Many years ago my late friend J. Christy Wilson was pastor of the first ever Christian church in Kabul, Afghanistan. Through the good offices of President Eisenhower permission was granted to build the church, attended by Christian expatriates. The time came when the Afghan authorities revoked permission and announced they would knock the church down. When the bulldozers arrived what did the Christ followers there do? They served tea to the workers who were destroying their church building!
Saturday, September 18, 2010, 7:31 PM
September 18th, 2010 | 9:38 pm | #1
Superb.
“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
Here’s my pastors sermon on these inspired words of Paul, from the Almighty, if you have time: http://www.bcrecmd.org/components/com_sermonspeaker/media/overcomeevilwithgood_mp3__091210.mp3
September 18th, 2010 | 10:24 pm | #2
It’s sometimes strategic to feed the enemy, to bless those who curse you, and to turn the other cheek. It’s a lot easier to follow Christ’s command to not resist the evildoer when, as apparently in this case, there aren’t feasible alternatives.
But how about when Christians do have means of effectively resisting the evildoer? Should they be willing to turn the other cheek then?
I raise this question because I don’t see a lot of turning the other cheek among Christians in America. The divergence is pretty sharp in today’s culture warriors of the Christian right. Where Christians are in the majority, and when they have a path towards real power (political or otherwise), I don’t see a lot of turning the other cheek.
So, is Christ’s command only applicable when resistance is impractical?
September 19th, 2010 | 5:29 am | #3
Serving Tea to Those who Destroy “the Church”
Bible-believing Christians frequently serve tea to Liberals.
And some good Bible-believing Christian pastors shoot Liberal wolves.
September 19th, 2010 | 8:40 am | #4
In the case of “resisting the evildoer,” when resistance is practical, many Christians do believe that resistance is justified. Just war theory would be an example of how that has been thought through.
September 19th, 2010 | 8:41 am | #5
TUAD, I have to admit I’m baffled. What on earth did that mean?
September 19th, 2010 | 5:00 pm | #6
Tom, I don’t know if your near answers to my questions are intentionally evasive or if you’re doing this for some other reason. In any case, I hope we can avoid what happened in the last thread.
An answer to my present question might point to a case in which American evangelicals appropriately choose non-resistance when resistance is a feasible option. There are of course plenty of cases in Christians choose resistance when resistance is an option! My observation was that this is common place, at least among Christian conservative evangelicals in America.
September 19th, 2010 | 6:18 pm | #7
C. Ehrlich,
There are many individual cases where Christians in “superior” position turn the other cheek. I suppose I would ask if you think the cheek turning command was to personal insult only, or should we build national policy around it?
What I mean is, I have and will, I trust, turn the cheek to insult and threat for the sake of the gospel. I do not find it so easy to do when friend or family is so offended and I have the opportunity to redress wrong.
September 19th, 2010 | 8:19 pm | #8
“There are of course plenty of cases in Christians choose resistance when resistance is an option! My observation was that this is common place, at least among Christian conservative evangelicals in America.”
Do you mean like when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and many Christians answered the call to fight this enemy that killed innocent people?
The government is to wield the sword my friend against evil doers, not spread peanut butter. Rom. 13
September 19th, 2010 | 10:41 pm | #9
Brad Williams,
I’d be interested to learn that Jesus’ commands about turning the other cheek, not resisting the evildoer, and blessing those who curse you were only intended as directives for people acting as individuals–and only for when these individuals are acting in response to attacks upon themselves alone.
When, however, the Christian church in Kabul acted corporately, I took this to be obedience to these same instructions. So let’s refine the question: does Christ ever expect Christians, acting corporately, to follow such instructions when resistance is feasible, or when it actually is possible for them to resist by brute force or political power?
September 20th, 2010 | 2:17 am | #10
Tom,
A Biblical undershepherd feeds and protects the sheep entrusted to him while shooting wolves (figuratively speaking).
September 20th, 2010 | 11:23 am | #11
C. Ehrlich,
If you are asking me if the command to turn the other cheek compells total pacifism, then I will flatly say no to that. Christians should be known as people who turn the other cheek, bear with insults, and are longsuffering. However, there are times when resistance by force is justified. Turning the other cheek to insult is different than allowing wicked men to rape, pillage, and plunder when one has the power to check such obsenities.
September 20th, 2010 | 12:53 pm | #12
Brad Williams,
I’m not asking if the command to turn the other cheek compels total pacifism. I happy to assume that it doesn’t. Rather, I’m asking whether or not Christ’s commands here are ever applicable to Christians acting corporately (as opposed to acting individually, and on their own behalf) in situations in which resistance is actually feasible. It seems to me that the preferred interpretation of those commands is that they don’t so apply, at least judging from the behavior of contemporary American evangelicals.
September 20th, 2010 | 2:22 pm | #13
C. Ehrlich,
I’m not sure if I can give you a hard and fast answer to that. For example, in my community it would be ridiculous for us to let a minority of people come and burn down our church building because they don’t like us.
