Posted on 02/06/2007 9:59:08 AM PST by AlbionGirl
In his book Reading Matthew, David Garland discusses the significance of "turning the other cheek": "W. Wink argues that the issue for Jesus is not simply resistance or surrender but what kind of resistance. He claims that turning the other cheek is a third way, which he labels 'nonviolent direct action,' a 'practical, strategic measure for empowering the oppressed.' By turning the other cheek, for example, the victim 'robs the oppressor of his power to humiliate.' The oppressor must decide whether or not to slap the person again, but this time not as one would slap a slave with the back of the hand but as one would an equal. Wink contends that turning the cheek 'seizes initiative from the oppressor, overcomes fear, and reclaims the power of choice, all the while maintaining the humanity of the oppressor.'"
"The oppressor must decide whether or not to slap the person again, but this time not as one would slap a slave with the back of the hand but as one would an equal."
I think this is basically a good explanation but I do think the American church has to long intepreted its own silence on key public issues as "turning the other cheek." In so doing, the Church has fundamentally unravelled Christ's call to be salt and light.
Silence is not part of "turning the other cheek." Turning the other cheek is a very specific interpersonal application-- not a lifetime philosophy of ambivalence.
I think this is related to the "turn the other cheek" philosophy.
"turning the other cheek" pertains to 'mooning' and is not to be done in family-friendly environment.
That's absolutely true, and I don't think Pastor Leithart was implying anything contrary to that. We as human beings want to strike back, it's in our DNA. Sometimes, as you point out, ambivalence is not an option. But, many times, it isn't ambivalence that is our problem, it is a wounded pride and a desire to smote.
I just ordered a version of the Bible that was put together by a Jewish man, David Stern. So the New Testatment is cast in a Jewish light. I can't wait to get it. Anyway, I've always been interested in the part of the Our Father that I've quoted above. Specifically, 'and lead us not into temptation.' In one of my other versions, the phrase is written, 'and bring us not to the test.' And, it has implications on the free will/bound will debate that I'd like to see fleshed out. I'm hoping that my Jewish version offers some insight.
I think we forget sometimes that Jesus was Jewish, and I don't think we have or have ever had a full view of the implications of that.
When I was a kid, I always thought Jesus was Italian, because I'm Italian. It wasn't until I was about 8 that I realized that wasn't true. :) I wonder how many other kids thought he was their own nationality?
"When I was a kid, I always thought Jesus was Italian, because I'm Italian. It wasn't until I was about 8 that I realized that wasn't true."
What, you're not Italian? I thought you said you were. Man, this kind of news just ruins the day.
But just so you understand, blue, one of the reasons I thought Our Lord was Italian was because it appeared He lived at home until he was 33. :)
This is completely illogical.
"Wink contends that turning the cheek 'seizes initiative from the oppressor, overcomes fear, and reclaims the power of choice, all the while maintaining the humanity of the oppressor.'"
So is this. The initiative of the oppressor is to deny the victim's free will. There is no reclaimation of choice if one submits. The choice would simply be submission, and abandonment of free will. The victim's will, now belongs to the violent oppressor. Humanity is irrelevant, what is relevant is that the rights of the victim are being denied. The choice to submit, means their life is threatened, their will is gone, and whatever property they own is not theirs.
God never violated anyone's free will in this world, because it was not His kingdom. John 18:36
Jesus said, ""My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."
He also instructed His Apostles not to violate anyone's free will. Matthew 10:14
"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.
God also told His Apostles before He left, that they were no longer protected, and that they needed to defend themselves. Luke 22:35
Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'[Isaiah 53:12]
So, what does all this mean regarding Matt 5? The answer lies in consideration of Matt 25:31:46, the parable of the sheep and the goats. Which is given to elaborate on the 2nd of the 2 great commandments. Love your neeighbor, as your self. God no more taught submission to satan and those that reject the Holy Spirit, than He will ever submit to them. God's gift of free will and life was never to be revoked. He crated hell, so they could all clash with each other.
"But just so you understand, blue, one of the reasons I thought Our Lord was Italian was because it appeared He lived at home until he was 33"
With His mother don't forget.
