"You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you"
Perhaps one of the passages that most reflects the situation of being in an occupied country with the reference to being 'commandeered'by the Roman army to carry stuff for a mile [that was the legal limit; when SImon of Cyrene was forced to carry the cross of Jesus, it was probably under that law]. But that's getting ahead of ourselves, perhaps.
The Law allows for retribution -but it should be proportionate as against the escalating spirals of tit-for-tat clan vengence that often passed for punishment of wrongdoing in the days of Moses. So we need to hear this as a restraining law limiting the spiral of vangence, not as a positive injunction to make sure that the eye really is taken or the tooth knocked out. It's easy to understand how such things could get out of hand. Recently I was made aware of this in a disagreement with another person over the interpretation of events at a party, where the other person's desire to blame someone else and to ignore the actual behaviour in question led them to escalate the matter more and more. It became frighteningly apparent to me how easy it would be in the absenceof legal restraints and so on, for such a matter to end up as a brawl with the damage being much greater than the original incident. And of course I was feeling pretty angry too at the sheer unfaitrness and unreasonableness of the other person's reaction. Of course it is possible that they feel the same!
So I am left wondering what it means to offer the other cheek in such nitty-gritty occasions of resentment and misunderstanding. IT is most likely, I think, that offering the other cheek should be interpreted against a likely background of the back-handed 'insult' slap. That's the significanceof the right cheek/left cheek detail: a right-handed person slapping or hitting someone's face 'normally' would make contact with the left side of the face [think about it], whereas to hit the right cheek with the right hand requires a back-hander: a blow with far more symbolic freight as a put down and an insult or sign of contempt. So to offer the left cheek is actually an invitation to the perp to treat you as a fellow human being; it is an 'assertive' action which challenges the wrong without doing so in kind and going to the nub of the issue. It is arguably also loving in that it respects the other person: it invites them to be equal and it offers a break in the normal unfolding of things, a disruption, which might give pause for thought. I actually think that Jesus' idea here is far more radical than is often given credit for. It invites us to find ways to break cycles of contempt and violence, it invites creativity and the positive use of suffering [in this situation the person slapped is likely to be dumped on anyway so why not try to make it count redemptively?] and of taking back initiative. Not easy I now, in the heat of the moment. That's why thinking about it 'off the field' is helpful. It's why I often recommend Christians to take the opportunities to do assertiveness training.
I think that the other sentences in this passage are similarly examples of cycle breaking for the Kingdom. Responding with disruptive actions and words that call for reflection and challenge assumptions and try to create a better future than the trajectory that the initial actions notmally follow.
They used to say 'count to ten', that would help but even better is to stop and think a moment. To learn to put 'natural' anger aside and to redirect it into redemptive action.
I don't htink I did very well with the person I mentioned above at the party. However, I think I've learnt a whole lot from having this passage sitting besied me while I have thought about what happened. Next time ... I pray it'll be different and redemptive.
Nous like scouse or French -oui? We wee whee all the way ... to mind us a bunch of thunks. Too much information? How could that be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg
-
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
No comments:
Post a Comment