Nonviolent Resistance

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

 

The following excerpt is from Walter Wink, a Christian theologian.

Wink takes well-known words of Jesus and interprets them differently

from what most Christians (all Christians?) are taught. If anyone is

a group member here who is also involved in the union struggle that

was posted about re Amma's LAX Hilton stay, this may be of interest

to you. I consider this to be in harmony with Amma's guidance, and

welcome others' input on this if anyone is moved to post in reply.

 

Regards,

Mary Ann

 

[Jesus said:] " Don't react violently against the one who is evil. "

 

In the three examples that follow in Matthew, Jesus illustrates

what he means.

 

Turn the Other Cheek

" If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also. "

Why the right cheek? A blow by the right fist in that right-handed

world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. An open-handed

slap would also strike the left cheek. To hit the right cheek with a

fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left

hand was used only for unclean tasks. Even to gesture with the left

hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days' penance. The only

way one could naturally strike the right cheek with the right hand

would be with the back of the hand. We are dealing here with insult,

not a fistfight. The intention is clearly not to injure but to

humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not

strike a peer thus, and if one did the fine was exorbitant. The

Mishnaic tractate Baba Qamma specifies the various fines for striking

an equal: for slugging with a fist, 4 zuz (a zuz was a day's wage);

for slapping, 200 zuz; but " if [he struck him] with the back of his

hand he must pay him 400 zuz. " But damages for indignity were not

paid to slaves who are struck (8:1-7).

A backhand slap was the usual way of admonishing inferiors.

Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men,

women; Romans, Jews. We have here a set of unequal relations, in each

of which retaliation would be suicidal. The only normal response

would be cowering submission.

 

Part of the confusion surrounding these sayings arises from the

failure to ask who Jesus' audience was. In all three of the examples

in Matt. 5:39b-41, Jesus' listeners are not those who strike,

initiate lawsuits, or impose forced labor, but their victims ( " If

anyone strikes you...wants to sue you...forces you to go one

mile... " ). There are among his hearers people who were subjected to

these very indignities, forced to stifle outrage at their

dehumanizing treatment by the hierarchical system of caste and class,

race and gender, age and status, and as a result of imperial

occupation.

Why then does he counsel these already humiliated people to turn

the other cheek? Because this action robs the oppressor of the power

to humiliate. The person who turns the other cheek is saying, in

effect, " Try again. Your first blow failed to achieve its intended

effect. I deny you the power to humiliate me. I am a human being

just like you. Your status does not alter that fact. You cannot

demean me. "

Such a response would create enormous difficulties for the

striker. Purely logistically, how would he hit the other cheek now

turned to him? He cannot backhand it with his right hand (one only

need try this to see the problem). If he hits with a fist, he makes

the other his equal, acknowledging him as a peer. But the point of

the back of the hand is to reinforce institutionalized inequality.

Even if the superior orders the person flogged for such " cheeky "

behavior (this is certainly no way to avoid conflict!), the point has

been irrevocably made. He has been given notice that this underling

is in fact a human being. In that world of honor and shaming, he has

been rendered impotent to instill shame in a subordinate. He has

been stripped of his power to dehumanize the other. As Gandhi

taught, " The first principle of nonviolent action is that of

noncooperation with everything humiliating. "

[Guest guest]

Ammachi , " Mary Ann " <buttercookie61 wrote:

>WOW! What a great link! I really liked this interpretation. Remember, in our

society the

words " I'll give you the back of my hand " means someone in power going after

someone

weaker

Mary E

> Namaste All,

>

> The following excerpt is from Walter Wink, a Christian theologian.

> Wink takes well-known words of Jesus and interprets them differently

> from what most Christians (all Christians?) are taught. If anyone is

> a group member here who is also involved in the union struggle that

> was posted about re Amma's LAX Hilton stay, this may be of interest

> to you. I consider this to be in harmony with Amma's guidance, and

> welcome others' input on this if anyone is moved to post in reply.

>

> Regards,

> Mary Ann

>

> [Jesus said:] " Don't react violently against the one who is evil. "