Speaking out publicly is a powerful weapon against the lies. The pen's mightier than the sword, so here we all are together, ramping up the risks as we push back harder. I like to think we're all making a difference.
This is war. People being arrested for online posts, sharing memes, attending peaceful protests, etc. Some are even losing their lives. Billions of dollars being spent to sway perceptions both ways. A few memers and writers are a David to their Goliath.
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise..."
I think you would enjoy, although a bit more skeptical, Martyrmade's Twitter take on it from a while ago. I'm sympathetic to it too, and don't know for sure if we still know what God means by the meekness passage. https://x.com/martyrmade/status/1429478305976049668
It's something I really struggle with still, both the trait, and seeing masculine strength in the Christian belief.
That is exactly why I wrote this. When I was young I couldn't square the circle of being meek. To an athletic or active young man there is little you can do to sell the modern understanding of meekness as something to aspire to.
For me, it is more than that. When I was that age, 1980, young men were not called to be gentle or strong. Just to "do what feels good." I would have thrived under the challenge of being strong and gentle. My upbringing would have had context.
This reminds me of Aristotle, for whom *anger itself* is literally a virtue, a golden mean between being irascible and inirascible or, perhaps better put, *righteous anger* is a virtue, a golden mean between irascibility and being worm-like. Righteous anger being angry to the proper degree, for the right reasons, at the right people, at the right time, giving the right response, etc.
Moreover, as this post points out, there is no restraint without the ability to do violence. I've long advocated for the inclusion of combat sports in phys. ed. because quite frankly, men *need* to be capable of doing violence. It is, after all, called for at times.
Yes, this is so misunderstood. The meaning of "meek" in English has changed, and not recently. It can't be used in its original meaning without explanation, anymore than you can use "artificial" and expect people to understand "artfully crafted".
Good work, especially with early exemplars of Greek usage. But "meek" today has no sense of resilience or strength, but rather pliancy, even surrender. At time of the writing of the King James Version, what usage for meek? The OED may have contemporary antonyms even.
The use of the world meek dates back to 12th century. It is from the Old Norse "mjukr" which means gentle. In the Latin Vulgate from around 1300 the word used is "mansuetude," which means obedient or tame. The literal translation of mansuetude is "accustom to the hand." The root man - (hand) + suescere - (accustom to or habituate) and this use appears well into the late 1400s. It appears as far as I can tell that the usage of meek and gentle at the time of writing of the King James Bible is the same as the original Greek understanding of strength under control.
It is on page 29 of Carl Schmitt’s Andrew you’re gonna stop yelling at me and we work for you. You understand me you don’t get what you want 24 seven you can wait a minute concepts of the political. I tried to post a picture of it, but I can’t get it to work in the comments but if you direct message me, I will send you a photo of the passage.
I'd like to make a comment that stems from this but maybe strays a bit. Just as meekness should not be barely disguised weakness (that's me I admit),so "forgiveness" is only really contemptible compliance unless you have the power to inflict hurt or harm if you choose NOT to forgive. Sorry,this thought or idea is so unchristian and I know people say you have to forgive for yourself,for your own mental healing,but that isn't real forgiveness,it's oblivion,like being unable to respond to a threat is not meekness but weakness. Only im thinking back to the time when Mandela instituted the Truth Commission in South Africa where people told their tales of injustice in court,they had the satisfaction of being "heard" and no bad things happened. Only on our media (the BBC) I heard this particular story,and I heard it several times and I didn't believe a word of it and it sounded fake to me. A black South African woman was waiting to tell about how she was raped by several white security men. She was waiting outside and just across from her were the men who had raped her. Her queenly dignity contrasted with their craven fear and shame at knowing they would soon be in that room hearing this woman tell the world what they did. Then she turned and smiled at them,a smile full of kindness and understanding and they realised they were forgiven and though she might tell of her suffering she would not be vindictively having them put in jail or such. And this was how the rainbow nation of peace,love and harmony was birthed.
