Is it only cowards that turn the other cheek?

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?

8 thoughts on “Is it only cowards that turn the other cheek?

  1. Jr

    I’m all for this passage and I don’t dismiss it in the least! However, I think it is one of the most abused texts.

    We must not take Jesus’ words here to say something they are not saying. The teaching must be taken with consideration of other Scriptures that address violence and insult. For example, Romans 13:1-4 and 1 Peter 2:13-14 teach of the explicit (not implicit) directive of governments to protect the good in a society by “bearing the sword” and punishing the evil within a society.

    As for soldiers, isn’t it interesting that when John the Baptist is answering the inquiry of the soldiers of “And we, what shall we do?” he responds not with “leave your profession” or “resign your duties” but with “do not exhort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages” (Luke 3:14)? What a perfect opportunity to tell the soldiers (even ones working on the side of the oppressive Romans) that their job was morally wrong! Yet, he does not rebuke their profession and instead teaches them appropriate conduct while in their roles.

    I believe the point Jesus is referring to is individual personal revenge, which begins as a matter of the heart then manifests itself outwardly by us NOT taking personal revenge (as noted, pay back belongs to the LORD, Deut 32:35, Ps 94:1). Jesus is not speaking about war, civil governing authorities, self defense, or anything else. He is talking about individual personal revenge and insult, which as Tim noted, is what the back handed slap also refers to.

    Let us allow the text say what it says (and take heed of it!) without forcing it upon other issues He is not addressing. Perhaps other teachings could be used in those discussions, but not this one.

    Grace be with you –
    Jr

  2. K. Rex Butts

    For anyone who thinks the choice of non-violence is cowardice, they need to hear Jesus say to God the Father “not my will but your will be done.” Cowards do not say such things when faced with the impending reality of a cruel humiliation and violent death.

    As for the ethics of non-violence. While many questions remain for me, it seems we ought to read scripture in light of the Jesus we are called to follow. We can go back and forth with proof-texts to support one position or the other. But the fact remains that Jesus lived his life in pursuit of the Kingdom of God and called us to follow him in doing so. He taught us how to live by living a life of self-sacrificial service in love for God and neighbor rather than exercising power and domination and he taught us to do likewise. It takes quite a hermeneutical leap for me to conclude that life Jesus lived and called us to live as his disciples allows for me to employ violence to serve the political agendas of the many kingdoms of this world.

    Also…as far as cowardice is concerned and the hypothetical threat of suffering personal violence. We are aware that there have been many of martyrs for Christ that have been reported to watch their entire family be slaughtered because they refused to renounce their confession of Christ. Would they be considered cowards?

    Grace and Peace,

    Rex

  3. Tim Archer Post author

    Jr,

    I’ve spent a lot of time with Romans 13 and won’t go back over that. I will say that I do think that this passage does have something to say about wars, though I would agree that it is often misused. When war becomes an act of revenge for a perceived wrong against a country, I think it violates this principle. For many people, their reaction to 9/11 was: “They can’t do that to the United States. We’ll show them that they messed with the wrong country!” I would say that is an unChristian response to evil.

    As for Christians participating in the military, well, that’s quite a complex subject. Frankly, I’m still trying to arrive at a consistent position on that one. For now, I’ll say that *if* it’s acceptable for Christians to take up arms in the name of nations of this world, they are still responsible for their attitudes and actions during those times. There’s nothing about submission to authority that relieves us of our moral responsibilities.

    Grace and peace,
    Tim Archer

  4. heavenbound

    Please comment on the “Holy Wars” where the Catholic church takes up arms to recapture Jerusalem. Or did we go wrong when we were attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor? As far as the Twin Towers are concerned more lives were lost there than at Pearl Harbor. Again attacked by non Christians. In fact you could say that in all 3 instances it was the Christians who were the non violents. The un natural instinct is not to retaliate. In the animal kingdom its flee or become someone’s dinner.
    Since WW II. The balance of power has been made possible by nuclear weaponry.
    In times past, Ghengis Kahn, Attila the Hun, The Gauls and Visigoths, the Kossaks,
    and the Romans would have initiated any of their plundering if they faced a nuclear response?

  5. Tim Archer Post author

    Also…as far as cowardice is concerned and the hypothetical threat of suffering personal violence. We are aware that there have been many of martyrs for Christ that have been reported to watch their entire family be slaughtered because they refused to renounce their confession of Christ. Would they be considered cowards?

    Frankly, Rex? Yeah, there are people who would call them cowards. There are Christians who would do that. I’ve found that any advocacy of non-violence brings out an amazing degree of harsh speech and name calling. I’m not sure where this anger comes from. There’s an excellent discussion of this on the blog Two Friars and a Fool, though I wouldn’t have chosen the title they used: http://tinyurl.com/Christiannonviolence

    Grace and peace,
    Tim Archer

  6. Jr

    Rex: I think there is a difference between not acting out because they want you to reject the Name of Jesus and acting out in simple defense. Example: If a knife is to my throat and someone says to me, “reject Christ, and confess so and so instead or you die,” I would say “screw you” and let it be done. But if a knife is to my throat for the sake of a knife being to my throat in some other case, I may validly, morally and ethically fight back.

    Tim: I’m with you on coming up with a consistent position. I’m not sure where I’m at yet. But as for this teaching, again, I believe it is individualistic and not national in nature. The case of John the Baptist’s teaching I cited is an important one here.

    This teaching, like many others, requires wisdom and discernment, for sure. May the grace of God be upon us when we fall short or get it wrong; and thank God our salvation isn’t hanging in the balance when we do.

    Grace be with you –
    Jr

  7. K. Rex Butts

    When I turn the TV on, there is violence. We train children to be violent by letting them play video games full of violence…both political violence and psychopathic violence. We celebrate national violence with parades, festivals, etc… The cost of “justified” violence is calculated in terms of a dollar figure rather than the toll of lives lost, including both military, civilian, and foreign lives. And like every super-power I can think of, we live in a nation that was built on violence. And then we are somehow surprised why a person or persons walk into a factory, church, school, supermarket, etc… and acts out in violence.

    Our culture is darkened and that is all the more reason why Christians must start being an alternative. But as I write this, I wonder if that will ever happen as long as a Christianity turned nationalistic religion believes it has something to lose? It does…it also has something to gain. May our culture learn the difference.

    “He is no fool who gives up that which he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.” – Jim Elliot

  8. Terry

    First, I should let you know that I’m not a pacifist, because of my personal study of the topic. However, I have deep respect for those who, because of their convictions, are pacifists.

    I agree with Jr that this passage is not directly related to a government’s responsibilities to protect its citizens, nor to a Christian’s responsibility to government, nor to a Christian’s response to injustice against others. However, since the topic has been brought up in comments, I want to let you know, Tim, that I agree with you that neither turning the other cheek nor pacifism is necessarily cowardly.

    I heard a radio interview a few years ago with an author of a book about recipients of the Medal of Honor. I was fascinated by one of the honored veterans who was featured in the book. He was a pacifist, but he risked his life on numerous occassions as a medic who faced heavy gunfire in order to drag dosens of wounded comrades to safety. He was a pacifist, but he was not a coward.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.