There is a saying that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” and this idea has tempted many to conclude that power must be the problem. It is not.

Recent scholarship actually indicates that the question of power being an inevitable corrupting influence is much more complex and nuanced than the above saying suggests, and there are two key realities that arise out of a survey of the available research: 1.) Positions of power tend to attract those who see power as a means to advance their own opportunities and 2.) Positions of power tend to amplify the moral character of the individual. To put it simply, those with a heightened sense of entitlement will gravitate toward positions that are likely to give them what they want, and when a person with bad character rises to a position of power, they will tend to use it badly. (The reverse is also true.)

The true problem is, at the core, a question of morality, and the solution is far reaching. It touches on politics, domestic violence, and the rest of society as a whole.

We can begin to analyze this reality by describing a hypothetical power struggle between two parties, without taking sides. The first thing we will notice is what appears to be a competing sense of entitlement, which is described in moral terms. Each perceives their own cause to be righteous, and each considers the other to be evil, so both are determined to use what power they possess in the service of their own cause. If we let this situation play out, we will quickly notice that such a power struggle inevitably tries to establish a winner (those who can enforce compliance or at least silence opposition) and a loser (those who are relatively powerless).

Once one of our parties has gained the upper hand and has the power to get their way, we can immediately observe that their belief in the righteousness of their cause inclines them to assert and subsequently protect their position of power. This means that they will tend to feel justified in silencing, distracting, or suppressing the loser, and it means that even if such actions are morally suspect, they will at least be considered as an understandable or necessary means to protect their righteous cause. They reason that if they fail to maintain their position of power, the loser will turn the tables and evil will gain the upper hand.

Where this is true, abuses of power by the winner will be common enough to justify the loser’s sense of righteous opposition. Since the loser also sees the more powerful “other” as evil, anything that topples or undermines their power will be seen as good. After all the actions are being done in service of what they believe is right. They will tend to look for ways to equalize the power dynamic, in order to make things “more fair.” However, if they manage to gain sufficient power to level the playing field, they will further seek to gain sufficient power to be able to assert and then protect their position.

As long as these patterns persist, the best we can hope for is an inherent instability in the power dynamic, see-sawing back and forth between competing interests. As power shifts from one side to the other, acts of injustice can be rationalized by both parties as an understandable, necessary, or inevitable counter-balance to the other’s unrighteousness. If we do not accept the existence of a universal moral framework, then this dynamic is the best possible outcome a neutral observer can hope for.

Conservative readers in America may recognize the above dynamic in the left’s current propensity toward “cancel culture.” However, to be fair, this is just the most recent manifestation of this dynamic, and conservatives have, in the past, had their own variation that we might call “boycott culture” in order to maintain a sense of symmetry.

In both cases, a sense of moral entitlement allows each to engage in behavior that they would consider abusive or immoral if it was practiced in reverse. Each side believes that they are righteous while the other side is evil, and each is taking actions that they would consider abusive if the other did it. Each of our opposing sides believes that their own moral standing IS the universal standard and rejects the other as evil.

For the purposes of this article, we have been trying to remain neutral, and the reader may have unconsciously filled in the specifics of the conflict along their own political lines. In the process, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain a neutral position. We have a hard time saying that both are right or both are wrong, but we are trying not to take sides. This neutrality is the promise of moral relativism, but the problem is that relativism has written a check that society cannot cash.

Remaining neutral always favors the powerful, because they are ineffectively challenged by the weaker. That means we are forced to conclude that a passive neutrality effectively supports the moral judgment of the current winner. The only other alternative is to consider any imbalance of power as essentially evil, but this becomes self defeating once the power relationship has been reversed. It is impossible to effectively deal with a power struggle without some kind of moral judgment.

We would like to think that a democratic process is the answer, but this can only be effective when there is a shared moral framework and all the involved parties are acting in the interests of that shared morality. If the moral framework is not universally shared then self interest dominates, pragmatism arises, and whoever is in the majority becomes oppressive to those who are in the minority.

We would like to think that we could have a committee of representatives who would come together to arbitrate on the basis of the good of all, but this cannot achieve a neutral status either because each representative is fighting for their own sense of morality, which is how they understand “the good of all.” Since there is no universal agreement on the moral standard, this notion becomes the “good of most” and we are left with the same problem as depending on democracy.

We would like to think that we could have some really smart people from both sides get together and debate, then come up with a compromise that we can all agree will form our universal morality. This group will then put out a document that will be used to govern everyone, but without a shared moral framework, the committee will end up producing a document that is open to diverse interpretations by both sides. The fight then centers around these interpretations, and the power struggle continues.

How then are we to deal with abuses of power in a society that has no mutually agreed upon universal sense of morality? We can’t, and until both sides can agree on a moral standard, the power struggle is inevitable, and the unstable balance of power is the best we have. Hopefully, no one gets to be too powerful, but the elephant in the room is this: Who maintains this balance of power?