I think it is a wisdom call. Are there times when a church should corporately turn the other cheek? Certainly, especially to slander and insult. The command of Jesus, as I understand it, is simply not to retaliate in the manner you are acted upon. Even in physical confrontation there is a difference in murderous rage and seeking to restrain a foe. If there weren’t, my little brother would be dead. :)
By the way, what sort of behavior of American evangelicals are you talking about?
September 20th, 2010 | 5:11 pm | #14
Brad Williams,
What strikes me as most provocative and enticing about the New Testament is the suggestion of a radical departure from the usual norms and values. The practice among American evangelicals, however, seems to be to interpret Christ’s teachings in such a way as to harmonize them with the commonplace views and practices (though most typically with the views and practices of the past generation or so).
We see one example of this in Christ’s teachings about resisting the evildoer. While Christ’s teachings here might seem (at least to the naive reader) quite radical and refreshing, we’re hard pressed to find any instance in which American evangelicals applied these teachings corporately, or as a church (this is the behavior, or lack thereof, which I had in mind). The only time when more than one Christian collectively turns the other cheek seems to be when there is no other feasible option. So, while Christ’s teaching might seem radical, the church’s actual application renders Christ’s teachings into the sort of banal advice anyone might accept as obviously prudent: to avoid a fight when you’re not going to win.
September 20th, 2010 | 8:14 pm | #15
C. Ehrlich,
You might enjoy reading Stark’s The Rise of Christianity, in which he tells just how great a radical departure Christianity was from the current norms and values; and then you might want to follow church history since then. What it shows is that what you consider to be the “usual norms and values” today were in large part the product of Christianity. I’m speaking of things like freedom of conscience, the dignity of women (a Christian innovation in world history), the rule of law, ending slavery (another distinctly Christian innovation), protecting the life of newborns and the unborn, instituting genuine care for the poor and infirm, and so on. Though they seem normal to us, they are not the kind of thing from which Christianity ought to depart now. (What exceptions there may be in Christians’ treatment of women and slaves do not change the fact that Christians led in freeing them; see the history of early Europe after Rome.) These facts of history remain “provocative and enticing” for those who know about it.
But is “a radical departure from the usual norms and values” what you really want?. If so, then you could look at Christians’ practice of giving and volunteering as an example (see Brooks, Who Really Cares?). And you could also consider Christians’ views on sexual morality, life, and truth. That should satisfy your desire for practices which are not “harmonize(d) with the commonplace views and practices” of today, if that’s what you want; especially if you’re after a Christianity that won’t avoid the difficult fights.
September 20th, 2010 | 10:38 pm | #16
Tom,
I have no doubt that the N.T. ethic is a radical departure from many ancient customs, just as I also have no doubt the the N.T. ethic is a radical departure from the morality depicted in the Lord of the Flies), or that the norms and values of contemporary American culture are a radical departure from the norms and values of 1st century Palestine. None of these things are questioned or disputed. I also do not question or dispute the idea that, historically speaking, some Christians have been responsible for moral progress (just as some Christians have been responsible for moral hindrance and decline).
What I did note, rather, was that–from the perspective of our contemporary western society–the teachings of Christ still seem to suggest (at least to the naive reader) a radical and enticing change.
Now, by the radical and refreshing ethic suggested in the N.T., I gave an example, appropriate to this thread. I’m less enticed by the culture war examples that might spring to your mind. Let me explain why through the example of the politically charged pro-life sentiments of many contemporary conservative Christians. Not only does Jesus not address abortion politics in the Sermon on the Mount, but (a) one doesn’t need the Sermon on the Mount to arrive at the idea that human beings ought to be respected, and (b) the idea of extending equal moral status to human zygotes is as unscriptural as it is dubious (and it’s about as enticing as fruitarianism). Similarly, I also don’t find enticing the values that, perhaps by some unfortunate accident of history, seem to characterize many American evangelicals today. That is, I don’t find enticing the anti-science, anti-immigrant, pro-gun, anti-tax, pro-military sentiments of many American Christians. Like the zygote hysteria, these also have no direct link to the teachings of Jesus.
If, however, you do want to discuss these other topics, I suggest posting it not here, but in a fresh blog post. Here, it’d be best to get back to that topic of turning the other cheek, etc.
September 21st, 2010 | 2:13 am | #17
Tom Gilson: “What it shows is that what you consider to be the “usual norms and values” today were in large part the product of Christianity. I’m speaking of things like … protecting the life of newborns and the unborn.“
C. Ehrlich: “Not only does Jesus not address abortion politics in the Sermon on the Mount, but (a) one doesn’t need the Sermon on the Mount to arrive at the idea that human beings ought to be respected, and (b) the idea of extending equal moral status to human zygotes is as unscriptural as it is dubious (and it’s about as enticing as fruitarianism).”
[Post Title: Serving Tea to Those Who Destroy "The Church"]
C. Ehrlich, Bible-believing Christians continue to serve you (and other Liberals) tea.
September 21st, 2010 | 3:05 am | #18
C. Ehrlich: “Like the zygote hysteria, these also have no direct link to the teachings of Jesus.”
The pro-life activities of Bible-Believing Christians equals “the zygote hysteria”?
