Renew Violence Series

Violence – we are a culture awash in it. Violence is on our TVs and devices, whether in the form of entertainment or the nightly news. We can’t go a day without hearing about some new statistic about the death rates in “CHIRAQ” or Chicago or about another ISIS moment in the Middle East. For many of us, we have had enough. Our hearts just can’t take it anymore. Where is God? How can religion even help? Or maybe, religion is at fault for all the violence. Why doesn’t God do something?

The truth is, He did. It just happened to be in a way no one expected. It happened in a moment similar to one that lives in business folklore.

Standard Oil was once one of the biggest companies in the world, led by the famous John D Rockefeller. On one occasion a company executive made a bad decision. It cost the firm $2 million. This was the late 1800’s and $2 million was a huge sum.

Edward Bedford, a partner in the company had an appointment to see Rockefeller. When he entered Rockefeller’s office he saw his boss bent over a piece of paper, busily scribbling notes. When Rockefeller finally looked up he said to Bedford, “I suppose you’ve heard about our loss? I’ve been thinking it over,” Rockefeller said, “and before I ask the man in to discuss the matter, I’ve been making some notes.” Bedford looked across the table and saw the page Rockefeller had been scribbling on. Across the top of the page was the heading, “Points in favor of Mr __________.” Below the heading was a long list of the man’s good qualities, including notes on three occasions where he had made decisions that had earned the company many times more than his error had lost.

Bedford later said, “I never forgot that lesson. In later years, whenever I was tempted to rip into anyone, I forced myself first to sit down and thoughtfully compile as long a list of good points as I possibly could. Invariably, by the time I finished my inventory, I would see the matter in its true perspective and keep my temper under control. There is no telling how many times this habit has prevented me from committing one of the costliest mistakes any executive can make — losing his temper.” Source: reported in Bits & Pieces, September 15, 1994

God took stock of the world we see in the Old Testament. He saw our ability to make a mess of it all. He look at our animal nature struggling against our human nature at the expense of our Spiritual nature and He responds. God’s response to violence is found in the life, death, resurrection and teaching of his Son. The truly innocent suffered for the guilty. This is where we see God. This is his answer. But how do we even begin to make sense of this?

Most religious pacifists, and even some Christian Pharisees, ground their convictions in a purported nonviolent “love ethic” of Jesus that is understood to be the teaching of Matthew 5:38–42. They will claim it is a directive of Jesus to always turn the other cheek when wronged. But is that true? Should Christians always respond non-violently?

Matthew 5:38–42 referenced is just one of six case illustrations of Jesus’s teaching on the law (Matthew 5:17). With the other five, Jesus affirms and confirms the ethical requirements of Old Testament. Each affirmation uses a similar formula where Jesus says: “You have heard that it was said, ...But I tell you...”

I understand there will be some bible scholars who don’t see it as I do. However, scripture is meant to be taken in context and interpreted in light of other thoughts given in the living word. Jesus cannot contradict himself or the Father. This is one of those areas.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is not setting aside the idea of restitution, nor the “law of the tooth” (the lex talionis as a standard of public justice). Rather, Jesus is challenging his listeners to consider their attitudes so that they respond properly to personal injustice or insult. Insult that is personal versus public assault is at issue in the passage. And it’s clarified thereafter in the words, “If someone wants to . . . take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well” (Matthew 5:40). Handling insults and matters of clothing (a basic human need) are not the realm of public policy.

In truth, all four illustrations of non retaliation—turning the other cheek, offering the shirt off your back, carrying someone’s baggage an extra mile, and lending to the one asking—correspond to the private injury. These are issues of personal inconvenience or abuse, not matters of public policy; they’re insulting yes but they don’t rise to that of assault.