The Greatest Act of Resistance

I wonder what you might consider the greatest act of resistance to be.

I think about this topic as we approach the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The document is an act of resistance in a very public way. But I don’t think it is the greatest act of resistance ever. I don’t know that anything can truly live into that label.

Resistance, by definition, is opposition or a countering force to the flow of something. In social terms, resistance is pushing back on a status quo in order to change directions. Those are simplified definitions for the sake of this blog post.

Wars have been fought as a form of resistance. Protests rise up as resistance. Work stoppages too. I think you could argue that sabotage is a form of resistance as well. There is a range when it comes to resistance – from non-violent resistance to violent resistance.

Lately I’ve been thinking about what is called active non-participation. Active non-participation is the deliberate choice to sit out or refuse to engage in a group activity or system. It is a conscious decision. The underlying concept is that direct fighting back only legitimizes the system you are protesting.

So to lay this out a bit more specifically, in most cases you have a protagonist and an antagonist in opposition to each other. One supports the system as it is and the other directly opposes the system. When you insert someone who is actively not participating, the dynamic shifts. The protagonist and antagonist seek different outcomes, but are in agreement that the system is worth keeping because they recognize a benefit to keeping it in tact. Someone who is practicing active non-participation is essentially arguing that the system itself is not worth keeping. Direct fighting legitimizes the continued existence of the system. Active non-participation withdrawals legitimacy all together.

When I read the Gospel narratives, I see Jesus using active non-participation in certain passages. Certainly when he is before Herod, he actively non-participates. He offers nothing – no answers, not responses, no nothing. Herod doesn’t know what to do with him and sends him back to Pilate. Jesus practices active non-participation with Pilate as well, but in a different way. He talks with Pilate to a certain extent, but doesn’t accept the premise of what Pilate is saying. And eventually Jesus just stops talking all together. He offers no legitimacy to Rome and the expectations it has. He doesn’t play his expected part in the drama that the empire and the Temple authorities insist on.

And throughout the whole episode, people don’t know what to do with Jesus. He doesn’t get angry. He isn’t violent. He doesn’t play his part. He doesn’t raise an army. He doesn’t act like someone who is guilty. He doesn’t plead for his life. We doesn’t complain. He doesn’t blame. He doesn’t plead and beg. Through the whole episode, he offers no legitimacy to the arrangement of power and the status quo. He is actively not participating. And that active non-participation leaves everyone scratching their heads. What do you do with someone who won’t play along? So they kill him. And even in that, Jesus actively non-participates through resurrection. He doesn’t stay dead like he’s supposed to.

Scripture is full of these types of examples. The raising of Lazarus is another example. The healing miracles change the script. The casting out of demons does too. Jesus birth narrative does as well.

But even beyond Jesus, you can see others who live into this form of resistance. John’s Revelation is a form of active non-participation. There is violence for sure. And it’s committed by empire. The final battle that takes place isn’t even a battle. The armies show up and the battle is over before there is a clash.

The prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures often used active non-participation to proclaim what God had in mind. Paul’s story is a story of conversion from active participation in his hunting down of the faithful to that of active non-participation in many instances, although certainly not all. He did use his Roman citizenship when it was convenient.

Which brings me to the conclusion. I’m wondering if active non-participation is what we need right now. I think it can take on many forms. Non-violent resistance is a form of it. But I think it goes beyond that. I think active non-participation can shape us politically, religiously, on social media, in work, in community, in relationship, economically, etc.

At its core, active non-participation is a person saying “I’m not going to participate in this.” This is different than what I see happening from the more fundamentalist oriented in our society which not only do not want to participate in whatever it is they are resisting, but also want to impose that upon everyone else. That’s a key difference. Active non-participation is about what I’m not going to participate in. What you do is up to you. But I’m not giving that action or activity my endorsement.

Active non-participation is dangerous though. As we see from the examples of Scripture, it is often met with violence. Because the people who witness it are afraid. They don’t know what to do with someone who is actively not participating. This action goes outside the script. It’s unexpected and uncontrolled. And people have a tendency to get violent when they are afraid and feel like they have no control. And rather than look at themselves in the mirror and explore why they feel that way, it is far easier to scapegoat.

But killing off someone who practices active non-participation doesn’t make any of that go away. You can only bury your unresolved garbage so far and for so long. It always comes up and comes back. And if you don’t deal with it, it will cause your demise.

Which is why I think active non-participation is the greatest act of resistance there is. It’s not loud. It’s not a show of strength. It just destabilizes everything like water against rocks – wearing away until everything collapses.