Category Archives: Sermon On The Mount

Is it only cowards that turn the other cheek?

8 Replies

Going back to the original post in this series on the Sermon on the Mount, it all started with a line in a Weird Al Yankovic which seemed to imply that turning the other cheek is stupid. I broadened that to include the whole sermon, but now I’d like to focus on the concept of turning the other cheek.

We’ve talked about whether this concept is stupid. A more common charge that I hear is that turning the other cheek is an act of cowardice. My hunch is that these people haven’t really imagined what it would require to take a blow and allow someone to deliver another one. I also think that people would call this cowardice because they’re much too afraid to actually try it themselves!

What would a coward do when struck by another? He might run away, if he thought he could get away. The most likely reaction is that he would fight back.

“Are you saying that everyone who fights is a coward?”

No, I’m not. I’m saying that neither fighting nor refusing to fight says anything about cowardice or bravery. Look at the animal world. Almost any animal will fight when cornered. Animals that would normally run will fight when forced to. It’s the same with humans. Many people fight more out of fear than out of valor. And some of the most courageous acts in history were done by people who refused to do violence to another human being.

Turning the other cheek forces the other person to look you in the eye to strike you again. If they gave you a backhanded blow, an insult in the ancient world, they would be forced to back it up with a dignified strike. They would be forced to deal with you as a person. It demonstrates a refusal to use violence nor to cave in to violence.

Turning the other cheek requires a level of courage that I don’t claim to have. I aspire to it, but I don’t claim to have arrived. If I were able to do it, it would only be by the power of God.

Those are some initial thoughts on this specific teaching. What are yours?

The “Only The Atonement Counts” Dodge

2 Replies

This is the sixth post in a series of posts looking at the Sermon on the Mount. I’ve referred to a blog by Michael L. Westmoreland-White which brings up these specific points; he in turn credits John Howard Yoder and Glen Stassen. Westmoreland-White describes “dodges” to the Sermon on the Mount, ways in which people seek to get around applying it today. We’ll look today at the last dodge in the group: the “all that matters is the atonement” dodge. (I might note that he is specifically discussing pacifism, so his comments at times focus on how the Sermon is applied at a national level)

To some degree, I addressed this last dodge on Friday. Some feel that any talk of how Christians should live somehow cheapens Jesus’ sacrifice and turns Christianity into a works-based-salvation religion. I probably don’t have a lot to add to what I said on Friday; I strongly encourage you to read that post to understand my rejection of that outlook.

I will restate however that Jesus did not die to give Christians a free pass to live as they please. He died to allow men to be holy, men who can’t make themselves holy on their own. The proper response to such a sacrifice is loving obedience, not out of a desire to justify ourselves, but out of a desire to please the One who died to make us holy.

In the Old Testament, God marveled at the fact that His people couldn’t understand this point, that they would respond to His love and mercy by turning their back on Him. Maybe this is seen most graphically in the book of Hosea, where Hosea marries a woman who is continually unfaithful to him, with this relationship symbolizing the relationship between God and His people. Today God expects a similar loving response from the bride of Christ, not out of fear of divorce, but out of a loving desire to please her husband.

I have a few more thoughts on the Sermon on the Mount, but we’ve finished looking at Westmoreland-White’s article. I’d like to hear your reactions.

The Inner Attitudes Dodge

9 Replies

This is the fifth post in a series of posts looking at the Sermon on the Mount. I’ve referred to a blog by Michael L. Westmoreland-White which brings up these specific points; he in turn credits John Howard Yoder and Glen Stassen. Westmoreland-White describes “dodges” to the Sermon on the Mount, ways in which people seek to get around applying it today. (I might note that he is specifically discussing pacifism, so his comments at times focus on how the Sermon is applied at a national level)

The fourth dodge mentioned is the “The ‘inner attitudes’ dodge.” Apparently advocated by John Calvin [Edit, January 11: Westmoreland-White makes this assertion, but I’ve been unable to find any evidence of this], this expresses the idea that Jesus’ teachings are not about our external actions, but merely about our internal attitudes. (Strikingly similar to some ancient Greek heresies, if memory serves) Even if we must kill our enemies in wartime, we can continue loving them, even as we do so.

As I said, this smacks of the kind of dualism that was popular in the ancient Greek world. Jesus was a living example of the need to couple actions with attitudes, and his teachings spoke of the same. Westmoreland-White says, “He tells us that we love our enemies by praying for them, seeking to do them good, stopping our worship to make peace. We confront those who backhand us (an act of humiliation) by turning the other cheek, so that they are forced to acknowledge our human dignity; we confront those who who would sue us poor for the very coat on our backs by stripping naked in the court of (in)justice; we react to the occupation troops who force us to carry their packs one mile, by carrying them two miles.” These are not mere attitudes, but actions that reflect an attitude.