This is a very wicked thing to say.
September 21st, 2010 | 5:32 am | #19
C. Ehrlich, I will respond elsewhere, not here.
September 21st, 2010 | 3:29 pm | #20
TUAD: I’m glad we’ve found some common ground. I, too, am completely against abortion.
C.Ehrlich: The so-called “zygote hysteria”, as you colorfully put it, is based on the very sound reasoning that a human being’s existence, begins at the moment of conception. This is supported completely, by modern embryology. Do you dispute this?
September 21st, 2010 | 4:36 pm | #21
Bret, I’m glad to hear that you are completely against abortion.
C. Ehrlich, I commend your mother for not committing the sin of aborting you when you were just a “human zygote.” I would imagine that she and your father had “zygote hysteria” when they found out that she was pregnant with you when you were just a little “human zygote.”
You should be ashamed of yourself. Deeply ashamed.
September 21st, 2010 | 5:21 pm | #22
Bret,
You asked C. Ehrlich,
Good question, especially since he just said,
September 21st, 2010 | 5:31 pm | #23
Tom: Good point. It’s also ironic, that he chastizes evangelicals, for their supposed “antiscience” stance, and yet, he doesn;t recognize that our knowledge of the Zygote’s humanity is derived from modern science, specifically, human embryology.
September 21st, 2010 | 8:12 pm | #24
We’ve wandered rather far from the original topic of this thread. I’d encourage Tom to provide new posts under under which some of these matters can be more appropriately discussed.
As for now, I’ll just note that emotions are high, pro-lifers are opinionated, and sound arguments are elusive. Moreover, what passes for relevant (e.g., the beginning of an organism’s existence) is always surprising.
September 21st, 2010 | 8:29 pm | #25
“…what passes for relevant…”
How about important? When you come to a blog that is staunch in its pro-life support and utterly trivialize the cornerstone of their position, you are surprised at their reaction? Perhaps you should find better things to do with your time. Take piano lessons and stop wasting our time.
September 21st, 2010 | 8:42 pm | #26
C.Ehrlich: I’ve always found it amusing, that those on the pro-choice side, have asserted that pro-lifers are “emotional”. After all, it’s the pro-choice side, that’s in denial of the empirical biological evidence.
September 21st, 2010 | 8:42 pm | #27
If this is indeed the cornerstone of the pro-life position, then perhaps pro-lifers ought to rethink their position.
But again, Adam or Tom ought to provide a post under which such things might be explored in detail. With emotions so high, I bet we could all benefit from some reflective distance and philosophical analysis.
September 21st, 2010 | 8:45 pm | #28
C.Ehrlich: Philosophical analysis, is precisely what’s needed. why are you running away from it?
September 21st, 2010 | 8:56 pm | #29
Bret, stop this childishness now. You can re-read my prior comments.
September 21st, 2010 | 9:30 pm | #30
Why do we need to provide posts for you? If you browse First Things website you will find plenty of pro-life arguments. Again, I don’t see the point of all the baiting.
September 21st, 2010 | 11:10 pm | #31
C. Ehrlich: I’ve read your comments. My guess would be that referring to pro-lifers, as engaging in “zygote hysteria”, is what constitutes childishness.
September 21st, 2010 | 11:24 pm | #32
C. Ehrlich: perhaps you could specify, what I said, that, in your eyes, was “childish”?
September 21st, 2010 | 11:42 pm | #33
My apologies to all who feel offended by my comment about “zygote hysteria.” Although I believe that it is highly questionable whether you actually have been offended, I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Perhaps we can now return to the topic of this thread, picking up from post #14 and prior.
September 22nd, 2010 | 6:14 am | #34
That’s an apology?! Usually an apology contains more of “this is what I recognize what I did wrong,” and less of “I think most of you are making this up,” or “I’m such a magnanimous person I’ll grant you dissemblers my grace anyway.” Sometimes apologies function for something other than trying to wrest control of the topic of conversation again, too.
“With emotions so high,” as you put it, sometimes what helps is not to try to ignore what put them there. What if the offense were real, and what if you really caused it? It doesn’t sound like you’ve given much thought to the possibility.
September 22nd, 2010 | 6:59 am | #35
“My apologies to all who feel offended by my comment about “zygote hysteria.”
I note your “apology”, but would suggest that you think instead about your offenses to Almighty God, and genuinely repenting of them, and receiving His blessed forgiveness.
(If you care to answer) Do you worship Jesus as your Lord and Savior as a regular-attending member of a Protestant church? Or a Catholic church? Or an Eastern Orthodox church?
BTW, all those churches serve tea.
September 22nd, 2010 | 9:46 am | #36
Tom, I think what you call “wresting control of the topic of conversation back” is my suggestion that we return to the actual topic of James Grant’s post.
As I’ve said, I’d encourage you to start new threads to discuss any these unrelated topics which you and others seem so eager to engage. I’d start these new threads myself, if I could.
