“We made the world we are living in
and we have to make it over.” James Baldwin[1]
Today’s clamoring over the
Second Amendment, treating people as enemies that seek asylum, the loss of
civil dialogue, are examples of the masses captivated by the spirit of a “pale
criminal” (Nietzsche), a coil of wild serpents that are seldom at peace among
themselves. This spirit is the kept
alive in what James Baldwin exposed as “the
great American illusion”.
 |
| http://banksy.co.uk/out.asp |
[W]e are powerful, and we are rich . . . The principal effect of our
material well-being has been to set our children’s teeth on edge. If we
ourselves were not so fond of this illusion, we might understand ourselves and
other peoples better than we do, and be enabled to help them understand us.[2]
Baldwin suggests that living the
illusion sets up a failed education that is unable to know ourselves and thus exist
more fully in a spirit (geist) to see
and hear the genuine readings of the dynamic text that transform our lives into
more fully human beings (vs. being stuck in some sort of certainty). One such oft misinterpreted text of the dull masses
is the ancient saying of Jesus which reads, ‘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
evil-doer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.”
(The Gospel according to Matthew 5.38-41)
A more accurate translation of
this clause “do not resist an evildoer” is “do not retaliate against violence
with violence” or “don’t react violently against the one who is evil.”
The masses view this text in a
primitive dualistic form to imply a passive, doormat like quality that makes
the Christian way seem cowardly and complicit in the face of injustice. Instead
it offers ancient wisdom that evokes a transformation among those who are marginalized,
victims, downtrodden, casualties of injustice. It summons a new self-respect,
calling up creative resources of strength and courage they did not know they
had that allow them to stand their ground.
 |
Example of a gun brandishing religious American who is somehow self-deceived
through their use of argumentum ad verecundiam --what's the good news in this? |
The part of this text so often
distorted, “if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also” must
be understood in its first century social behavior. Jesus reference of
the right cheek is both challenging and enlightening, for he lived in
a right-handed world where left hands were reserved only for unclean tasks.
Therefore, we can assume that the person doing the hitting would have used
their right hand. The only way to strike someone on the right cheek with your
right hand is a backhanded slap. Such a blow connotes an insult, not a
fistfight, and was a normal way to reprimand someone over whom you had power
(e.g. masters to slaves, husbands to wives, Romans to Jews). To strike your
equal in such a manner was socially and legally unacceptable, carrying with it
a huge fine.[3]
With this understanding of the social
context Jesus was speaking, one should picture the scenario with oneself as the
oppressor. You are a wealthy, powerful person whose slave has displeased you in
some way. You reprimand your slave with a backhanded slap. The response you
expect is the response you have always received from your slaves–the response
you yourself would give if someone higher than you treated you the same way.
You expect your slave to cower, submit, and slink away. Instead, your slave
defiantly turns their other cheek and challenges you to hit them again. What
can you do?
You would like to give your slave another backhanded slap to
show them their place, but to do that you would have to use your left hand,
which would admit that your action is unclean. You could hit him on his left
cheek, instead it would be embarrassing to hit your slave the way you should
hit your equal. You’re confused and brought to a pause. Flustered, you could order the slave be flogged, but the
slave has already made his point. He has shown you that he is a human person
with dignity and worth. You don’t own him, you cannot control him, and he does
not submit to your rule.
Thus Jesus’ instruction, not to resist evil and to turn the
other cheek, transforms from an instruction to merely accept injustice into a radical
challenge to resist systems of
domination and oppression without the use of violence. Rather than ignoring
an evil situation and hoping it will go away (passive), Jesus’ saying instructs
his followers to find courage and creative,
active, and nonviolent ways to assert their humanity and love in the world.
What is essential to freedom is being
expressed in this dynamic. Unless there is something at risk you do not really
have genuine freedom.[4]
In our present ay cultural surroundings, this kind of vital force can show up in
non-violent protest, marches, boycotts, negotiations, finding alternative ways
to exit, silence[5],
reconciliation, the use of humor, satire and irony, invoking a unique response
that causes the perpetrator or abuser to have to pause and actually think, trauma work that breaks the cycle of
violence[6],
and organizing citizens to action against unjust greed. It summons a third or alternative way that offers a nonviolent form of resistance allowing a people to maintain
their humanity and dignity while not cooperating with the systems of domination
that demean, devalue, use and discard them.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
exemplified radical nonviolence that was not for the cowardly, the weak, the
passive, the apathetic or the fearful; for,
Nonviolent resistance does resist . . . It is not a method of stagnant
passivity. While the nonviolent resister is passive in the sense that he is not
physically aggressive toward his opponent, his mind and emotions are always
active, constantly seeking to persuade his opponent that he is wrong. The
method is passive physically, but strongly active spiritually. It is not
passive non-resistance to evil; it is active nonviolent resistance to evil. . .
Nonviolence does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent but to
win friendship and understanding," King teaches. "The nonviolent
resister must often express his protest through noncooperation or boycotts, but
he realizes that these are not ends themselves; they are merely means to awaken
a sense of moral shame in the opponent. ... The aftermath of nonviolence is the
creation of the beloved community, while the aftermath of violence is tragic
bitterness.[7]
Below is an example by Trevor Noah telling a story about his
grandfather during a protest in South Africa.
[1]
James Baldwin, Nobody Knows my Name: More
Notes of a Native Son. New York: The Dial Press, 1961, 154.
[2]
Ibid., 99.
[3] Grateful to the scholarship of Walter
Wink, The Powers that Be: Theology for a
New Millennium, 1998
[4]
G. F. Hegel, Battle to the Death in his Phenomenology
of Spirit reads, “Thus the relation of the two self-conscious individuals
is such that they prove themselves and each other through a life-and-death
struggle. They must engage in this struggle, for they must raise their
certainty of being for themselves to truth, both in the case of the
other and in their own case. And it is only through staking one’s life that
freedom is won; and thus it is proved that for self-consciousness.” (§187)
[5]
Recall Parkland survivor Emma Gonzalez brought masses of people to
tears with a powerful silence during her speech that lasted the same duration
as the school shooting.
[6]
See Strategies for Trauma Awareness & Resilience (STAR)
https://emu.edu/cjp/star/
[7] William D. Watley, Roots of Resistance: The Nonviolent Ethic of
Martin Luther King, Jr. Valley Forge, Judson Press, 1985.
No comments:
Post a Comment