It’s possible that the confusion arises from some of the Bible’s teachings about the futility of external acts that aren’t accompanied by man’s heart. That is a popular theme in the Bible. Empty rituals are just that: empty. However, the idea that we can somehow love others without acting upon that love is very foreign to the Bible. John said it well:

“But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.” (1 John 3:17-18)

Do you see anything defensible about the “inner attitudes” point of view?

The Public/Private Split Dodge

5 Replies

This is the fourth post in a series of posts looking at the Sermon on the Mount. I’ve referred to a blog by Michael L. Westmoreland-White which brings up these specific points; he in turn credits John Howard Yoder and Glen Stassen. Westmoreland-White describes “dodges” to the Sermon on the Mount, ways in which people seek to get around applying it today. (I might note that he is specifically discussing pacifism, so his comments at times focus on how the Sermon is applied at a national level)

We’ve looked at the dispensational dodge and the preterist dodge. Today we’ll talk about the public/private split dodge. This approach says that yes, the Sermon on the Mount has moral guidelines for Christian living for the individual, but it says nothing about how countries are to conduct themselves. Again, Westmoreland-White is approaching this topic in the midst of a discussion of Christian pacifism, so his interest is to look at whether or not countries should be held to the standard of the Sermon on the Mount. According to him, this teaching was held to by Martin Luther and has been popular among Lutherans ever since. I’m not familiar enough with Lutheran teaching to confirm or deny that affirmation.

I’ve discussed this concept before, in the context of the idea of the existence of a Christian nation. As I’ve said, if such a thing could exist, I think that it would have to live up to Jesus’ teachings, including turning the other cheek and loving enemies. (Interestingly enough, I noticed that the people behind the Brick Testament picked up on this very idea: note this series of graphics)

I’d also say that I believe that Christians must continue to follow the teachings of their Master, even if they choose to put themselves in service to an earthly nation. The Sermon on the Mount still shows us what is right and what is godly. Again, I’m not talking about how to escape damnation; I’m talking about how to live as sanctified people.

Nations in the Old Testament, even nations not in covenant with God, were judged on several factors from what we see in the prophets: their treatment of their fellow man, their pride, and their willingness to acknowledge God. To some degree I have to think that God continues to look on countries in that same way. Even if they aren’t in covenant with Him, they are held to certain standards. And frankly, I don’t know when any nation has lived up to those standards.

I’d like to hear your thoughts. Are nations given a “free pass” as far as Jesus’ teachings go? Or are they expected to love enemies, turn the other cheek, etc.?

The Preterist Dodge

14 Replies

This is the third post in a series of posts looking at the Sermon on the Mount. I’ve referenced a blog by Michael L. Westmoreland-White that got me to thinking about these specific points; he in turn credits John Howard Yoder and Glen Stassen. Westmoreland-White describes “dodges” to the Sermon on the Mount, ways in which people seek to get around applying it today. (I might note that he is specifically discussing pacifism, so his comments at times focus on how the Sermon is applied at a national level)

Yesterday we looked at the Dispensational Dodge. Westmoreland-White calls the second view “The Preterist Dodge,” though he throws Albert Schweitzer’s views into the mix, so I don’t know that he’s talking about what I know as preterism. Anyway, this view is the view that Jesus’ teachings were only meant for the first century, for a church that expected the Second Coming to happen within their lifetime. Those holding this view argue that the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount are unsustainable over a long period of time and were only intended for the few decades following Jesus’ death.

Again, how we deal with the Sermon on the Mount really does reflect with how we deal with Jesus himself. If you follow the above argument to its logical extreme, we not only throw out the gospels, but pretty much the rest of the New Testament. While I’m not a big fan of slippery-slope arguments, I do get nervous any time someone starts discounting parts of the Bible, especially if they can’t give me firm parameters on when to ignore what the Bible says and when not to.

The fact that Christians of every generation become convinced that the Second Coming is right around the corner is undeniable. If you don’t believe me, check the billboards around this country. That fact shouldn’t change Christian morality nor Christian theology. We should be living the same way whether Jesus returns tomorrow or returns long after we are dead.

What has changed, I think, is the fear factor. We’re afraid to follow Jesus’ teachings. I know I am! Don’t worry about tomorrow, turn the other cheek… those things can lead you to be poor and oppressed. And they don’t preach well in a society of affluence. But that doesn’t keep them from being true.

Again I say, I don’t see how you can call yourself a Christian and not follow the teachings of Christ. God fearer, maybe. Christian, no.