September 22nd, 2010 | 10:25 am | #37
Is it then your position that you have actually offered an apology for the offense you committed, and that we all ought to act as if it never happened? Is it your position that we should pay no attention to what you’ve said in the past day or so about our “zygote hysteria,” or your virtual accusation that we’ve lied about being offended, or what you didn’t say by way of apology as you were pretending to apologize last night, or when you had another opportunity this morning?
Is it your position that we ought not draw any conclusions from the way you have handled yourself and treated others here?
September 22nd, 2010 | 10:43 am | #38
Apparently the irony of Tom’s protests are lost on him.
September 22nd, 2010 | 11:55 am | #39
C. Ehrlich,
You wrote:
So, while Christ’s teaching might seem radical, the church’s actual application renders Christ’s teachings into the sort of banal advice anyone might accept as obviously prudent: to avoid a fight when you’re not going to win.
When Christians turn the other cheek, as Jesus commands, we are turning the cheek to win the fight. The problem is, as your comments have manifestly demonstrated, you don’t understand who we are picking a fight with or what it is we are intent on winning.
September 22nd, 2010 | 12:05 pm | #40
Brad Williams,
I appreciate your bringing us back to the topic. I think we might want to distinguish between “winning the fight” and something like “winning the hearts after dissolving the fight.” If there’s a larger strategy behind about turning the other cheek, not resisting the evildoer and blessing those who curse you, I would have expected it to involve the latter.
September 22nd, 2010 | 2:25 pm | #41
C. Ehrlich,
Let me ask a question that seems simple but isn’t. Why do you think that Jesus told his followers to turn the other cheek? Was it because personal insult isn’t worth fighting about? Was it because fighting with fists is always wrong? Some similar questions might be whether or not Jesus and his follower viewed themselves as being in a constant state of warfare and what the goal of the war is.
I think your idea that evangelicals do not reguarly and corporately turn the other cheek is at best horribly unfair. The only reasons I can imagine that you would even say such a thing is because you probably aren’t an evangelical. Either that, or you mistake speaking out for righteousness, political activism for certain causes, as retaliation against evil-doers. Again, can you give me a specific instance of non-cheek turning, evangelical aggression so I can try and figure out what you are getting at?
September 22nd, 2010 | 2:41 pm | #42
Brad Williams to C. Ehrlich: “The only reasons I can imagine that you would even say such a thing is because you probably aren’t an evangelical.”
It’s reasonable for Brad Williams to doubt that C. Ehrlich is an evangelical.
In fact, I asked him earlier: “Do you worship Jesus as your Lord and Savior as a regular-attending member of a Protestant church? Or a Catholic church? Or an Eastern Orthodox church?”
September 22nd, 2010 | 2:50 pm | #43
Okay, C. Ehrlich, I’ll admit it. I just don’t get the irony you say you see there.
September 22nd, 2010 | 9:46 pm | #44
Brad Williams,
I think you’re raising some excellent questions here, questions which we’d all do well to consider. To answer these questions (about why Jesus commanded his followers to turn the other cheek), it’s best to first look at the texts.
One of the reasons Jesus himself mentioned is that his followers are to in some way reflect what their heavenly father is like (who “causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good”); another is to go above and beyond what the “pagans” do (“Do not even the pagans do that?”); another is that Jesus’ followers can rely upon God as their defense; another is that Jesus’ followers are to look to their heavenly reward (“great is your reward in heaven….If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?”).
Now here’s a question for you. Can you provide any examples in which contemporary American evangelicals have corporately turned the other cheek, occasions in which they have not resisted the evildoer (when resistance was actually a feasible option)? My observation is only this: I don’t know of any such examples and evangelicals haven’t been able to provide me with any.
September 22nd, 2010 | 10:04 pm | #45
I agree with Tom Gilson; I don’t see where the “irony” is either.
September 22nd, 2010 | 10:08 pm | #46
Bret, I’d suggest that you and Tom focus on the topic of this thread. Maybe this will cause something to click for you, maybe it won’t–but we will at least have gotten back on topic.
September 23rd, 2010 | 7:09 am | #47
You know, C. Ehrlich, you’ve asked me in the past to check in with others on what I might be missing. I’ve done so privately and received a private word of confirmation that I was on the right track. (That was actually in accord with your first recommendation.) Then, because I don’t mind doing so, later I did it publicly, and what I got was silence: no one spoke up to say (as you had said they might) that I was on the wrong track.
Now, unsolicited, comes this from Bret. Bret and I are not two peas in a pod. We disagree freely on some things.
You want us to get back “on topic,” while comments 32 through 36 remain hanging. This reminds me someone a who had committed a series of serious repeated offenses against me a few years ago. That situation was different than this, in that the person actually apologized for one of the most egregious of them. A few weeks later I took the person to lunch, saying, “I’d like to see how we can resolve this so that it won’t be repeated in the future, and so we can have a healthy relationship.” His answer was, “Oh, that’s okay, Tom, I’m fine, I’ve already forgotten about it.”
What I learned in that interaction was that this relationship was without hope of improving. When he said “That’s okay, I’ve forgotten about it,” he was implying that he had let go of offenses I had committed against him, and he didn’t want to talk about anything he might have done wrong. I cut off that relationship as soon as I could after that, because the person was irretrievably self-focused and uncaring.
The parallel is not exact, but it’s close. Your apology for your offense was not an apology at all, but now it’s as if you want to say, “That’s okay, folks, I’ve forgotten about it. No need to be concerned about that offense anymore. I’m just fine.”
Why, C. Ehrlich, would we want to go back to the original topic of the post with you? Why should we ignore the way you interact here? Why are you so eager to set aside all the discourtesy you have committed, which you have almost acknowledged, but not really? Why would we want to continue in conversation with someone who treats others that way?
September 23rd, 2010 | 11:26 am | #48
Tom, you seem making a bit much out of the fact that, here at the evangel blog, someone happens to side with you against an outsider who spoke of “zygote hysteria”. Surprising? In need of a deep explanation? Not really.
I’m sorry that you feel offended. I’m sorry that you feel that you deserve more of an apology. I hope you will be able to move past these feelings and begin to meditate upon the upon those words of Jesus we are here considering. That’s about all that I can sincerely offer.
September 23rd, 2010 | 11:41 am | #49
Tom Gilson,
I think the irony that is being referred to is this: the entire topic we are talking about is the ability of Western Evangelicals to handle cheek slapping. If C. Ehrlich slapped you, refused to give a genuine apology, would you turn the other cheek and have a gospel centered conversation with him? In his mind, I would guess, your inability to get past his downright rude language is proof positive that we are non-cheek turners.
C. Ehrlich,
I agree that the point of cheek turning is to do good to unbelievers. But the good that we are trying to accomplish is not merely asserting that we are above violence and striking back. The point is that we want to demonstrate that our message is more important than personal honor or even possessions. However, there are times where common good demands that evil be restrained in order for the advance of the kingdom. There is an honorable way to “stand up to” cheek slapping in restraint of evil.
Now, as to if I can give concrete examples, I can. But I’m not certain how satisfactory they will be to you. In the West, especially the USA, we live in an unusual time of respite from serious persecution. So cheek-turning is not nearly so evident. Also, because we swim in free waters influenced by evangelical theology, we do not recognize how very fortunate we are to live in a nation filled with cheek-turners.
Case in point: the Koran fiasco. If my neighbor has a Bible burning backyard bonanza, it will not make headlines. Further, I would be saddened by this, and I would even attempt to reach out and figure out why it is that he feels this is necessary. I can guarantee that I will not burn down an embassy or shoot my neighbor.
Further, our church ministers to anyone who walks in the door. Sometimes, these folks wind up casting insults upon us because the charity eventually runs out. I mean that sometimes, it is unhelpful to the individual in question if your benevolence is inabling slothfulness and the shirking of responsibility. We do not slander in return, and sometimes we even continue help on a limited basis. This type of ministry can be seen all over the USA and I suspect you can find it anywhere you find a vibrant evangelical congregation.
Now, I extend these examples as a courtesy to you. You have said that you do not see us turning the cheek anywhere, yet you have failed to provide a single example of evangelicals seeking come-uppance. Will you be so kind as to point out our failure so the prophets may judge if they are indeed that?
September 23rd, 2010 | 1:46 pm | #50
Brad,
Thank you for that clarification; it makes sense, based on a certain view of turning the other cheek. You have also done a good job of showing that not all views are biblically well-founded.
If C. Ehrlich slapped me and refused to give an apology, would I turn the other cheek and have a gospel-centered conversation with him? Sure. But what does it mean to be gospel-centered? It depends on the one with whom one is speaking. Sometimes the approach is negative. See what John said in Matthew 3:1-12, and what Jesus said in, for example, Luke 13:1-5 and Matthew 23:13-36. Luke 17:3-5 is relevant as well, as is 2 Timothy 2:24-26. (That last is a challenge for me; to be quarrelsome is so easy. Considering John’s, Jesus, and Paul’s example, though, the injunction there certainly does not mean to avoid all debate or all dissension.)
Further: what does it mean to be in (gospel-centered or other) conversation? C. Ehrlich’s pattern, not just on this thread (see #49 and #51 here), is to ignore significant swaths of discussion topics, and to twist what he does address. Is that conversation?
When Jesus faced interlocutors who tried to conduct sham discussions with him, or whose clear intent was to twist his words, he refused to play their games with them (Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 11:27-33). Instead, sometimes he called them on it (see also Luke 11:37-52), and sometimes he walked away. (I can’t find a single instance—other than the unique situation of his Passion—where he offered them the opportunity to do it to him repeatedly. In that case, he had already said what he had to say to his long-term aggressors. In every case, including the Passion, he either implicitly or explicitly identified their sin for what it was.) I have done both with C. Ehrlich in various discussions. Sometimes I have called him on his distortions and discourtesy, and sometimes I have walked away. In this thread I called him on it, and in case it wasn’t clear, at the end of my last comment I indicated that I am walking away.