The bottom line is this: without universal moral principles, there is no way to avoid a society defined by power struggles. If we want a better solution, we need to consider how we might be able to establish a universal moral framework without taking sides.

The assertion that “there is no ultimate moral standard” is itself an ultimate moral standard, but it has the added weakness of providing no resolution to the unending power struggles of human society. Relativism is impotent to deliver us from this conundrum, but to make matters worse, it seeks to overthrow the very idea that a universal moral standard is even possible.

However, we cannot escape the reality that recognizing a universal morality is embedded in the religious impulse that is bound up in our nature. In fact, this is so thoroughly ingrained into humanity that even a secularizing impulse that sees religion as the problem will ultimately organize itself along religious patterns. We are all seeking a moral standard, even when we refuse to acknowledge that such a moral standard exists.

There is one universal moral principle that directly contradicts abuses of power and undermines the dynamic that we have been describing. In fact, all sides should be able to agree on it. It is the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Every attempt at a universal morality must at least profess to uphold this principle, but there are several alternative expressions of it that fall short.

We may articulate this principle by saying “Do no harm,” but this leaves the definition of “harm” open to interpretation and once we define our opponents as harmful, and thus evil, we are free to use whatever means we can to eliminate them from the discussion. Some will define all power as harm, but then the only way to eliminate them is to make use of power, which would then be harmful. This approach is unable to stop the power struggle.

We can also articulate this principle by saying, “Be good to each other.” The problem here is similar to the previous approach. We are free to interpret what is good however it suits our own group, and when good for the other contradicts the good for our own, we will inevitably prejudice the situation for our own good. We might suggest that we are really seeking the “good of the whole,” but what we really mean is the good of the majority, which puts us back into the power struggle.

We have an incredible capacity to reinterpret such moral principles in such a way that creates an us-against-them framework, so we have to uphold the golden rule in a way that does not allow us to fall back into the destructive power struggles that plague society.

Jesus taught the golden rule as an application of the Old Testament command to “love your neighbor as yourself.” This principle was the basis for how God directed the Israelites to treat the “others” who were in their midst, but by Jesus’ time, this principle had been re-interpreted to allow them to exclude others from their definition of “neighbor.” This is the social context of Jesus’ telling of the story of the “Good Samaritan.”

He was challenging the power-struggle between the Jews and the Samaritans by calling attention to the fact that the ones the Jews hated was actually their neighbor, and he did this by inverting the dynamic, placing the Samaritan in the position of power over the Jew in the story and having the Samaritan practicing the golden rule. The implication is as profound as it is far-reaching.

The nature of a power struggle is to create two classes of opposed people, but the golden rule requires us to treat both sides as though they are part of a collective “us.” Everyone is our neighbor. This way of looking at the world is caustic to any form of power struggle, and those who attempt to live by this principle will undoubtedly be hated by all who have a vested interest in an us against them view. They will attempt to divide people into opposing classes who are fundamentally different rather than a unified whole that is fundamentally the same.

Once we view our opponents as part of us, we need to invert the power struggle, which is exactly what Jesus teaches. That is the whole point of love!

We have to first understand love as an action of service that eliminates fear and maximizes freedom. Love is also sacrificial, which means that we must understand our own self-interest so that this perspective can be applied to the other. We have to recognize that our natural tendency is to act in a way that serves our own interests, and we have to be careful not to be self deceived. We can sometimes convince ourselves that we are acting selflessly when we are not really doing so.

This approach requires humility as a prerequisite, which should be understood as a “disinterested” approach. This means we act without consideration for personal interests. When we do this, we will be able to put ourselves in the place of the other and seek to understand them. It is very hard to do, but cultivating this kind of humility is the only way to invert the power struggle. We must be willing to risk our own self-interest, and anything that does not do this is actually ultimately going to contribute to continuing the destructive power struggle.

When we are able to put ourselves in the position of the other’s self-interest, we will be able to follow Jesus’ teaching to love our neighbor. The result is that love will take actions that preserve the other’s freedom as much as possible and that protect them from fear. This is what Jesus means by, “as you would have them do unto you.” He is calling on people to have enough honesty to recognize when your own self-interest is at odds with the other’s and then have enough humility to act in such a way that protects the other’s self-interest, because that is what you would want if the situation was reversed.

If everyone were both humble and loving, the world would be a truly wonderful place, and that is how God designed it, but one problem we have is that those who are invested in the power struggle will undoubtedly try to take advantage of these ideals. That is why the Bible says that all who would live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. Yet if we are going to be salt and light in this world, we must act in this way and encourage others to do the same.

This will look differently, depending on whether we are being oppressed by another, whether we are in a position of relative power, or whether we are called to defend someone who is being oppressed.

