presence of God; they refused to confess their sin; they told half-truths and blame-shifted. Finally, the unrepentant couple were cast out of God’s presence without a word of remorse.

Should we comply with evil laws, especially as our brethren suffer because they refuse to be silenced? Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was confronted with this very question as he contemplated the morality of the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott. Although he had his own car and didn’t have to suffer the indignities of taking the bus, King concluded:

• He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it…So in order to be true to one’s conscience and true to God, a righteous man has no alternative but to refuse to cooperate with an evil system. (Stride Toward Freedom, 51)

We too must refuse to cooperate with evil, whatever the cost. Many have already lost their jobs after it had been disclosed that they favored traditional marriage against the modern secular innovations. We need to stand in solidarity with them.

Protest vs. Non-Resistance and Passivity

Bethany Blankley, my former colleague at the New York School of the Bible, argues that the churches’ protest against their unfair and discriminatory expulsion from renting space on Sundays from the New York City schools was “unbiblical”:

• “Protesting in any form, as a Christ-follower is misguided and unbiblical.”

To prove her case, she appeals to the example of Jesus:

• Instead of responding in outrage over this [murder of Jews], Jesus spoke about the need for everyone to repent and follow him (Luke 13:1-3).

Although it is clear that our individual relationship with God and need for repentance must take precedence over our fruitful involvement with others and with society, I think that Blankley has overstepped the evidence. While Jesus’ silence on the broader issue of justice is worthy of note, it is a stretch to argue that we must all keep silent on all social justice issues.

• On another occasion, when asked if the iniquitous Roman taxation was lawful, Jesus made no reference to whether or not an occupying nation should tax its subjects. Instead, he spoke about the demands of God upon His subjects. He said, "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (Luke 20:25).

An argument from Jesus’ silence is notoriously weak. Perhaps Jesus was silent for other reasons. Perhaps He understood that protesting against Rome’s unfair taxes would lead to a bloody and unprofitable uprising, which finally did occur in 66AD. Or perhaps He deemed that His fledgling church needed first to be established in the basics – better for now to render to “Caesar the things that are Caesar's.”

What is lacking in Blankley’s argumentation are explicit biblical teachings against protesting. However, her next example of Jesus’ passivity in this area comes closest:

• Jesus addressed the issue of resenting authority in his Sermon on the Mount. Under occupation, a Roman soldier had the right to ask any Jew to carry his pack for one mile. Jesus' commentary on this was, "if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles." Then he added, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:40, 44)…Jesus' mindset went beyond the present circumstance to a higher law revealing that a Christ-follower's life is directed by the commands of God. His disciples taught the same, saying, "as much as it depends on you, live peaceably with all men" (Romans 12:18, 14:19; Hebrews 12:14; 1 Pet. 3:11).

We all agree that our Lord has called us to love and pray for our enemies. However, what does it mean to “live peaceably with all men?” Does it mean to never protest how others may treat you or even their own family? Does it never mean to expose sin and hypocrisy (Eph. 5:11)? Does it mean that we can never correct our children or a teacher her students? Does it mean we can never press charges against a burglar or a rapist? Does it mean that we must allow our wives to be raped in front of us without raising a finger or a word in protest? Or does living “peaceably with all men" require that we confront the evil-doer and bring charges against the rapist for the sake of the peace of our community? If we have failed to bring charges and the rapist struck again, wouldn’t this dishonor our Lord in the eyes of our community?

In contrast to Blankley’s position, Jesus’ ministry contained many words of protest and denunciation. He was highly confrontational. Just look at His many denunciations of the religious leadership (Matthew 23)!

However, Blankley makes an insupportable distinction between protesting against religious and political leaders, claiming that protesting against the religious leaders is okay:

• There is not one instance in all of the accounts of Jesus' life where he came into conflict with Roman authorities… Jesus did denounce the religious leaders of his day, but he did not denounce political leaders.