C. Ehrlich, I have thought deeply about the words of Jesus we have been discussing, but not only those words. I have also thought deeply about his other words to which I have referred here. If your pattern changes, I would love to be in genuine conversation with you again sometime.
September 23rd, 2010 | 2:12 pm | #51
Tom,
Yes, I think that the conversation that you two guys were having was replete with irony, highlighting two apparently different understandings of what it means to turn the other cheek.
September 23rd, 2010 | 3:46 pm | #52
Brad,
Once again, what you say makes good sense. Maybe I can take some comfort in knowing that our discussion accomplished at least one small thing, which was (as you said) to highlight differences in understanding what it means to turn the other check.
September 23rd, 2010 | 4:44 pm | #53
I can appreciate the convenience of giving such a limited application to Jesus’ commands.
Jesus said to “turn the other cheek”; Tom suggests that turning the other cheek may only be necessary if one is having a “gospel-centered conversation.” This is reminiscent of those would who severely limit their biblical obligations to care for the poor: some only care for the poor when they can proselytize the same. (Do others find it distasteful when Christians use this sort of bait and switch tactic when feeding the homeless?) Some Christians only do good if doing good will serve their rhetorical goals.
Now, the main danger in limiting Christ’s commands to turn the other cheek is actually more specific. Such limitations tend to leave far too much room for believers to rationalize their vindictiveness and self-regard. The flesh is always tempted to dramatize one’s own personal grievances into an occasion of righteous indignation. Personal slights have a curious way of making the believer feel that he must respond in the name of God. (This is especially true when the man’s pride has been wounded, or when his self-image has been publicly called into questioned.) So, in so limiting Christ’s commands, I believe that Tom Gilson is in danger of undermining them. But, as I’ve said, given the present context, this is especially understandable.
September 23rd, 2010 | 4:57 pm | #54
C. Ehrlich,
Do others find it distasteful when Christians use this sort of bait and switch tactic when feeding the homeless?
No more distasteful than when the crippled beggar asked for coin and Peter gave him legs.
I have to wonder at this point if your understanding of Jesus’ command here isn’t much the same as the simplistic understanding of “Judge not that you be not judged” that leads people to refuse jury duty.
If you think that Jesus meant to say, “Allow others to abuse you with impunity,” then you have misunderstood the command. Even when Christians threw themselves to the lions, they were fighting Caesar.
September 23rd, 2010 | 4:59 pm | #55
No, actually I don’t. I was just answering a specific question Brad had asked.
(The distortions continue. I had said I was walking away from this conversation. It is difficult to do that while being misrepresented so.)
There are many ways to limit Christ’s commands. Limiting one’s attention to just one of his commands, while ignoring his actual example, would be one of them.
September 23rd, 2010 | 9:38 pm | #56
Brad Williams,
If we’re intent on limiting the application of Christ’s commands, the challenge is to do this in a way that doesn’t make them impotent, especially in the face of the considerations I raised in #52. I’d love to hear suggestions. At the end of the day, however, it may be that evangelicals are most content to interpret Christ’s commands here as the sort of banal prudential advice that anyone, believer and unbeliever alike, may happily accept as obvious. While that would be disappointing from my own perspective, this approach, as I’ve said, is entirely understandable. Christ’s teaching remain enticing to me. Even if contemporary evangelicals haven’t found a way to live out Christ’s teachings in an enticing way, this wouldn’t of itself convince me that there a richer understanding is impossible.
September 24th, 2010 | 12:51 am | #57
C. Ehrlich,
You have yet to give a specific instance in which Evangelicals have violated this command. I have provided you with examples where they daily obey it. Until you can give an example, your continued insistance that Tom and others undermine the teaching of Christ are not very convincing. As I said, you sound like the person who protests that the command not to judge bars them from jury duty.
The command to turn the other cheek is not a command to allow evil to act with impunity. Nor does it forbid Tom from breaking off a conversation with you because you have been abrasive and rude. Your “apology” that you were sorry that he was offended is about the silliest apology a man can make, and adds further “face slapping” insult because it insinuates that he is thin-skinned. I am beginning to agree with him that you aren’t interested in dialogue. I’m afraid your refusal to address the several points that I have made indicate that you are only interested in assertion and accusation without any substance for critique. I had hoped for better, because if there is a wide-spread failure to live by evangelicals to live up to Christ’s commands, I, for one, would like to know about it.
September 24th, 2010 | 2:10 am | #58
Brad,
The point I have been pressing is best appreciated at a general level. Begin by taking Christ’s commands at face value: do not resist the evildoer, bless those who curse you, turn the other cheek, etc. After thinking through the various intolerable implications of applying these rules universally, the next natural thought is to take Jesus to be using hyperbole, or to find some interpretation that would limit the application of Christ’s commands. But in this direction lies the danger of reducing Christ’s commands to mundane or trivially prudent advice, such as the mere suggestion to strategically avoid a fight when one is outgunned, or the suggestion to start being nice to one’s enemies (maybe serve them tea) once you realize that resistance is unfeasible. What’s tricky is to provide a principled interpretation of Christ’s commands that avoids both (a) what is intolerable about the universal and exceptionless demand, and (b) the banalities of the watered down interpretation. I’ve not discovered a successful middle path, although I hold out promise for one.
