The Doctrine of Non-Resistance

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

It depends - it can work. The likely reason it worked for Ghandi, for instance, was because soldiers usually tend to feel uncomfortable attacking unarmed people. Meanwhile, those same soldiers were banking on the fear that their army would cause to keep that nation under the thumb of the Queen. It was a calculated strategy. In this case, Ghandi inspired others to not give into that fear and to adopt a 'come what may' policy because the issue was *that* important. It's hard to keep killing people who have no intent to harm you, but just won't do what you're telling them to do.

At the same time - cowards relish in you not defending yourself - for whatever reason, because they're bigger, because you lack the self-confidence or the fighting skills. it means they get to take out all their frustrations on you, without any reprisals. It's utterly convenient to be handed such a scapegoat and punching bag for those peeps as they are often desperate for a release valve like that. And bullies tend to be of this breed. Standing up to them is often the only way to get them to stop. Turning that cheek will only get it bashed in, gleefully, again and again.

Know thy enemy.

This really resonates with me.

To put it in Biblical terms (which I am requisite to do), Jesus did not just take abuse from the Pharisees, but he gave better than he got. It might not have been physical, but it was appropriate.

In this context, thinking about a man beating a woman chronically or nearly so, means she needs to verbally stand up for herself and be brave and bold as Jesus was brave and bold with the Pharisees. It does not mean she hit him back, but she can flee if it means protecting her life (which he did as well).

I think the main doctrine is that fighting fire with fire (as in the OT), is not ideal since Jesus came and made manifest God's love to us. God's love is the best cure-all there is. And as you said, knowing your enemy is paramount in knowing when to stay and turn the other cheek, when to decry it verbally, and when to flee.

 

[Amargith]

Sure, but to be fair - many a bully won't back down from a verbal telling off, and fleeing will only make them hunt you down more. I know one guy who pestered me for 6 months to no end. One day, he stole my jacket. Now, I am conflict avoidant like any NF but...I was already so out of patience that day that I went up to him, snatched the jacket from him and just planted my palm in his face. He was twice my size. And as he bluffed 'pshh, that didn't hurt at all', I saw his cheek swelling up bright red.

He never bothered me again.

And i had told him off verbally many a time before

I get that you want to stick to your teachings, but they might not be able to give you a solution for each and every situation out there, so be prepared to brainstorm on your own.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Ahh. But being 'out of patience' is a flaw, is it not?

You could have let him have your jacket. Would you not have given your jacket to your bff is they had asked? Christ commands us to do no less for our enemy.

I am too feisty to not improvise when necessary, though most of the time I see this becoming a fault.

 

[Amargith]

Ahh. But being 'out of patience' is a flaw, is it not?

You could have let him have your jacket. Would you not have given your jacket to your bff is they had asked? Christ commands us to do no less for our enemy.

I am too feisty to not improvise when necessary, though most of the time I see this becoming a fault.

I was bullied 12 years throughout my entire school career. Not once did my not doing anything solve a thing.

He was the only one I got to back of because I smacked him in the face. And he was one of many.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I'm sorry. That is terrible.



but you said "6 months" to be fair.

 

[Amargith]

I'm sorry. That is terrible.



but you said "6 months" to be fair.

True - with him, it was 6 months. Others did it for years. I had one that used his math equipment (the pointy end of a triangle and stuff) to jam it into my thigh when i was forced to sit next to him. There was no point in ratting him out - he was flunking school and leaving, plus it would've been his word against mine. He no longer had any reason to be scared of teachers. I hid the tools when he wasnt looking - and was thoroughly amused watching him search everywhere, because he couldn't exactly hit me in class in front of the teacher - the stuff he normally did was below desk.

If I had just turned the other cheek, he'dve pretty much permanently scarred my thigh - gleefully.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I believe it is different for children as well.

 

[Amargith]

I believe it is different for children as well.

Oh sure - most kids cannot be reliably psychoanalysed because they pretty much all test as sociopaths.

But then some people never grow up...

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I mean this doctrine. It is for humans beyond the age of reason, which is some time in the teenage years I believe.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

The phrase originates from the Sermon on the Mount in the New Testament. In the Gospel of Matthew, an alternative for "an eye for an eye" is given by Jesus:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
— Matthew 5:38–5:42 KJV


In the Sermon on the Plain[1] in the Gospel of Luke, as part of his command to "love your enemies", Jesus says:

27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.
30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
— Luke 6:27–31 KJV
This passage is variously interpreted as commanding nonresistance, Christian pacifism or nonviolence on the part of the victim.

Interpretations

This phrase, as with much of the Sermon on the Mount, has been subject to both literal and figurative interpretations.

Christian anarchist interpretation


Since the passages call for total nonresistance to the point of facilitating aggression against oneself, and since human governments defend themselves by military force, this has led some into Christian anarchism, including the notable Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, author of the nonfiction book The Kingdom of God Is Within You.

Nonviolent resistance interpretation

The scholar Walter Wink, in his book Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination, interprets the passage as ways to subvert the power structures of the time.[2] He says that at the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma.

The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. An alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was demanding equality.

Wink continues with an interpretation of handing over one's cloak in addition to one's tunic. The debtor has given the shirt off his back, a situation forbidden by Hebrew law as stated in Deuteronomy (24:10–13). By giving the lender the cloak as well the debtor was reduced to nakedness. He notes that public nudity was viewed as bringing shame on the viewer, not just the naked, as seen in Noah's case (Genesis 9:20–23).