This might be so, but it wasn’t the Roman authorities with whom He had contact. It wasn’t the Roman authorities who were following Him and contradicting Him at every turn.

Furthermore, Blankley’s distinction that we can denounce the religious leaders but not the political leaders seems quite arbitrary, and it is upon this distinction that her entire argument rests. According to this distinction, if the NYC authorities were religious and not political, the churches could protest. But if they are religious, then the church can’t protest. But aren’t political leaders governed by values – religious sentiments?

Such an arbitrary distinction cannot be maintained biblically. For one thing, religious leaders also exercised political power. Besides, Mosaic laws required obedience towards religious leaders as well.

Exposing sin was central to Jesus’ ministry, and “exposing” is little different from “protesting.” There was no one immune to His critical light. Jesus even corrected Roman Pilate, who had been angered by His silence:

• "Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?" Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin." (John 19:10-11)

Although Jesus assigned the “greater sin” to the religious leadership, He wouldn’t grant Pilate a clean slate either, reminding Him that He too was bound by the laws of God.   

Almost the entire focus of the Hebrew Prophets was a matter of exposing sin – protesting against it – in hope that this might lead Israel to repentance. They never made a distinction between the political and the religious leadership. They all had to repent!

Similarly, Jesus exposed the sin of the political-religious leaders who wanted to murder Him:

   

• Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour--when darkness reigns." (Luke 22:52-53)

We too must expose the “hour when darkness reigns," whether in the City of New York or in our churches.

Meanwhile, I would agree with Blankley that this prophetic endeavor should not be accompanied by outbursts of anger but by praises to God, who works all things together for good, and also by prayers for those with whom we disagree.

However, Blankley wrongly wants us to choose between trusting God and doing something ourselves about the injustice:

• If a Christian believes that God is in control, then he/she will submit to the ruling authorities and proclaim his/her faith by obeying God to be at peace with all men. A Christian will not sign petitions, but petition their father in heaven through prayer.

Blankley is saying that if you trust God, you will submit to the authorities and do absolutely nothing. You will not go to the police; you will not press charges against the rapist; you will not cry out about the injustices, genocide, slavery, or even the Holocaust. However, our Lord requires us to take responsibility for our neighbor and to cry out on his behalf (Amos 5:14-15; Isaiah 1:16-17) as we place our trust completely in Him. Mysteriously, these two strategies go together (Phil. 2:12-13; 1 Cor. 15:10).

However, Blankley rightly places the emphasis on trusting God:

• Many Christians wrongly assume that the only way a situation can be put right is by political or social means, but this is not biblical teaching. God is in control and is active in the affairs of men and nations. The Christian worldview teaches that God removes rulers and puts them in power – both good and evil – for his purposes (Daniel 2:21; 4:17). All political leaders are appointed by God and nothing is beyond his control.

While God is definitely in control – He has even established our days (Psalm 139) and our lives for us (Eph. 2:10) – this doesn’t mean that we don’t have a role in our lives and in this world. Even though Paul assures us that we are “His workmanship,” this doesn’t relieve us of the responsibility of praying, meditating on Scripture, walking in love, or even protesting. Somehow, God works through our freewill choices and obedience. To dismiss one of these truths is to try to fly a plane with one wing.

Even though God has a plan for our lives, it doesn’t allow us to “put God to the test” by failing to live prudently, as Jesus had corrected Satan (Matthew 4:3-4).

Protest has long had a place among the children of God. Knowing that Haman was putting the finishing touches on his plan for the destruction of the Jews, the Jewish Queen Esther risked her life to come before her husband and king:

• "If I have found favor with you, O king, and if it pleases your majesty, grant me my life--this is my petition. And spare my people--this is my request. For I and my people have been sold for destruction and slaughter and annihilation. If we had merely been sold as male and female slaves, I would have kept quiet, because no such distress would justify disturbing the king." (Esther 7:3-4)

It was this protest, by the grace of God, that saved the Jewish people. Perhaps it is time for us to speak up as well!