An Appointed Time for Everything
The Responsibility to Do Nothing
In Taoism, the concept of wu wei refers to the notion that we should strive to act in harmony with the flow of the universe (the Tao) and avoid actions that are out of alignment with the Tao. The term is often literally translated as “non-action,” but because this can be misleading—wu wei does involve a kind of harmonious action—it is sometimes translated as “effortless action” or something similar. On the other hand, Christians should not be perplexed by a kind of action that is non-action; for example, in the Letter to the Galatians, Paul writes, “I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me” (Gal. 2:20, NAB). There is a sense in which the Christian life, or “life according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8), means getting out of the way of God’s work in us.
Sometimes, however, this kind of non-action action does require us to refrain from acting. In other words, sometimes life according to the Spirit requires the wisdom to know when to hold back. This notion, too, is scriptural. Famously, the Book of Ecclesiastes states, “There is an appointed time for everything, and a time for every affair under the heavens” (3:1), and the subsequent verses illustrate that there is an appointed time for one activity, and a time when that activity ceases and we should engage in its opposite. Wisdom rests in recognizing these appointed times rather than resisting them. From another angle, Psalm 127 states, “Unless the LORD build the house, they labor in vain who build. Unless the LORD guard the city, in vain does the guard keep watch” (v. 1). This verse suggests that activity should be conducted in harmony with divine purposes, and that there is a certain futility in action absent that harmony. There can be wisdom in not acting.
We humans, however, feel an urgent need to act, particularly when there is a problem to be solved or a wrong to be righted. We often feel the urge to “just do something!” Action gives us a sense of not just having accomplished something, but of having control. We currently live in an age under the sway of “hustle culture,” which tells us that we should always be working to achieve greater success, to improve ourselves, to earn more possessions and prestige. Pope Francis has also warned us about a pervasive “technocratic paradigm” (Laudato Si’, #106), a tendency to approach every problem as something that can be solved through the manipulation and control of the external environment.
As Christians, however, I think we have good reasons to resist these tendencies, both in our culture and in our nature. And we have examples of what this might look like. For example, Mother Teresa warned that we often view the poor and the sick as a problem to be fixed to the detriment of recognizing their humanity and inherently spiritual nature as persons. When it comes to treating the sick, for instance, this leads to the creation of advanced technologies and sprawling bureaucracies that may be very effective at addressing medical problems but that leave people dehumanized and lonely. In her own work, Mother Teresa attempted to strike a balance between action and simply being present with those she served, a kind of contemplative non-action that led to the development of a sense of communion between persons. Some might criticize Mother Teresa for not striking quite the right balance, but even in the American healthcare system, we can recognize those healthcare professionals and advocates who strive for the treatment of the whole person and who recognize that not every patient need can be met by medicine and medical interventions, in the midst of a sometimes cruel and impersonal bureaucracy.
Back in 2013, President Barack Obama chose to refrain from carrying out military strikes against the Syrian government after the latter had used chemical weapons against civilians in the town of Ghouta, an action that would have thrust the United States into the Syrian civil war and would have risked the wider escalation of the conflict. Some criticized the move, including some Catholic authors, arguing that the U.S. had a moral duty to intervene to protect Syrian civilians. As I argued at the time, however, although the plight of Syrian civilians placed serious moral demands on the international community, U.S. military intervention would not have alleviated the plight of those civilians, and in fact would likely have contributed to their ongoing misery. It is hard to say if I was right or not, since we have no way of knowing for sure how things would have unfolded had the U.S. intervened, but the temptation to “just do something” is especially high in situations of violent conflict, particularly because humankind is enchanted by the power of violence, a power we believe can help us solve problems but in fact, more often than not, simply leads to more destruction. We can see this same enchantment with violence in the pervasiveness of American gun culture, despite the fact that guns in the household are far more likely to be the cause of homicides, suicides, or accidents than they are to be used in self-defense. Sometimes refraining from an action, as Obama did, is the wiser course, even if there is inevitable criticism. It is no coincidence that early on the Taoist idea of wu wei was understood as a tool of statecraft and not just a personal philosophy. And this is not to say that no action was required of the U.S. during the Syrian civil war; at the time, it was essential for the U.S. to engage in diplomatic efforts to create a framework for ending the war. The point is that one must find the appropriate way of acting.
Which brings me to my closing point. In the Catholic tradition, I believe it is our notion of discernment that provides us a way of figuring out when action or non-action is appropriate. Discernment helps us to identify the promptings of the Spirit. It can also assist us in identifying the ways we get in our own way and create obstacles to the Spirit’s workings in our lives. But I think it is important to remember that sometimes the result of discernment will be a decision not to act, the realization that the time is not yet ripe. Likewise, sometimes we need to realize that, even though at an emotional level we may feel drawn to act in response to a situation, the actions available to us won’t help the people involved and may even cause further harm. Discerning whether a situation requires refraining from action, or whether not acting would be a dereliction of responsibility, can sometimes be difficult and requires wisdom. But given our propensity to frenetically “just do something,” I think it’s important to keep in mind that sometimes simply being present, which can feel like doing nothing, is sufficient. Was there a time when you realized that not acting, rather than doing something, was the right course? Share in the comments!
A Note…
Speaking of refraining from doing, the “Of Interest” section of the newsletter is on temporary hiatus. Given the family situation I mentioned last week, I thought this would be a good solution that would help me keep the newsletter running while allowing me to fulfill my other responsibilities. Hopefully this section will be back soon, I know many readers enjoy the regular round-up of Catholic news and commentary!