Wink interprets the succeeding verse from the Sermon on the Mount as a method for making the oppressor break the law. The commonly invoked Roman law of Angaria allowed the Roman authorities to demand that inhabitants of occupied territories carry messages and equipment the distance of one mile post, but prohibited forcing an individual to go further than a single mile, at the risk of suffering disciplinary actions.[3] In this example, the nonviolent interpretation sees Jesus as placing criticism on an unjust and hated Roman law as well as clarifying the teaching to extend beyond Jewish law.[4]

Righteous personal conduct interpretation

Another interpretation is that Jesus was not changing the meaning of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but restoring it to the original context. Jesus starts his statement with "you have heard it said", which could mean that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to "it is written" which could be a reference to scripture. The common misconception seems to be that people were using Exodus 21:24-25 (the guidelines for a magistrate to punish convicted offenders) as a justification for personal vengeance. In this context, the command to "turn the other cheek" would not be a command to allow someone to beat or rob a person, but a command not to take vengeance.

 

[Lark]

I'm not sure about that, Jesus did a lot of things which can be considered less that peace able in his time, making a whip and storming the temple to drive out money lenders? He cursed a tree and it died on the spot too, I see him as a fighter but he took the whole idea of loving your enemy seriously too, he didnt kick the devil's ass when he confronted him in person and he could have, he didnt resist arrest and he could have, he didnt come down of the cross and he could have etc. etc.

Likewise being pacifist is not the same as non-resistance entirely, there is non-violent resistance, which Ghandi specialised in and Ghandi repeatedly said he was very much for resistance as opposed to non-resistance and he was not passive at all.

Its interesting as a topic, there's enough in the history of Christendom, Christianity and the stories of Christ to support non-resistance, non-violent resistance, passivism, there's enough in the Jewish position which precedes Christianity too.

There's the story about the Hasidic butchers who an army recruiter meets at a range and they are perfect marksmen but when are drafted and put in a trench cant make their mark and when they are questioned they say its different shooting at a target as shooting at a man because someone could get hurt and they can not kill as it violates the commandments.

 

[Lark]

Also there's a tradition in the RCC which I know of in which believers could be directed to strictly adhere to non-resistance or non-violence if they have sought forgiveness for some sort of violence.

In the present day and age in which it'd be unlikely that anyone would feel so compelled as to follow such strict advice that might not seem to matter much but at one time it mattered a lot and might involve someone who was a crusader or enforcer giving up their sword to an alter for a time in full knowledge that they could be intercepted in the mean time by adversaries who'd be armed.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Yeah, I agree about Jesus. He mostly used verbiage and ducking out though. Not violence. Upturning tables and giving the money-lenders a talking to while doing it still does not equal violence, does it?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Also there's a tradition in the RCC which I know of in which believers could be directed to strictly adhere to non-resistance or non-violence if they have sought forgiveness for some sort of violence.

In the present day and age in which it'd be unlikely that anyone would feel so compelled as to follow such strict advice that might not seem to matter much but at one time it mattered a lot and might involve someone who was a crusader or enforcer giving up their sword to an alter for a time in full knowledge that they could be intercepted in the mean time by adversaries who'd be armed.

Kind of like the apostles. Except their sword was the word of the Lord.

 

[Lark]

Yeah, I agree about Jesus. He mostly used verbiage and ducking out though. Not violence. Upturning tables and giving the money-lenders a talking to while doing it still does not equal violence, does it?

In the version of the tale I'm familiar with he made a whip akin to the one he himself was scourged with at the pillar (think that bit from the movie Mel Gibson made, its particularly violent) and he beat the hell out of the money changers until the quit the premises. This was probably a real riot. It was happening at a time when the temple would've been full of pilgrims, the money lenders themselves and the money lenders hired help.

You are 100% correct that Jesus was a teacher and did not resort to force very often and spent most of his time attempting to get others to refrain from the use of force but I dont believe he was passive or pacifist particularly.

More like someone who knows historical time and knows it for a fact, perhaps can even experience it being true God and true man, isnt going to get wrapped up in the trials and travils of the present moment.

 

[existence]

As searchingforpeace said, if you fight back, you give them justification for their mean behavior.

Perhaps if they feel unconditional love in the midst of their meanness, they will be shocked into feeling something different, or maybe seeing God's love in a new way. ?

I think you turning your other cheek to them isn't the same as giving them unconditional love. So it's not gonna help IMO

 

[ceecee]

I don't particularly care what any one person thinks Jesus did. They weren't there, they only know what's in a book written by others years later. People have been interpreting that book in whatever way appeals to them ever since. Be a pacifist or not. I don't care. But if someone slaps my face, they're getting their ass kicked.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Idealism is nice but what if someone specifically and deliberately targets churches and believers in order to wipe them out for good from some territory ?
There were/are government that did this throughout history.


Also I will quote myself ...

 

[Cellmold]

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Okay, thank you.

But for me, I want to follow the Bible as much as possible. And it is pretty clear that if someone strikes you on one cheek, you turn to him the other also. Along with various other verses that preach against self-defense.

Fair enough but I find this level of pacifism self-destructive. To me this is analogous to saying if a rapist forces himself upon you instead of resisting and trying to flee you should embrace him closer or open yourself up more to him.