When we are being oppressed, we have a few options. If we cannot find a position of freedom and safety, we are left to cry out to God, who is always on the side of the oppressed and afflicted. We can also appeal to God-ordained government, whose responsibility is to facilitate and protect the freedom and safety of its citizens. We can appeal to religious leaders, who are responsible to teach society how to love one another, or we can appeal to helpers around us who may be able to help us find a place of freedom and safety.

Facilitating the freedom and safety of everyone is the responsibility of all civil and religious leaders. We instinctively know this, which is why we see the motto emblazoned on our police cars, “To protect and serve.” However, far too often government is used to perpetuate the power struggles inherent in a fallen world, and we continue to repeat and profit from these destructive patterns. Far too often churches cozy up to those in power and refuse to rock the boat when they have been called by God to be the conscience of civil authorities.

We cannot just stop with official channels. The truth is that all who follow God are called upon to love their neighbor as themself, which means we must rise to defend those who are in a position of weakness, and when power is used to harm another, whether it is legitimate or not, we cannot remain neutral and silent. When we are in a position to be able to act in such a way that defends someone who is being mistreated, we cannot shy away out of fear. We must set aside our own self interest and defend the oppressed.

However, how we defend the oppressed cannot itself be oppressive, because in the end, there is little likelihood that those who would use power in order to gain power will set aside the very thing that gained them their position. Then, because each side remains convinced of their own righteousness and the relative evil of their opposition, the winner can justify maintaining this entitlement to power. As a result, regardless of which side “wins,” the core dynamic is not likely to be substantially different, even if the winner is able to claim that they are more righteous.

When we do this, we are only perpetuating the patterns we described in the beginning of this article, and as we have seen, the first problem with the power-struggle dynamic is a relative sense of righteousness that lacks a defined, and mutually agreed upon, moral basis. The second is that it is impossible to use the oppressor’s tactics against them without ultimately becoming the very thing that we opposed.

We must actually act in the interests of humility and love. We must love our neighbor as ourselves, otherwise the result is injustice in the unequal application of morality or manner of its enforcement. This is why Martin Luther King was so successful, where violent alternatives fell flat or were counter-productive. This is why Gandhi was successful in opposing oppression in South Africa and fighting for religious freedom in and independence in India. They understood that violence in the service of stopping violence is a self-defeating endeavor.

The oppressed cry out for justice, but achieving justice with injustice can never actually be justice. There is a better way! It isn’t enough to love our friends or even to love the oppressed. This is why Jesus calls us to love our enemies. We must love the oppressor, and we must love them enough to oppose them, yet how we do this is critical.

Jesus said, “The meek shall inherit the earth,” which is to say the meek will ultimately win. That reality is obscured by a deep misunderstanding of what meekness actually is. Both those who desire power and those who think that power is the way to overthrow their oppressor will perceive a call to meekness as a weak capitulation to the other, but meekness is actually the most powerful and effective way to confront abuse. The key to understanding this is to consider the nature of meekness.

Meekness is not a lack of power. Rather, it is a harmless power, sufficient to act but also under control. In order to accomplish this balance, meekness requires a strength that is governed by a principled righteousness rather than a pragmatic morality. It acts in the service of justice while valuing mercy. Meekness is what happens when power is exercised in harmony with the golden rule.

That relationship between righteousness, justice, and mercy is critical. Where entitlement allows righteousness to be set aside in the name of justice, mercy is forgotten and abuse is inevitable. Where both opponents are acting in this manner, an escalation of abuse is likewise inevitable.

Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers,” and such an effort cannot be undertaken while two sides are in a struggle for supremacy over the other. Both meekness and peace are excluded in the power struggle, which means that as long as we attempt to meet abuses of power with an escalation of power, we will have neither justice or peace.

To return to the main point, in a world that tends to understand human relationships in the terms of a power struggle, it is little wonder that abuse is on the rise, but it isn’t that the existence of power is the core problem. The problem is seeing power as a means to win the struggle between the entitled self and the unjust other. It is in the failure to grasp that there is a moral imperative that necessarily governs all of us, and it is in the unwillingness to embrace the meekness that Jesus displayed.

Jesus set aside the glory and power he rightly possessed. He humbled himself and challenged the fallen principles of this world, to his own hurt. His sacrifice was an expression of love, even praying that God would forgive those who were putting him to death. While he lived he defended and helped the oppressed, the sick, and the powerless. He taught them to pray, to depend on God, to do what was right no matter what, and to love God and love our neighbor as ourself. He lived that, and as a result, He is exalted and God raised him from the dead.

Humanity had declared its opposition and rebellion to God. We have all gone our own way, and we have been hurting one another ever since, hateful and destructive, but Jesus, the Creator of the universe, used His position of power to serve humanity, sacrificing Himself to overcome the power of sin and death. He calls on us to repent and use what power and position we have to serve one another in love. All power has been given to Him, and He now calls everyone to be reconciled to God.

That is how and why the mission of the Psalm82Initiative is, in the end, all about the gospel of Jesus Christ.