Jesus’ Extreme Makeover: Breaking the Aggression Cycle
by Fred Weidmann
In a (quite good and interesting) recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education titled “The Targets of Aggression” (Chronicle Review, October 5, 2007), David Barash considers the matter of misplaced aggression and like countless others before him—preachers and Christian educators foremost among them—cites Jesus’ teachings “to love our enemies and if slapped, turn the other cheek.” Indeed, Jesus did say these things. And their meaning is obvious. No? Well, maybe.
Again, like countless others before him, Barash summarizes Jesus’ teachings along these lines: “absorb pain without passing it on.” Just take it. That’s the godly, or Godly, or What-would-Jesus-do way to be. And anyway, what other way to be is there—aggression?! Even were one to condone violence and, to put that more honestly, when one condones violence (since most of do, at some point[s]) in the name of vengeance or justice or something(s) in between, s/he would need to admit that aggressive response is a move and a set of actions that results much moreso in misplaced or displaced aggression toward some (weaker and/or available) other than it does in action directed at the aggressor. Think of biblical stories, history, “scapegoating” of all kinds and, if/as you will, various current military conflicts.
And in our heart of hearts, we (many of us) would agree that violent aggression is not godly. So, where does that leave us? Back at “absorb pain without passing it on”?
Barash asserts within his article that “we might all be well advised to explore not only how pain and aggression are typically misplaced or displaced, but also how they should be placed.” I agree! Indeed, I think that in many and significant ways, which Barash along with countless others—preachers and Christian educators foremost among them —does not explore, this is precisely where Jesus’ teachings kick in (pardon the, arguably, aggressive metaphor).
As scholarly work on Jesus in his Roman/Galilean context has shown, far from simply asking or demanding that his followers simply “absorb pain,” Jesus actually teaches in these sayings a creative response which neither simply absorbs nor passes on pain. Rather, Jesus invites and models a creative redirection back onto the aggressor. Listen again, as if for the first time:
1) “you feel privileged to slap me in public with the (socially acceptable) right hand, well then let me turn my check, giving you the opportunity–and literally forcing your hand, if you so choose to follow through–to slap me again with the (not socially acceptable) left hand”;
2) “you feel justified in suing me in open court for my last set of pants and shirt, well then, here, take my underpants and undershirt too”;
3) “you’re going to press me into service to carry your gear for a mile (as Roman soldiers are privileged to do), then I’ll go ahead and carry it another mile too (putting the Roman soldier under threat of having broken the rules of engagement).
Dubbed Jesus “third way” (by Walter Wink, whose writings have been influential on the matter), these teachings creatively turn the tables back onto aggressors in a manner that potentially threatens their social standing and suggests to them, and to others, the limits of their presumed power and even of the systems which uphold that power. They provide precisely that which Barash’s article, and our world, is crying out for–both a break in the aggression : misplaced aggression paradigm, and an alternative to simply absorbing pain.
God help us to continue hearing, and applying, Jesus’ teachings in paradigm breaking, and habit breaking, ways!
October 18th, 2007 at 9:25 am
This is an interestsing commentary, and it is helpful to realize that Jesus may not have been suggesting that when we are victims of hate or aggression, that we should just “take it” and nothing more. He gives us clear examples of how we can respond to those who hurt us.
I do have a question/comment about your interpretation of the intended motivation in Jesus’ example responses. You state “these teachings creatively turn the tables back onto the aggressors in a manner that potentially threatens their social standing…” I see how this could be true, especially with the example of the right hand verses the left, but I wonder if Jesus would really suggest a response which aims to hurt (although not physically) the aggressor. Rather, wouldn’t Jesus expect us to respond to our aggressors in love (pray for your enemies, love your enemies). Maybe his examples are really just offerings of love and service to the aggressor, which may end up embarrassing the aggressor, but that isn’t Jesus’ real intention.
I think this is one of the mose radical and difficult parts of Jesus’ teaching… rather than react in physical aggression, rather than react with a desire to “trick” or embarrass your agressor, react by loving them and serving them with more compassion than you would your own family/friends.
What do you think?
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:16 am
THANKS for your response. Quick reply:
Many of us grew up learning that the way to understand Jesus’ parables is this: they relay pithy teachings which have one clear message. That may well be the case with some or even many of the parables (scholars, of course, argue this endlessly). Several other parables and teachings appear, even on the surface, to be far more open- ended–consistent with various teaching techniques in various cultures including, of course, Jesus’s. Such is the case here.
Asking individuals or groups of people to question things they take for granted and pointing them to a way that takes others’, and in turn their, humanity more seriously (not to mention taking God’s all-encompassing love and grace more seriously), might be seen as offensive. It might also be seen as loving–think of John the Baptist’s words toward the the beginning of each of the three synoptic Gospels. I’d put these teachings of Jesus in such a category. And indeed, placed side by side with other teachings (such as those on forgiveness and welcoming) these teaching would seem clearly to move deeply in a direction you name–compassion.