Wednesday, May 6, 2009

THE TRUE MEANING OF TURN THE OTHER CHEEK


THE TRUE MEANING OF TURN THE OTHER CHEEK

Both the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi said Jesus' Sermon on the Mount provided the foundation for their political protests. Yet the Sermon on the Mount seems to recommend passive acceptance of injustice and oppression. According to Matthew 5:39-41, Jesus says:

If any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.
If anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give him your cloak as well.
If any one forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.

For much of Christian history, people have heard these verses as affirming political acquiescence, not active resistance. Yet King and Gandhi interpreted Jesus as justifying political action. Which interpretation was right? Recent Jesus scholarship suggests these verses are creative non-violent strategies of protesting oppression. Such is the persuasive argument of New Testament scholar Walter Wink.

In his books "Engaging the Powers" and "The Powers That Be," Wink argues that Jesus rejected two common ways of responding to injustice: violent resistance and passive acceptance. Instead, Jesus advocated a "third way," an assertive but non-violent form of protest.

The key to understanding Wink's argument is rigorous attention to the social customs of the Jewish homeland in the first century and what these sayings would have meant in that context.

To illustrate with the saying about turning the other cheek: it specifies that the person has been struck on the right cheek. How can you be struck on the right cheek? As Wink emphasizes, you have to act this out in order to get the point: you can be struck on the right cheek only by an overhand blow with the left hand, or with a backhand blow from the right hand. (Try it).

But in that world, people did not use the left hand to strike people. It was reserved for "unseemly" uses. Thus, being struck on the right cheek meant that one had been backhanded with the right hand. Given the social customs of the day, a backhand blow was the way a superior hit an inferior, whereas one fought social equals with fists.

This means the saying presupposes a setting in which a superior is beating a peasant. What should the peasant do? "Turn the other cheek." What would be the effect? The only way the superior could continue the beating would be with an overhand blow with the fist--which would have meant treating the peasant as an equal.

Perhaps the beating would not have been stopped by this. But for the superior, it would at the very least have been disconcerting: he could continue the beating only by treating the peasant as a social peer. As Wink puts it, the peasant was in effect saying, "I am your equal. I refuse to be humiliated anymore." That is not all. The sayings about "going the second mile" and "giving your cloak to one who sues you for your coat" make a similar point: they suggest creative non-violent ways of protesting oppression.

Roman law permitted soldiers to force civilians to carry their gear for one mile, but because of abuses stringently prohibited more than one mile. If they ask you to do that, Jesus says, go ahead; but then carry their gear a second mile. Put them in a disconcerting situation: either they risk getting in trouble, or they will have to wrestle their gear back from you.

Under civil law, a coat could be confiscated for non-payment of debt. For the poor, the coat often also served as a blanket at night. In that world, the only other garment typically worn by a peasant was an inner garment, a cloak. So if they take your coat, Jesus says, give them your cloak as well. "Strip naked," as Wink puts it. Show them what the system is doing to you. Moreover, in that world, nakedness shamed the person who observed it. Thus, these sayings from the Sermon on the Mount, these seemingly mild sayings, are actually potent ways of confounding and exposing injustice.

King and Gandhi may not have been aware of the finer points of modern Biblical scholarship, but they were no doubt clear that Jesus was counseling a radical new way of empowering the underclass.

And so, those little verses from the Gospel of Matthew are the foundation upon which King and Gandhi built their world-moving campaigns for social justice.

Friday, May 1, 2009

A CHANCE TO LIVE

A CHANCE TO LIVE
By Ed Mitchell
Your choice to donate was so right.
 Written to honor the unknown family from Arizona who in December 2000 donated the gift of life in a time of grief -upon the death of a child.


My first kidney transplant was in July 1991 and ended in just 3 months. After serious infections a donated kidney showed signs of failure, its removal was inevitable to save my life. As signs of rejection occurred it brought all kinds of actions by my transplant team. Next as I slip into a coma my family was given little hope I would live. God would intervene and use the skills provided by the team to bring back my life and avoid death at the age of 37. At one point, I was given no hope of survival, but I did, despite all odds. Although all this happened it was still the best course of action because it allowed me an opportunity to prevent the dreaded alternative of dialysis 3 times a week. During those months, I learned that an organ transplant is a treatment and not a cure and comes with many pitfalls.


After 10 years on dialysis a true miracle occurred when on December 6, 2000. I received a call from the transplant team that a possible match was available. Transplantation is so unlike other surgery or hospital stays. First the long awaited call comes without warning telling me that a kidney is available. In moments, by my acceptance I implied my willingness to do everything possible to keep as healthy as possible in preparation for the major operation the following day. Also I knew this time by my acceptance that it would bring daily activities, sinceas I would have to constantly be diligent to follow my doctor's advice and follow endless preventative measures to insure that "Nick", my donated kidney would work long and give me a more productive life.
Please know that I will always remember my donor's sacrifice and my donor family's special love, and that while I am not keeping your child alive, by your choice I am keeping your gift of life, the kidney alive. Please know that it is a most humbling experience to get a donation from an unanticipated death of a child, your most precious possession. I knew it took all of your own inward courage to donate while still grieving and to give to me a stranger the gift of life.
By making the choice to accept the kidney I have learned in time to deal with the sometimes-overwhelming feelings and found the inward strength needed to conquer those feelings. In part that has happened due to your love, which has helped me, deal with all the feelings that come from just being so grateful to receive this kidney and end my many years of weekly dialysis.
Since 2000 Nick has worked great and while I have often faced additional problems over the years I have been able to start working again. I have also discovered that what is most important is that I continue to know where my true confidence and strength lies and that it's not within myself but in my strong belief and faith in God that has helped me to a greater understanding of situations, and to get through whatever happens in my life's journey as well as my final destination.
I close with my prayer for you, and all organ donors that you too will also find a joy and peace from God by knowing you made the right choice when you gave the gift of life.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ed Mitchell, 53 divorced and lives in Orlando, Florida. He enjoys swimming, camping, and RV. He is an Eagle and Moose and active in church and the transplant community having received 2 kidney transplants.




Sent to you as a courtesy of...

Your friends at AsAManThinketh.net
For a free eBook of James Allens classic:
http://www.AsAManThinketh.net
Bookmark and Share