Now,cynical old me,thought this story odd because why would those men be afraid or worried unless the woman had the power to hurt them which she obviously didn't. Call me amoral or lacking in empathy but that's an example (a fictional one,of pretend forgiveness and pretend meekness).
I will admit that it is seldom prudent to comment without reading the entirety of what someone has written, but I have a hard time moving past the examples of Christians getting their asses kicked in the public square--which seems to be the impetus of writing--when one example is due in large part to Protestants pearl clutching about Catholics, another is a matter of religious liberty, and the third is flatly false--no one can make anyone compromise beliefs because one can always die rather than acquiesce and mind control machines are science fiction. I so often see Christians talk about persecution and then give examples where they are reaping what they themselves sowed, are indignant about something that is equal opportunity in a pluralistic political/cultural context, or are suggesting that disagreement and political pressure are tantamount to God's sovereign will.
I would probably agree with whatever you have to say about meekness, if only because Jesus, Peter, and Paul are by no means wallflowers at any point of their recorded ministries, but I find the idea that we need more belligerence in the public square to be laughable. What we need is to hold ourselves accountable and to live lives morally upright enough to make a pagan wonder how it is that we live so well, rather than to roll their eyes about how those hypocritical limp dicks won't stop prattling on about Darwin, Dewey, and the Democratic Party.
Having now read the entire article, I am relieved to find that I said nothing inaccurate. Further, I would contend that articles like this one give the false impression that we are knights among barbarians. The truth is that we fight the serpent within, the serpent without, and the wolves among the sheep the way that a little shepherd boy would with a sling and stones. We are pilgrims, not nobles, of the City of Man.
The way you began the article frames the contexts in which you think we need meekness, and my comment pointed out that none of those situations requires meekness so much as repentance, tolerance, and integrity. You did not address these concerns. It would have been much more helpful for someone to respond to the content of my comment than to goad me into reading the remainder of the post. Ironically, doing so confirmed my suspicions that you are preparing men for war who ought to be prepared for agriculture or accounting.
First, it would be best practice to read an article before commenting.
Second, I am simply telling young men that being meek does not mean being a doormat. The point of the article is to know when to use restraint and when force is applicable. Each one of those situations require meekness, unless you think we should sit around and be tolerant of abject evils. Tolerance of evil is not a virtue, and I am not going to tell people to sit around and do nothing. I am also not advocating for violence. I am shedding light on the lie that Christians are supposed to do absolutely nothing other than hope and pray that things get better. We have an obligation to try and make things better.
And yet your response demonstrates that you either didn't read my comments or don't understand them. I have now read and believe I underderstand your post, so I will merely reiterate that: 1. prayer not being in schools is the fault of Protestants pearl clutching about Catholics; 2. freedom or religion involves all religions being able to put statues in public places or no religions being able to put statues in public places; and 3. that no one can make any one compromise their deeply held religious beliefs. So, we need: 1. to confess that we were stupid to remove God from public schools just to get rid of Mary or accept the tradeoff; 2. choose between all statues or no statues; and 3. have faith enough to die as a martyr, if it comes to that.
My issue isn't with what you have said about meekness, but in which situations one must exemplify it. One could perfectly describe courage and be risible if the context of such courage were wiping a child's poopy bottom or purchasing turnips. If you get the context wrong, it is almost as bad as getting the virtue itself wrong, for virtue is nothing other than the right response to reality.
In Jean-Claude Larchet's excellent "Therapy for Spiritual Illnesses," he has a lovely chapter on the spiritual illness of anger. In it, he describes how the Christian faith sees anger as a NATURAL ability or power of man, meant to be directed toward the Evil One and his works. It goes wrong, though, any time it is directed toward our neighbor - that is, toward fellow human beings.
Easy to say, hard to implement, I'll admit. But it's the ideal to strive and pray for: to always make sure my enemy is never my neighbor, a fellow creature made in the image of God, no matter how disfigured by sin. The enemy is never him or her - but rather the much older spiritual forces of evil.
