Tag Archives: non-violence

What about the second mile?

Bloch's Sermon on the Mount In discussing the issues of violence and non-violence, pacifism and non-pacifism, something comes up at times that I think needs to be re-examined. I’ve heard it said that Jesus’ comments about non-resistance to evildoers only applied to religious persecution.

In mulling this over and weighing it out, a thought kept coming to mind: what about the second mile? You know the teaching:

If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

It’s in the context of Jesus’ reframing the concept of vengeance (“eye for eye, tooth for tooth”), two phrases after the command to turn the other cheek. And it’s definitely not about religious persecution. There’s no evidence that the concept of Roman soldiers forcing non-Romans to carry their gear was a religious oppression. It was more akin to the quartering that the British Empire practiced prior to the American Revolution.

Jesus’ answer is that such oppression is not to be resisted.

Now I know that there are other ways of teaching that the Sermon of the Mount doesn’t apply to us. We’ve looked at those in a series on this blog. If you’d like to restate those views, fine. I don’t expect to spend a lot of time replying to such comments.

For those that think that Matthew recorded Jesus’ teachings for the edification of Jesus’ church, I’d like to discuss this point: doesn’t the teaching about the second mile move the conversation away from the subject of religious persecution?

Consistent Life Ethic

9 Replies

I came across the Consistent Life Ethic a few years ago while doing research for a class I was teaching in the course “Christianity in Culture.” The idea was new to me. I found it to be a surprising take on some important issues, especially because it seemingly cuts across the traditional divisions of left and right, conservative and liberal.

Apparently, this ethic was first articulated by Joseph Bernadin, a cardinal in the Catholic church. He sought to tie together all issues that have at their core the value of human life. He urged people to take a consistent approach to these questions, stating that: “When human life is considered ‘cheap’ or easily expendable in one area, eventually nothing is held as sacred and all lives are in jeopardy.” In another speech, Bernadin said, “The spectrum of life cuts across the issues of genetics, abortion, capital punishment, modern warfare and the care of the terminally ill.”

The Consistent Life Ethic condemns abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia. It opposes the death penalty and economic injustice. Bernadin condemned what he called “unjust war,” but the Consistent Life movement today (which was once called the Seamless Garment Network) has embraced pacifism. The mission statement of Consistent Life expresses:

We are committed to the protection of life, which is threatened in today’s world by war, abortion, poverty, racism, capital punishment and euthanasia. We believe that these issues are linked under a ‘consistent ethic of life’. We challenge those working on all or some of these issues to maintain a cooperative spirit of peace, reconciliation, and respect in protecting the unprotected.

They go on to describe their purpose as follows:

We serve the anti-violence community by connecting issues, building bridges, and strengthening the case against each kind of socially-approved killing by consistently opposing them all.

I’m not ready to align myself with any movement other than the Kingdom of God, but I find this idea to be very intriguing. What do you think? Can you see some value in seeking consistency on these issues? Or is this approach misguided?

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 Kitchen of Half-Baked Thoughts

Tag Archives: non-violence

What about the second mile?

Like this:

Consistent Life Ethic

Like this:

Is it only cowards that turn the other cheek?

Like this:

Jay Guin on Pacifism

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: