Assertiveness I
Sermon Review
26 November 2000
Matthew 5:38-42

Being real and authentic requires assertiveness. Being assertive means being able to speak up or actively intervene to change the course of something even when we feel anxious or fearful. It means being able to say an appropriate yes or no. A little assertiveness can actually save us heaps of problems, ulcers, and stress, as well as extricate ourselves from potentially dangerous and abusive situations. It is also necessary to fulfil God’s will in our lives. If Christians were not prepared to be assertive, then the gospel would never be preached, nor would people be challenged, nor would most Missionary work or movements of social change leading to things like the abolition of slavery or child labour etc., ever happen.

It is a mistake to think that Jesus was not assertive. He confronted wrong attitudes, broke social conventions, and flew in the face of public opinion. He knew when to say yes and when to say no, when to allow people to have their way with him, and when not to. Why then is being assertive something that causes such controversy within the Christian church? Why is it something that provides such great confusion and guilt in the individual believer? I believe that the primary reason is a misunderstanding of Jesus teaching in Matt. 5:38-41. Today we will look at this passage so that next week we can consider together the importance of speaking up.

Jesus Teaching: Matt.5:38-42

Generally these illustrations of Jesus have led to ‘door mat’ theology, and pacifism at all costs. That is, if someone hurts you, let them keep doing it, if someone asks something of you, irrespective of what is best either for you or for them, then give it to them or do it for them – anything less and God would be displeased. Unfortunately, it is this kind of thinking that keeps domestic violence alive, helps people avoid the rightful consequences of their wrong conduct, maintains a passive and at times, anaemic view of goodness, spiritualises and excuses cowardice for courage, and thwarts God’s purposes. Is this what Jesus intended? I think not.

Consider These Things:

These Statements Are Not New Laws For Christians. To mistake these statements of Jesus as new law for Christians would mean that they would have to be literally applied, something that Jesus did not do eg. John.18:22,23. It would also mean that:

Taken to their extreme, physical abuse could be deemed okay with no penalty for the perpetrators, litigants would have the right to empty out your house, and any one for any reason would have a right to anything you own, simply by prefacing their possession with a request. These are not a new set of laws for Christians to slavishly and woodenly apply.

Jesus' Teaching Aims

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was teaching his disciples and others that the ‘righteousness of those in the Kingdom of God had to exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees’ v20 for the fulfilment of law was too stringent even for Scribes & Pharisees, despite their scrupulous law keeping. The hearers had to come to realise that coming into the Kingdom is by grace, not law. Jesus was not contradicting what the Scriptures elsewhere make quite plain - only Christ’s righteousness gets a person into the Kingdom. Rom.3:21-24.

Jesus no doubt shocked his hearers when he presented the radical nature of the Kingdom of God. For example, when He told them that people who are poor in spirit, who mourn, and who are bereft of any righteousness and so hunger and thirst for it, are equally as much recipients of God’s blessing as are those who are pure in heart, peacemakers, and merciful. His hearers would have said to themselves, ‘Surely peacemakers are more eligible for being accepted than those with no righteousness at all?’

The truth that Jesus was trying to communicate was that no one qualified themselves for the Kingdom by keeping law or not keeping the law, or being merciful, a peace maker, or by being poor in spirit or hungering or thirsting for righteousness – it is by grace alone Eph.2:8. So, the general context is not one where Jesus is outlining a new set of more stringent laws for people to enter the Kingdom by, or to apply as law once in it.

Jesus was showing the hearers that only love could fulfil the intent of the Mosaic Law Matt.6:43 ff., Luke 6:27-36. In doing so he was continuing to demonstrate the inadequacy of any Pharasaic keeping of law . This means that in this passage he is not addressing whether or not there should be penalties for physical abusers, or restrictions to endless giving, or limits to requests for service. He is showing that the strict keeping of this law is completely inadequate for fulfilling its true intent.

It is only in the process that we gain a window into what the characteristic attitude of those within the Kingdom of God would be. One would hardly expect a person in the Kingdom of God, someone who really knows Jesus personally, to operate on a retaliatory eye for an eye, or slap for slap principle. Instead they will be forgiving, able to surrender their rights; they will do more than expected when asked to help. They will let go of resentments and ideas of revenge, even when taken unfairly to court, and they will give to others even when there is no necessary claim upon them to do so.

So what does all of this mean?

When these statements are used as if laws, they provide us with an excuse not to think, not to accept any personal responsibility for the consequences of how we apply them. You see, with law, you don’t have to think and you don’t have to consider responsibility or blame – that is God’s problem, after all, He made them up. There is no moral dilemma – it is simple and straightforward application that counts, irrespective of the circumstance.

This is precisely why the Jewish authorities had trouble with Jesus when he healed on the Sabbath, or when he quoted David eating holy bread to justify his disciples collecting grain on the Sabbath etc. In their mind, Jesus broke the Sabbath laws, whatever justification he used. The only exceptions they would accept were their own hypocritical and selfish variations. Whereas, in Jesus’ mind the Sabbath law, as with all Mosaic law, was subject to the ‘greater law’ or ‘greater good’ of love Matt.22:37-40, something that the Pharisees didn’t understand. These illustrations that Jesus used eg. slap, give, serve etc., when followed legally, actually work against the intent of love.

They had to think about how to apply such things, so too do we today. For example, Paul makes it clear that you don’t always give to those who ask, as there are other considerations to take into count 2Thess.3:10, nor do you relieve people of rightful responsibilities Gal.6:2,5. For their own good, sometimes we must answer requests with a no. And people must answer for their behaviour eg. Rom. 13:1-7’ 1Pet.2:13-17. Ask yourself, ‘Does God always answer our prayers with what we ask?’ ‘Does God not exercise discipline?’ Eg. natural law of consequence Gal.6:7,8. Christian’s must take into consideration circumstances, and extenuating factors.

There is no doubt that the passage clearly shows that if a person attacks you, revenge is out and forgiveness is in. But it should not be used to infer that the particular person should not be controlled or receive due penalty so as to learn to not do it again. That is not what Jesus was saying and to apply it that way is to misuse Jesus statements. It is obvious that letting others do as they like is hardly loving – where will it end? How many others will you let this person hurt? Love requires assertive action at some point. Hopefully, the Police or some authority will be available to intervene. Perhaps you may be the only person who can stop them at the time. Or again, if someone asks something of you which either you need more than them, or your family needs more than them, or you know that it will be put to wrong use, or any number of other reasons, then you have discretion on how to act. If you are unable to help an official due to extenuating circumstances, then say so and move on etc.

Conclusion

Jesus was not condemning assertiveness in the Sermon on the Mount. He was condemning law keeping as a means of gaining entrance into the Kingdom of God, and highlighting that it is love that fulfils the law, something which law-keeping too easily works against. The way he shows this opens a window on what will characterise a person who knows Him. He or she will respond to attitudes of lovelessness, hatred, and revenge with loving attitudes and actions. They will want to say yes if someone wants their possessions but will be able to say no if appropriate. They will be able to say no to someone forcing a burden on them; but they will want to go the extra mile as much as, and as often as, is possible. They will want to give to those who ask, but will be able to say no, if appropriate.

You see, being assertive for a Christian is not wrong – it is being unloving that is wrong. As being assertive means being able to say an appropriate yes or no, so too being loving means being able to say an appropriate yes or no. With no assertiveness there can be no real loving.

Blessings

Back