There is also Moses described as the most meek man in all the earth. He was certainly one of mighty power and even killed an Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew slave.
From a Biblical perspective, meekness is controlled power reserved to protect the vulnerable and oneself depending on the circumstance in the right degree. I’m glad you mention the lashing out by Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane that struck the priest’s servant. It shows the opposite of controlled strength and the result of impulsivity. When the priests and the mob came to seize Jesus, they came armed with clubs, swords and many men (Mark 14:43). They knew Jesus and His disciples could be a force to reckon with if Jesus but gave the word or used any of His power. They also knew that the disciples also were armed with swords under Jesus’s direct order (Luke 22:36). The disciples must have been very strong men (think Jesus’s nickname for the Sons of Thunder Mark 3:17), as many were raised as fishermen hauling in massive nets and carrying out manual labor. Paul writes, “I discipline my body and keep it under control” (1 Cor 9:27). The meekness of the Christian knight is vital for the return of the traditional West.
Meekness. So relevant, and lacking today.
Speaking out publicly is a powerful weapon against the lies. The pen's mightier than the sword, so here we all are together, ramping up the risks as we push back harder. I like to think we're all making a difference.
This is war. People being arrested for online posts, sharing memes, attending peaceful protests, etc. Some are even losing their lives. Billions of dollars being spent to sway perceptions both ways. A few memers and writers are a David to their Goliath.
I salute you all. Now carry on, meekly.
The point was that the knights of old did more than just speak. Talking or memeing alone won't solve anything.
Yes, but at LEAST be talking.
Many good Christians are leaning on their shovel and praying for a hole.
IMHO memes are becoming more important in the war against evil - new subscriber to your site.
Yep - laughing at their ridiculousness is most effective. Point and laugh sometimes. In. Their. Face.
"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise..."
I think you would enjoy, although a bit more skeptical, Martyrmade's Twitter take on it from a while ago. I'm sympathetic to it too, and don't know for sure if we still know what God means by the meekness passage. https://x.com/martyrmade/status/1429478305976049668
It's something I really struggle with still, both the trait, and seeing masculine strength in the Christian belief.
https://x.com/JSlaughterEsq/status/1803820261143155077
I have this poem in my sons room
I had it up on display in my previous office. Need to set it up again... I was so close to remembering it by heart a few months ago. :)
Thank you! I wish that someone explained this to me when I was 14. My life would be different.
That is exactly why I wrote this. When I was young I couldn't square the circle of being meek. To an athletic or active young man there is little you can do to sell the modern understanding of meekness as something to aspire to.
For me, it is more than that. When I was that age, 1980, young men were not called to be gentle or strong. Just to "do what feels good." I would have thrived under the challenge of being strong and gentle. My upbringing would have had context.
Wonderful, clear explanation. Thanks!
This reminds me of Aristotle, for whom *anger itself* is literally a virtue, a golden mean between being irascible and inirascible or, perhaps better put, *righteous anger* is a virtue, a golden mean between irascibility and being worm-like. Righteous anger being angry to the proper degree, for the right reasons, at the right people, at the right time, giving the right response, etc.
Moreover, as this post points out, there is no restraint without the ability to do violence. I've long advocated for the inclusion of combat sports in phys. ed. because quite frankly, men *need* to be capable of doing violence. It is, after all, called for at times.
Yes, this is so misunderstood. The meaning of "meek" in English has changed, and not recently. It can't be used in its original meaning without explanation, anymore than you can use "artificial" and expect people to understand "artfully crafted".
Good work, especially with early exemplars of Greek usage. But "meek" today has no sense of resilience or strength, but rather pliancy, even surrender. At time of the writing of the King James Version, what usage for meek? The OED may have contemporary antonyms even.
