Meekness/Humility and Individual Rights

The intersection of meekness and the assertion of rights has long been very thorny. Nietzche considered meekness to be a sign of weakness that the uber-man mentality would (and must) inevitably conquer. To be meek is to be weak, so the theory goes. To be meek is to forfeit one's rights and to allow others to dominate through the assertion of their rights and the imposition of their will upon the weak. For Nietzche, meekness was the great enemy of true power, and that once humanity discovered the will to power that Nietzche preached, the death of God by our own hands would be upon us.

Was Nietzche right? Does Christianity really entail a surrender of individual rights through the elevation of meekness as a blessed virtue (Mt. 5.5)? Well, as with many things, the answer is 'yes and no'.

There is little doubt that Christianity in general (and the Pauline letters in particular) seems to teach that godly people should be willing to sacrifice their own individual rights for the sake of the gospel. Paul himself did this on more than one occasion in his letters. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul explicitly chooses not to exercise certain rights that he has by virtue of being an apostle. Why? It is because Paul did not want to exercise his rights (or do anything else) if it meant hindering the gospel of Christ (9.12). Paul does the same thing in his letter to Philemon. Paul's letter to Philemon has rightly been called a masterpiece of subtle suggestion, and in it, Paul again makes clear that as an apostle, he could assert his rights and force Philemon to do the right thing (v8, 14). Instead, he brilliantly eschews outright demands and appeals instead to Philemon's better intentions. Throughout his letters, Paul routinely calls his audience to mutual respect and love for each other that insisted on putting the needs of others ahead of individual self-interests (Rom. 12.5,8; 1C 10.24; Eph. 4.29; Phil. 2.3-4). Both Peter and the writer of Hebrews offer similar instructions (1P 4.10, Heb. 13.16). What we have in all of these cases are examples of how the early church lived out the Golden Rule of Christ (Mt. 7.12).

So does this mean that meekness and deference translate into a distasteful surrendering of our own needs and individuality? Is meekness really naked weakness? Absolutely not. Christianity does not teach the sacrifice of one's own rights for no higher reason. To the contrary, the Scriptural witness seems to be that godly people should be willing to sacrifice their own rights in an effort to defend the rights of the weak. Humility and weakness does not entail being silent or idle in the face of injustice or unrighteousness. Instead, it means a willingness to be disadvantaged ourselves if necessary, in order to defend the disadvantaged. It is often the case that righteousness is disadvantaging ourselves for the sake of advantaging others. This, of course, is exactly what Jesus himself did. The great christological hymn of Philippians 2 tells us that Christ voluntarily gave up the glory of his sovereign and divine position in order to identify himself with lowly sinners. It was through the transfer of his righteousness to us through his sacrifice that sinners might know victory. The Genesis story of Jacob wrestling with the angel is a poignant demonstration of this ethic that previews the work of Christ by thousands of years(Gen. 32).

Meekness is not weakness. Ps. 37 famously declares that the meek will inherit the earth. A willingness to sacrifice our rights does not mean we volunteer to be punching bags - not at all. Meekness is not an end in itself. Again, meekness and the assertion of rights is thoroughly linked with the gospel itself. It is the gospel that is not to be impeded through the assertion of rights. It is precisely because the virtue of meekness is so alien to secular existence which makes the assertion of meekness so radically different and attention-grabbing. To advance the cause of Christ is to authentically present the world with an attractive alternative to Nietzche. To be meek in such a way as to defend those whom Nietzche's philosophy discards as weak and unworthy of dignity is to appeal to the image of God that exists in everyone. Deep down, everyone knows that the Nietzchean quest for superman status on the backs of everyone else is reductionistic and ultimately unhuman. Some will never admit it, but most are very willing to listen to alternatives when experiencing the rawness of Nietzchean ethics. To see an alternative through tangible acts of meekness is even better.

The Bible knows what it's talking about, not only when it comes to meekness, but in the often destructive carousel of defending our own rights to the exclusion of any larger considerations. Our individuality is not subsumed when we insist on looking out for the needs of others at least as much as we look out for our own. To the contrary, our individuality is enhanced by such an ethic, because in living this way, we choose not to reduce our existence to just us. Instead, our lives become linked with something much bigger than us (the gospel), which increases our own individuality and purpose. Imagine where we'd be if Christ had chosen himself rather than us! But in choosing us, Christ has become the most discussed Person in all of history. He has hardly been subsumed, and neither will we if we do what Paul says, and follow the example of our Savior through the ministry of the Spirit within us (1c 11.1).