Power

Power can never be taken.  It can only be given.  This is absolutely true.  To understand it, though, we have to understand power.

Merriam-Webster defines it as 1. ability to act or produce an effect. 2. possession of control, influence, or authority over others. 3. physical might.

I'm obviously talking about definition 2, but in a less direct way, my statement also applies to 1 and 3.

So regarding power over others, this power can only be given with the consent of those over whom it is exercised.  We don't like to think of it that way because too many of us lay down and roll over to let people have power over us.  We want to feel excused, that there was nothing we could do.  But this is false because no one can physically make you do anything you do not choose to do.

Actually, there's two exceptions.  They can make you hurt and they can make you die.  But they still can't make you do anything they want you to do.  What we call oppression is really just strong coercion.  An oppressor finds something we want and attempts to control our receipt of it contingent upon us doing what they want.  This doesn't always have to be negative.  Many rulers know that positive reinforcement is better than negative in many cases.  In this case we don't tend to call it oppression, but the principle is the same.  We want the reward, so we comply.  Parents use this all the time.

Another side of this coercion complex involves vilifying those who don't comply and making negative examples of them.  This plays on the human tendency to conform and really just greases the wheels of the coercive process.

But it doesn't always work.  If a person or people lose the fear of the consequences, the power is gone.  Unfortunately in our society, one of the largest coercive factors is the idea that death is the ultimate evil.  If life is to be preserved at all costs, the power is handed over.  It simply becomes a matter of the degree to which it is exercised.  But if death is not feared, the ruler is grasping at straws because even pain is not so effective a coercion simply because no ruler can hurt enough people.  sure it may work one on one, but usually this occurs only after someone has already given over too much power in the first place.

Here's some examples.  Ever wonder why Native Americans were not enslaved by the Europeans?  Why would they go to the trouble and expense to catch and ship over Africans when there was an ample supply of primitive people right in their own backyard?  The answer is that they tried.  The problem was that Native Americans were (and still are) an independent and defiant people who do not hand over their power.  Even if one could be taken alive, he or she would not work.  Give them a tool and they'd put it through your head.  Slack the chain and they'd wrap it around your neck.  Pen them up and try to break them, and they'd simply starve to death or take their own life before giving in.  Where do you think that fierce independent streak of American culture came from?  Indians weren't destroyed.  They were absorbed.  The distinct cultures were largely lost, but I am a living example of the assimilated, but not conquered people who have left an indelible mark on American culture.  Truly, modern American culture IS a hybrid of Native and European and African influences.  But I digress.

Secondly, the Christian martyrs, both ancient and modern.  They came from the dominant cultures in which they were found, but lost their fear of death and even pain because of their faith.  While they didn't often resort to violent resistance, they were never conquered and thousands have refused to submit to countless regimes that violated their beliefs.

Third, Muslim martyrs.  The reason Islamic terrorism is so scary is that it can occur anywhere and from anyone.  A people who are not afraid to die do not need to submit.

But I also mentioned torture as often the result of having given up power and attempting to take it back too late.  The best example I know are the Nazi concentration camp victims.  Countless people sat by and watched as they gave up more and more power to the Nazi regime.  Then even when they were being hauled away, few resisted.  Some did.  But not most.

The Christian martyrs are not exactly in this state because they willingly submitted to the torture because of their beliefs in nonviolence.  Since it was willing, they weren't technically abdicating their power, but choosing not to exercise their power out of deference to God, whom they believed to be in control even in that time.  Some were miraculously rescued, others weren't.  But before you go trying to say this proves God doesn't exist or didn't favor them, remember what I said about death not being the ultimate evil.

I want to be clear, that I'm not downplaying the strength of the coercion.  I'm not judging anyone for acting or not acting in any way.  Until we're there, we can't say how we'd react either.  I'm simply pointing out that these were indeed cases where power was given and not taken.

I'm not even saying it is wrong to always allow someone power over you.  Certainly there are cases where it is wise, prudent, beneficial, and even good to submit.  The difference is the understanding of what we're doing.  It is voluntary submission.  No human has power over another by innate right.  It is ALWAYS by the consent of the governed.

This understanding should color our views of those over us.  It should also color our views of those under us.  Doubtless someone will quote the Bible passage about submitting to those in authority because God placed them there.  Yes.  I agree.  What does this have to do with my point?  I still have the choice to submit or not, for good or ill.  I still can't be compelled to do what a ruler says.  And if you are citing this passage, I'd like to also point out the many others about leaders whom God also took down...many through the violent and bloody hands of His people.  So it cuts both ways, pastor.  Are you so certain of which type of leader you are?

So where does this leave us?  Is there a way to act in society?  Yes, I think a mutual respect among all people, a servant leadership that understands it is just that, paired with a diverse and necessary body of others who are no less necessary and no less favored.  While this is an ideal that may be hard to reach (at least in the US), I suggest we at least reclaim the mannered equipoise of many cultures past and present:  Know you have less power than you think you do, and there's always a chance I could be more coercive than you, or at least willing to put you to the ultimate test of defending your power (i.e. I might kill you.)  So let's just be polite and we'll get along fine.

As for a better way, I think we have that as well.  God, being the prime source and beyond our influence altogether, has established that goodness and love flow from Him to us.  Goodness and love draw the recipient toward the giver.  Thus we comply not from coercion, but as a gift back.  It works in the human realm, we've all seen it.  Betrayal is universally denounced.  Good deserves good.  Love deserves love.  It sidesteps the whole power dynamic altogether.  This is how Jesus operated.  This is how many Christians operate.  It just had to start somewhere, and God took care of that for us.  Or rather, He established the universe that way, so we really have no other choice.  To defy it simply negates our own being.  A self-perpetuating system, no punishment necessary.

So I'll leave you with this.  If you are having to manipulate and strive to get people to do what you think they should, you're doing something wrong.  If you have to beg for money or tell people God won't bless them.  If you have to make lighthearted threats to get them to sign up for your program.  You are slipping into the power dynamic, which means you don't have the power in the first place.  Forcing that will be your undoing.

The only winning move is not to play.