I realize that the reasoning here is abstract, but do you follow it? Do you understand the challenge, as I’ve laid it out?
Now, in this thread I suspect people have become so defensive and upset that there is little hope in making progress with this issue. This is tragic because it is precisely what we lack–namely, a robust ability to overcome slights against one’s own person (whether real or imagined)–that has prevented our progress in addressing this same deficiency.
September 24th, 2010 | 2:30 am | #59
C. Ehrlich: it’s appropriate that you apologized. However, in your reply to Tom, you state that you’re “sorry you feel offended”. That’s not really an apology. You’re implying that the person who’s offended, is really at fault.
I think that a fair assessment of your position is, you think you’re right, vis a vis zygotes, and anyone who believes differently, is the one who REALLY needs to apologize.
I offered to discuss the plausibility of your views, regarding the humanity, of the unborn, and our moral obligations to them, in a philosophically rigorous way, but you declined. Citing the need to stay on “topic”. Anytime you would like to discuss these issues, feel free, but I suspect you’ll decline again. but considering the paucity of philosophical support, for your pro-abortion, or pro-choice views, I entirely empathize.
September 24th, 2010 | 3:19 am | #60
Bret, I think you misunderstand. I’ve not asked for anyone’s apology. I think this whole personal grievance thing has gotten quite out of hand; it’d be just another rabbit trail if it weren’t also so illustrative. As for my hesitation to discuss abortion here, it’s simply a matter of topic appropriateness, as has been made clear, repeatedly.
September 24th, 2010 | 4:14 am | #61
C. Ehrlich; there’s been no misunderstanding. You’re the one who stated that those who are prolife, are indulging in “zygote hysteria”, and then when the subject is brought up, you choose not to address it. i’m sure the post’s writer is grateful, but does not need your help, when you claim that people must remain “on topic”. People go in all sorts of directions, on these threads, depending on who brings up what. Therefore your claim to want to stay on topic, is without warrant.
You’re a smart guy. What did you think would happen, when you stated prolifers were engaged in “zygote hysteria”? thank you for the compliment?
September 24th, 2010 | 6:27 am | #62
C. Ehrlich,
You wrote here, as you have concerning me elsewhere in the past, that people are becoming too defensive for this thread to make progress.
I was thinking it would be instructive if you would tell us what you mean by “defensive” in this context, and where you see it happening. I’m sure you would not find fault with someone defending their viewpoint, answering argument with argument, for example. But apparently there’s something else that you see going on here, something that smacks of weakness or pathology.
As I understand it, unhealthy defensiveness usually comes out of an unwillingness, inability, etc. to face or address some uncomfortable reality; and manifests in attempts to evade that reality, to project it onto others, and in other ways generally duck facing that reality.
What I see Brad doing (I’ll leave out my own participation for now) is answering your arguments with arguments. Is that defensive? What I see Bret doing is similar. He and Brad are both encouraging you, too, to see a reality that you have not so far acknowledged: your behavior here. I’m not sure what’s being “defensive” about that.
So could you parse this out for us? What’s the difference between defending a viewpoint and being “defensive,” and how do we know when the latter is happening?
September 24th, 2010 | 3:23 pm | #63
Bret, “zygote hysteria” effectively and concisely indicates the absurd extremes of the typical pro-life political position and the arguments thereof. If you re-read the thread, you’ll notice that this term was used in passing, as an illustration for why not all of the radical departures of evangelical Christianity are as enticing as the actual ethical teachings of Jesus, like the command to turn the other cheek, etc.
Now, if you really do want to discuss abortion with me, then I’d encourage you to petition Tom Gilson to begin a new and more relevant thread (as he seemed to suggest that he would do above). If we’re going to have a productive discussion on this thread, we can’t just run down every new rabbit trail. I hope you can understand that.
September 24th, 2010 | 3:36 pm | #64
Tom, I’m going to have to again suggest the use of a dictionary. Here’s what you should do. Scan through the various entries under “defensive” and look for the most appropriate ones that fit the context (i.e., the context in which I wrote, “…people have become so defensive and upset….”). Tell me what you find.
I’d also suggest that you take more time to consider the topic of this thread, thinking about how to appropriately (see #57) interpret Jesus’ commands about turning the other cheek, etc. You could consider how the attitudes taught by Jesus might contrast with defensiveness/anger/indignation,etc. at perceived personal grievances.
September 24th, 2010 | 9:16 pm | #65
C. Ehrlich,
Your suggestion that I use a dictionary may have felt cute to you when you used it, but like the previous time, it was evasive. It was rather comical, too. It is, in fact, a classic maneuver of defensiveness. You see, in my question to you, I included a definition, the one it seemed likely you were employing. I have a Master’s degree in psychology. I wasn’t asking for a definition of defensiveness; I already know what it means. I specifically asked you what you mean by “defensive” in this context, adding,
I want to know what it is that you see that seems defensive. I want to know how you distinguish the arguments being presented against arguments—which do not amount to defensiveness—from weakness or pathology.