The command to turn the other cheek is illogical by any human standard that is geared for protection of life, limb, property, etc. Probably one of the Pharisees biggest beefs with Jesus was that they thought he was talking psychobabble based on what they thought was reasonable. It's not reasonable to turn the other cheek. Every human impulse militates against it, yet that is what our Lord commanded us to do in the instance or example given in this piece.
When a person slaps someone he has snapped, and the person who does not return the slap refuses to descend into the region of the mind that causes one to snap. The person who doesn't return the slap, not only is the equal of the person who has slapped and snappped, he is his superior because he denies him the equity that retaliation would provide him.
I had an ear-drum perforated and I still bear a scar on my leg from having it kicked into a wall with a steel toe pair of boots. The person who did this to me was my intellectual superior, but he was my psychological inferior.
When he was 17 years old he rebuilt the engine of a '63 Sunbeam Alpine, all I did was complain: why do you have to spend so much time on the car, bla, bla, bla. He could deconstruct Miniver Cheevy by Edwin Arlington Robinson. He could deconstruct Jude the Obscure, by Thomas Hardy. He was an excellent second baseman, he was unbeatable at billiards, and he was my superior by quite a bit in the scope of his intellect, but he was credulous and suspicious and I was unconcerned.
When we would begin to argue, the minute he hit me, he lost and I gained. I aggravated the situation by refusing to keep quiet, so the violence would continue, mount and then exhaust itself. The next day he was at my feet begging forgiveness. That is the station of an inferior, not an equal.
Again, corporate evil cannot be dealt with in the same way. But I believe this piece does not touch upon corporate evil, but instead the kind described above.
Of course.
Before you go over board with this, first of all remember you are a "hot blooded" Mediterranean and this is counter -culture to you. Second, and most important this is who W. Wink is that is promoting this "foolishness, "He is known for his work on power structures, with a progressive Christian view on current political and cultural matters. He coined the phrase "the myth of redemptive violence", and has contributed to discourse on homosexuality, pacifism, and Jesus as a historical figure. Neal Stephenson likens some of Wink's ideas to "an epidemiology of power disorders", a phenomenology of oppression. He is one of the scholars affiliated with the Jesus Seminar." He is a pacifistic liberal of the first order and his theory about what Jesus meant should be understood according to his thoughts of who Jesus was. He also is a Methodist and you know what that means, wink, wink, nudge, nudge!
blue, I don't really know how this man's supposed 'bad investments' changes what I've said, because you're not taking my post point by point, and perhaps you're right about the hot-blooded Mediterranean analysis, but it doesn't seem sufficient to counter my own.
I have no idea what this means.
Evil is defined by reference to a moral code. There are 2 great commandments, which are elaborated by the 10. Evil is defined by those commandments. Their is no such thing as corporate evil, or any other such classification. There is only evil.
The request to turn the other cheek, amongst other things in Matt 5, is neither an element of the moral code, nor is it a command. It is to be taken as a caution, so that one ponders the causes and reasons for the clash of wills beforehand. One must know the moral code and reference it, keeping in mind the consequences of abandoning one's rights to the oppressor.
One can take a position that this world is not worth living in, as those of the Anabaptist persuasions do. Taking that position is an abandonment of the rights of others to the forces of evil in the world. They can take that position, if they want. However, it is not moral to promote it as an absolute moral imperative, or to force it upon others as many other churches do. The Anabaptists recognize evil and the moral code. The other churches do not.
The other churches reject the moral code, in order to violate it at will. They have no concern for their fellows, or God whatsoever. It is their own interests and power that they seek. Most often, they are simply political tools.
The Anabaptists know the moral code, and teach forgiveness. Forgiveness is what any Church should teach. Forgiveness does not include punishment. The Anabaptists also teach submission to the wills of evil men, even unto death. It's clear, that they would survive no more than a short time on Earth if no one else opposed evil in their stead. Their hope is that the evil doer repent, before they die.
A rational person, that follows the moral code, is entitled to choose, between giving up their rights, or abandoning the rights of others to the forces of evil. That is their right, and no one is justified in either infringing on that right, or claiming it in itself is wicked. It is not wicked, because one's life and sovereignty of will, belongs to them, and them alone. One who breaks the moral code of their own free will, has forfeited their rights, and is entitled to nothing, but effective opposition.
Entitlement aside, God's 2nd command was to loves one's neighbor, as one's self. If the victim, decides they can influence the wicked, they may do so. If the victim decides life here is not worth living, because there's a possibility, the violent thug will someday be saved, fine. Let them. It is neither their right, nor is it justified to insist others behave that way. It is evil in the purest form, to insist everyone abandon their rights to any aggressor, and force the submission. To do so, just enables and promotes evil. It simply opens the gates of hell, and unleashes the vermin therein, upon all.
"The command to turn the other cheek is illogical by any human standard "
It is not illogical, given the above. The key questions are: Will they change, What is their purpose, What is their motivation, What are the consequences of submission? Neither mercy, forgiveness, or an effort to cause a change is illogical. Acting, or dying for the purpose of allowing evil to exist and flourish, is not logical. It is evil.
Sorry to hear about the domestic. They either change, or they don't. It's up to the party involved to decide what to do. There was no ending given in your story. Many of the one's I know of, did not end well, other's did. Domestic, or social pacifism isn't a moral rule, nor is it a universally effective tool.
In my opinion this is Jesus' expounding on the Second Commandment, and I don't take it as just a 'caution.' I don't think Jesus expected one not to be able to defend one's life, but he certainly made the point that returning evil for evil, wanting an eye for an eye was not the blessed path. We just don't see this Scriptural passage the same way, and it's no problem for me to agree to disagree.
The only thing I want to say is that I think the early Christians were pacificists. They didn't strike back at the Empire when the Empire was persecuting them like crazy, and this exchange with you prompted me to recall Romans 12
Rather, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head."21 Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good.
It doesn't seem to me that the message you preach is the same as that which St. Paul preached.
Finally, I appreciate the sympathy regarding the domestic thing, but I relayed that to you not to gain your sympathy but to try to make a point, which I guess I didn't make very well.
The ending of that situation is that I forgave him but he can't seem to forgive me, which I think adds to my point about the inferiority of the person who begins with the slap. He never married and got in touch with me after 20 years of a bad ending with really bad blood between us, though the bad blood was mostly on his part because I did understand the role I played in all of it, and I really did forgive him long before he sought me out again. Anyway, after he wrote to me and I wrote back, I was able to say I'm sorry, forgive me, but while my ear drum is perfectly healed and my leg too, he can't seem to forget the harsh words and the bad blood, but there's nothing I can do about that.
Dadblame Methodists! Dadblame Pergamites!
The grounds and parsonage are the nicest in the City.
"what is a Pergamite"
It's a small child from Perg, "the capital city of the Republic of Molvanîa. Molvania has been described as having been a desolate wasteland for much of its history, torn by civil war and ethnic unrest. Eventually Molvanîa's various warring factions were united as a single kingdom, ruled by a series of cruel despotic kings. In the late 19th Century the monarchy was overthrown, but the royal family remained popular in exile. During World War II the country was invaded by Nazi Germany, and then afterwards was occupied by the Soviet Union who set up a Communist puppet government. After the fall of European Communism in the 1990s, the country became a dictatorship run by a corrupt government with heavy ties to the Mafia.
Molvanîa is described as a very poor and rural country, heavily polluted and geographically barren. The infrastructure is terrible, with necessities such as electricity, clean water, and indoor plumbing being rare finds, largely due to bureaucratic incompetence. There is little to do in the country, as all hotels are tiny, filthy, and dilapidated, the ethnic cuisine is disgusting, and the "tourist attractions" are all boring and overpriced. The Molvanîan people in turn are portrayed as being generally rude, dirty, and at times a bit psychotic, with numerous bizarre and illogical beliefs and traditions. The country's patron saint is Fyodor.
The Molvanîan language is said to be so complicated it is said to take an average of 15 years to learn, as not only is the tone in which one speaks important to the meaning, but also the pitch with which one speaks. It is a gendered language, with different articles being used depending on whether a noun is masculine, feminine, neutral, or a type of cheese.
The capital city of Molvanîa is Perg, located in the Great Central Valley province. The other three provinces are the Eastern Steppes, the Western Plateau, and the Molvanîan Alps."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.