Should Non-Violence Be Used to Shame Someone?

I vividly remember being surprised and frustrated by Jesus' words in Matthew 5:38-42.  My earliest memory of interacting with this passage (although I'm sure I had heard it previously) was in middle school.  Already by this time, I had studied martial arts enough to know that, when someone throws a punch at you, you have only a few options:

1. Side step the punch, in order to counter punch
2. Block the punch, in order to counter punch
3. Absorb the punch by tensing your muscles, in order to counter punch

But in this passage, Jesus is instructing his followers to react differently to violence:

"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." (NRSV) 

These words of Jesus were frustrating, because I had been raised in a system of belief that taught that our most distinctive characteristics of being human were our individual rights.  When these rights were violated, justice was to be sought.  I was a firm believer in lex talionis: an eye for an eye.  

These frustrations lasted until my sophomore year of high school, when I spent a week at one of my favorite places of childhood: Green Lake Bible Camp.  I remember that this passage came up in discussion one day while in the middle of a bible study.  The chaplain at the camp for the summer shed a new revelation that made me appreciate the wisdom of Jesus' teaching about lex talionis.

She stated that Jesus' was not advocating a "get steam rolled by the enemy" mentality - ignoring the justice due to the offender - but was instead teaching a non-violent means of humiliating the perpetrator.  With her interpretation (which many people hold today), when Jesus says, "if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also," he was not laying down his pride, but was instead humiliating and shaming the offender.  The logic went something like this: if you turned your cheek after being slapped, you were forcing the perpetrator to strike you in a way that showed that they were "out of control."  The same logic of "shaming" the offender in a non-violent form has been used for the "giving of the cloak" and also the "going an extra mile" examples. (see David Ewarts one page summary on this understanding here).

The point she was making was that Jesus was a wise teacher who knew how to defeat and humiliate his opponents without using violence or violent resistance.  

I remember liking this idea.  I could still be the victor, AND I would be in line with the greatest moral teacher of all time!

As the years have passed since receiving this lesson in moral combat, I have come to question its validity.  Jesus' is not teaching a moral lesson about how to humiliate someone else, but is instead describing God's character.  God does not teach us to love our enemies so that they will be shamed by our generosity, but teaches us to love our enemies because he loves them.  Jesus was not teaching a "less violent" way to invert power roles, but was instead showing that the kingdom of God is without such roles.  

Jesus did not die in order to drive the final moral dagger into the hearts of the Pharisees and unbelievers: he died on the cross because it was the cosmic act of God's giving-ness to reconcile and restore creation.

Let us not play the games of the world, seeking power over one another via violent or non-violent means.  Jesus did not come to give lessons of morality, teaching us more holy ways of ruling over one another.  Jesus became human, died, and was raised for the reconciliation of all things.  Thanks be to God. 

Comments

[Sally L. Wilke]

Excellent thinking, Andy. I got a little nervous when I first started reading...and then loved your conclusion. Still love reading your blogs even when I don't comment.

[Andrew Engelhardt]

Thanks for the encouragement Sally. What was it that made you nervous early on?

[paul rollet]

Andy, good stuff. Admittedly I don't read many blogs, but yours came up on facebook, and as i sit here in my friends place in kosovo it is good to see what's going on back home. i'm interested in this principle in action. especially being in a country (similar to Georgia) that has had to fight for its freedom and get help from outside forces like the US. it is one thing to use this principle in a middle school fight and another in a war where you are getting your country taken and your people destroyed and massacred. but then again Jesus did hang on a tree, way more than turning the other cheek or giving up his cloak. it amazes me how far Christ's model and that of MLK and other non-violent leaders throughout history have gone. if only we had turned the other cheek as a nation when we were attacked on 9/11 and not gotten ourselves in such a mess in the middle east. ok, just some thoughts. thanks for the post though, it gives me something to think about. my friend over here is working with the mennonite central committee doing non-violence work so i hope to keep learning a thing or two from him too. peace brother.

[Andrew Engelhardt]

Paul,

Thanks a lot for the thoughts and insights into making this more than a merely "theoretical" post. When we were in Georgia, I remember the intense anger that the Georgians had towards the Caucus Russians (and, admittedly, their feelings appeared to be very valid). I also remember Malkhaz talking about how the Baptist church was trying to forgive those people and preach a message of oneness with these people: their seemingly "worst" enemies.

I realize that the ethics of violence or non-violence is marked by many difficult questions, especially when it is discussed and thought of "on the ground" (i.e.- Kenya and Georgia). What I wanted to promote in this post was the idea that Jesus showed something of God's character: an unwillingness to shame or humiliate another person via violence or non-violence. His purpose was to instead show that a kingdom of peace, forgiveness, and reconciliation had broken into the present systems of the world.

I meant not to trivialize the intense situations of civil war, genocide, and massacres. Peace be with you brother.

Andy