The use of the world meek dates back to 12th century. It is from the Old Norse "mjukr" which means gentle. In the Latin Vulgate from around 1300 the word used is "mansuetude," which means obedient or tame. The literal translation of mansuetude is "accustom to the hand." The root man - (hand) + suescere - (accustom to or habituate) and this use appears well into the late 1400s. It appears as far as I can tell that the usage of meek and gentle at the time of writing of the King James Bible is the same as the original Greek understanding of strength under control.
Thank you. I thought I recalled "meeke" in Chaucer and sure enough, here it is:
At mortal batailles hadde he been fiftene,
And foughten for oure feith at Tramyssene
In lyste thries, and ay slayn his foo.
This ilke worthy knyght hadde been also
Somtyme with the lord of Palatye
Agayn another hethen in Turkye;
And evermoore he hadde a sovereyn prys.
And though that he were worthy, he was wys,
And of his port as meeke as is a mayde.
He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde,
In al his lyf, unto no maner wight.
He was a verray, parfit, gentil knyght.
You will also find the word praus used by Aristotle in his rhetoric and in the Nicomachean ethics (4.1–5)
Eye-opening. This is up there with Schmitt’s takedown of “enemy.”
Do you have a link or a hint where I can find that and what exactly I would be looking for?
It is on page 29 of Carl Schmitt’s Andrew you’re gonna stop yelling at me and we work for you. You understand me you don’t get what you want 24 seven you can wait a minute concepts of the political. I tried to post a picture of it, but I can’t get it to work in the comments but if you direct message me, I will send you a photo of the passage.
Thank you for this must needed essay.
I'd like to make a comment that stems from this but maybe strays a bit. Just as meekness should not be barely disguised weakness (that's me I admit),so "forgiveness" is only really contemptible compliance unless you have the power to inflict hurt or harm if you choose NOT to forgive. Sorry,this thought or idea is so unchristian and I know people say you have to forgive for yourself,for your own mental healing,but that isn't real forgiveness,it's oblivion,like being unable to respond to a threat is not meekness but weakness. Only im thinking back to the time when Mandela instituted the Truth Commission in South Africa where people told their tales of injustice in court,they had the satisfaction of being "heard" and no bad things happened. Only on our media (the BBC) I heard this particular story,and I heard it several times and I didn't believe a word of it and it sounded fake to me. A black South African woman was waiting to tell about how she was raped by several white security men. She was waiting outside and just across from her were the men who had raped her. Her queenly dignity contrasted with their craven fear and shame at knowing they would soon be in that room hearing this woman tell the world what they did. Then she turned and smiled at them,a smile full of kindness and understanding and they realised they were forgiven and though she might tell of her suffering she would not be vindictively having them put in jail or such. And this was how the rainbow nation of peace,love and harmony was birthed.
Now,cynical old me,thought this story odd because why would those men be afraid or worried unless the woman had the power to hurt them which she obviously didn't. Call me amoral or lacking in empathy but that's an example (a fictional one,of pretend forgiveness and pretend meekness).
Pukku mukku ~
I will admit that it is seldom prudent to comment without reading the entirety of what someone has written, but I have a hard time moving past the examples of Christians getting their asses kicked in the public square--which seems to be the impetus of writing--when one example is due in large part to Protestants pearl clutching about Catholics, another is a matter of religious liberty, and the third is flatly false--no one can make anyone compromise beliefs because one can always die rather than acquiesce and mind control machines are science fiction. I so often see Christians talk about persecution and then give examples where they are reaping what they themselves sowed, are indignant about something that is equal opportunity in a pluralistic political/cultural context, or are suggesting that disagreement and political pressure are tantamount to God's sovereign will.
I would probably agree with whatever you have to say about meekness, if only because Jesus, Peter, and Paul are by no means wallflowers at any point of their recorded ministries, but I find the idea that we need more belligerence in the public square to be laughable. What we need is to hold ourselves accountable and to live lives morally upright enough to make a pagan wonder how it is that we live so well, rather than to roll their eyes about how those hypocritical limp dicks won't stop prattling on about Darwin, Dewey, and the Democratic Party.
Respectfully, you should have read the article before commenting
Care to elaborate?
A lot of what you are talking about I address in the article.
Having now read the entire article, I am relieved to find that I said nothing inaccurate. Further, I would contend that articles like this one give the false impression that we are knights among barbarians. The truth is that we fight the serpent within, the serpent without, and the wolves among the sheep the way that a little shepherd boy would with a sling and stones. We are pilgrims, not nobles, of the City of Man.
The way you began the article frames the contexts in which you think we need meekness, and my comment pointed out that none of those situations requires meekness so much as repentance, tolerance, and integrity. You did not address these concerns. It would have been much more helpful for someone to respond to the content of my comment than to goad me into reading the remainder of the post. Ironically, doing so confirmed my suspicions that you are preparing men for war who ought to be prepared for agriculture or accounting.
First, it would be best practice to read an article before commenting.
Second, I am simply telling young men that being meek does not mean being a doormat. The point of the article is to know when to use restraint and when force is applicable. Each one of those situations require meekness, unless you think we should sit around and be tolerant of abject evils. Tolerance of evil is not a virtue, and I am not going to tell people to sit around and do nothing. I am also not advocating for violence. I am shedding light on the lie that Christians are supposed to do absolutely nothing other than hope and pray that things get better. We have an obligation to try and make things better.
And yet your response demonstrates that you either didn't read my comments or don't understand them. I have now read and believe I underderstand your post, so I will merely reiterate that: 1. prayer not being in schools is the fault of Protestants pearl clutching about Catholics; 2. freedom or religion involves all religions being able to put statues in public places or no religions being able to put statues in public places; and 3. that no one can make any one compromise their deeply held religious beliefs. So, we need: 1. to confess that we were stupid to remove God from public schools just to get rid of Mary or accept the tradeoff; 2. choose between all statues or no statues; and 3. have faith enough to die as a martyr, if it comes to that.
My issue isn't with what you have said about meekness, but in which situations one must exemplify it. One could perfectly describe courage and be risible if the context of such courage were wiping a child's poopy bottom or purchasing turnips. If you get the context wrong, it is almost as bad as getting the virtue itself wrong, for virtue is nothing other than the right response to reality.
In Jean-Claude Larchet's excellent "Therapy for Spiritual Illnesses," he has a lovely chapter on the spiritual illness of anger. In it, he describes how the Christian faith sees anger as a NATURAL ability or power of man, meant to be directed toward the Evil One and his works. It goes wrong, though, any time it is directed toward our neighbor - that is, toward fellow human beings.
Easy to say, hard to implement, I'll admit. But it's the ideal to strive and pray for: to always make sure my enemy is never my neighbor, a fellow creature made in the image of God, no matter how disfigured by sin. The enemy is never him or her - but rather the much older spiritual forces of evil.
There is also Moses described as the most meek man in all the earth. He was certainly one of mighty power and even killed an Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew slave.
From a Biblical perspective, meekness is controlled power reserved to protect the vulnerable and oneself depending on the circumstance in the right degree. I’m glad you mention the lashing out by Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane that struck the priest’s servant. It shows the opposite of controlled strength and the result of impulsivity. When the priests and the mob came to seize Jesus, they came armed with clubs, swords and many men (Mark 14:43). They knew Jesus and His disciples could be a force to reckon with if Jesus but gave the word or used any of His power. They also knew that the disciples also were armed with swords under Jesus’s direct order (Luke 22:36). The disciples must have been very strong men (think Jesus’s nickname for the Sons of Thunder Mark 3:17), as many were raised as fishermen hauling in massive nets and carrying out manual labor. Paul writes, “I discipline my body and keep it under control” (1 Cor 9:27). The meekness of the Christian knight is vital for the return of the traditional West.
Never got that memo, and would throw it back in the face of any zealot who tried to deliver it to me.