If you see defensiveness in what we’ve written here, and if you can’t or won’t explain the defensiveness you see, as I have just asked, it’s very possible that you’re erecting your own defense, one called projection.
I want to know where you think, for example, anyone other than you is evading or avoiding any significant topic of conversation. I’m curious why you would point that out in others, when you, for example, evaded or avoided all of this in comment #15:
I’m wondering why you’re laying responsibility upon Bret and Brad for focusing on “abortion,” when in fact you’re the one who singled it out for discussion in comment 16, and when their topic is not abortion but your rudeness in persisting unapologetically with this term “zygote hysteria.” You’re trying to deflect attention from the topic they’re pursuing; that’s a defense mechanism. They’re not talking about abortion, C. Ehrlich. They’re talking about your behavior. (Should we open up a new thread for that?)
Your deflection ploy with that is not unlike one you also used in comment #16 here. You have criticized me for not being willing to acknowledge error. Have you ever done anything but deflect correction yourself?
In calling on me to use a dictionary this time you’ve made it as if the deficit were mine, but this is not about whether I have a vocabulary or not. It’s about whether you will or will not answer questions and engage in honest discussion here, or just keep on erecting your own defenses.
If your pattern holds now, you will accuse me of being defensive for writing this. No. Let me answer for you the question you should have answered:
Defensiveness is not the same as defending one’s position. To defend a legitimate position by legitimate means is perfectly legitimate. Psychologically, defensiveness is generally (as I wrote earlier) a matter of avoiding realities relating to oneself. Avoiding is also not the same as disagreeing. I have disagreed with you frequently, but that is not a matter of avoidance. Better evidence of avoidance is this: to deflect (as you have done), to ignore (as you have done), to evade (as you have done), and to project (as you have done).
I asked you to point out for us where you see defensiveness in what we have written. You might take the above as an example, because I have pointed out for you where I see defensiveness in what you have written. Feel free to borrow my example for your own use.
Let me re-emphasize: this is about your behavior, not about mine, Brad’s or Bret’s. It’s not about our grievances. It’s not about abortion or about turning the other cheek. It’s about you. I If you think I’m violating Jesus’ command by pointing all this out to you, then you really don’t understand the full context of all that Jesus taught.
Do not flatter yourself to suppose we have the slightest reason to accept your theological conclusions in comment #57 as being normative for our understanding of “turn the other cheek.” You really, truly, do not know what the full context of teaching is on this subject, and you’ve rejected (evaded) what we have written on it (and supported biblically, see for example my comment 49). Whatever it is you say you find enticing about Jesus’ teaching, apparently it is much less than what he really taught, and therefore not what he really taught. You are being enticed by your own imaginations of what a religion might be. Fine, if you want to do it, but it’s not a standard you can expect followers of Christ to hold to.
I hope that was plain enough.
September 24th, 2010 | 10:21 pm | #66
Tom, I think this is getting a bit silly. When you want to discuss the topic of this blog post, I’ll be happy to participate. Otherwise, just start a new thread.
September 25th, 2010 | 2:43 am | #67
C.Ehrlich: I would be happy to discuss abortion with you. What you cal the “extreme” position prolifers, is actually taking the argument, to its logical conclusion. Perhaps a better way to put it, is you don’t like the position. If true, then you’re sneaking in your emotional preferences, as opposed to what ought to be the case, adhering to the logic. Sometimes people don’t “like” a view, because it causes them to make sacrifices, or interferes with their lifestyles. I don’t know whether this applies to you, or not. A favorite ploy, of those emotionally opposed to the prolife position, is to claim that the latter is “illogical”, to divert attention away from their dislike of it. And, to prevent anyone from claiming that the prolife position is inextricably linked to religion, christianity in particular, there’s prolife groups, called “Atheists for life”, “feminists for life”, “gays and lesbians for life”, well, you get the picture. Some are particularly courageous, Nat Hentoff, an atheist, and staunch prolifer, to give just one example.
September 25th, 2010 | 3:11 am | #68
Bret, see above.
September 25th, 2010 | 6:38 am | #69
C. Ehrlich,
I’m not going to dedicate a blog post to this. You are continuing to shrug off the questions that have been put to you. You feel free to criticize others, but when it comes back your direction you want to change the subject. Let it be so noted.
September 25th, 2010 | 1:51 pm | #70
Tom, any outsider can readily see that this thread degenerated awhile back into petty and wayward skirmishes over a couple of terms that upset a couple of our more easily excitable regulars. Given the real topic of this thread, however, I suppose this provides an illustrative case study, perhaps even a warning. I myself would have ceased reading this thread long ago if not for this curious feature.
September 25th, 2010 | 3:09 pm | #71
It degenerated, yes. But your assessment of how that happened is inaccurate.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact