The Meek Shall Inherit The Earth

I've decided that this phrase is misunderstood. Pull up a chair and I'll tell you what it really means.

Everybody thinks it means Gandhi. "Be completely passive, and when all the aggressive people are done killing each other, you'll be the only ones left and you'll inherit the earth." To be sure, "inherit" implies that the current owner will die before you get it. I don't know Aramaic (the language Jesus was speaking when he uttered that phrase) so I can't get all etymological on you, but I do want to point out that "inherit" doesn't have to be literal. In any case, I don't think that Jesus was saying "every single one of the aggressive people will have to die out before the meek can inherit." It's more useful to think of it as a critical mass thing (bad choice of words considering what we're talking about). One day, there will simply be not enough aggressive people for them to impose their will on everyone else, and the meek will inherit by default.

But that's not what Jesus really meant. Grab a bagel and listen to the Jewish guy tell you what it's really all about.

The focus, of course, is on the word "meek." The lawyer in me wants to say, "depends on your definition of meek." Well, yeah, kind of. Meek doesn't have to mean complete passivity like Gandhi. Don't get me wrong, Gandhi is one of the greatest people of the modern world, and if everyone followed his example we'd have a lot less trouble. But you don't have to be like Gandhi to be meek.

Meek doesn't have to mean a complete lack of willingness to fight. Rather, it can mean an aversion to aggression--a desire not to be aggressive, and a desire not to allow others to be aggressive. Let's call on another bald figure of the 20th Century: Captain Picard. He commanded a starship with destructive capability, but his first response was always "let's talk this over." He was the archetype of Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future: a future in which conflict was settled by discussion, not by violence. It often didn't work, but it was the ideal to which future humans would be held.

Now let's bring in the Democrats.

"Jordan, you've gone from Gandhi to Picard to the party that can't win for losing. This is getting ridiculous." Bear with me.

Clinton (the father of the modern Democratic party) was the perfect real-world example of meekness. He advanced the cause of diplomacy whenever he could, engaging with China and North Korea and even Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. (Under Clinton, Afghanistan's opium production reached an all-time low.) When Clinton had no other choice, he resorted to violence, but only to advance the cause of peace. When Serbia refused to stop killing the Kosovars, Clinton stepped in with a true international coalition and bombed the Serbians until they agreed to stop. In spite of the fact that he was willing to use his power as Commander in Chief, Clinton was meek.

Moreover, America is meek. Sure, we've fought a lot of wars. We've even been the aggressors more than once, and any Native American would certainly take umbrage at my claim. Nevertheless, over the past 250 years we have worked toward a nonviolent ideal. When we disagree with our friends (such as Japan's trade tariffs in the 80's and 90's), we solved our differences without firing a single shot. When we disagreed amongst ourselves, even when our own leaders ostensibly broke the law (such as the Lewinsky scandal), we settled our differences without firing a single shot. Even when the Democrats lost the election to Bush, the man who stands for everything we oppose, Clinton not only stepped down, but helped Bush make the transition. Compare that to General Musharraf, who just mobilized the army rather than step down. The US truly is a beacon of peace in the modern world. Our reputation has been horribly stained by Bush, but this isn't the first time America has stumbled. Under a Democratic president, we will be able to regain our place as a leader of the meek.

Let's toss one more guy into the mix: Emmanuel Kant.

In political science, the only theory that actually has empirical evidence to support it is Kant's theory of the Pacific Union. He postulated that (a) democracy is spreading, and (b) democracies don't declare war on each other. Therefore: (c) as democracy grows, violence will decrease, and eventually (d) when all the world is democratic, there will be no more war.

That's what Jesus meant.

As more and more people, and more and more countries, adopt the cause of meekness, an aversion to violence and a desire for peaceful interaction, meekness will grow. Jesus' vision was a world in which all people--and all governments--embraced meekness. This isn't a passive thing where someone else will hand the earth to you once they're done with it; it is through their own actions that the meek shall inherit the earth.

J