Tuesday, July 04, 2023

Christ's Love, Turned Cheeks, & Gun Violence

 This special issue of the Outlook takes a hard look at the uniquely American problem of gun violence and what people from diverse perspectives have to say about it. With contributions from scholars, pastors, gun owners, members of the military, and peace activists. The issue will also feature a discussion guide for small groups.

 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer, but whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also.  And the one who wants to go to court with you and take your tunic, let him have your outer garment also. And whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Matthew 5: 38-42 NRSVue 

Well, here I go again, thanks to the magazine cover above. In July of 2012 I was at a retreat and conference centre in Wyoming and as was often the case when I attended these events in the States I was the only Canadian. We gathered for a brief chapel service each day and one morning several of the participants arrived visibly shaken. The evening before a heavily armed gunman had entered a movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado and killed twelve people while injuring 58 others. 

What struck me that morning was the sense of resignation about these terrible incidents of gun violence which have only increased in the years since. We prayed that morning for those affected but there wasn't much in the prayers expressing outrage against the senselessness of a nation armed to the teeth and the idolatry of the "right to bear arms" Second Amendment. I realized quickly that it would be better to stay quiet with my exasperation and I've experienced that since with some American family members who actually don't own weapons and are appalled by the level of violence. They just don't want to hear from outsiders, it would seemm and don't we all become defensive about our own families with others, even when they anger us 

After Aurora gun sales went up, as they do with most mass killings in the US and the slaughter of innocent people including defenseless children in their schools continues. They are being murdered in churches and synagogues, mosques and temples, as well. Unfortunately the response is often to have armed guards at services and weapon use seminars as congregational activities. 

You might recall the right-wing pastor in Kentucky who had a Bring-Your-Gun-to-Church service a few years ago, explaining that not every denomination is pacifist. Is it pacisift to eschew weapons in worship which centres on Jesus, who chose not to take up arms against those who wanted to harm him? This incident was a rarity, but obscene just the same. 

While Canadians may see this as an American problem the theological question of how we respond to fear and violence is universal, whether at an individual level or in communities or between nations. Canadians can be riled to violence readily despite our "nice guy next door" persona.

Thank God that there are plenty of Christians in the US who are thoughtful in their resistance to a culture of retribution and false heroism at the end of gun barrel. One of the writers in the Gun Violence issue of The Presbyterian Outlook speaks about love being the long game while fear is the visceral response in the moment, so often seductive. Another argues that it's time to repeal the Second Amendment, an initiative which, sadly, no president would undertake.  

I've never been easily convinced about the "turn the other cheek" part of Jesus' teaching -- wasn't this hyperbole on his part to make a point?  Yet I sense from his words and his example that he meant it. 


2 comments:

Judy said...

One of the studies I was involved in T BSUC more than 10 years ago indicated that turning the other cheek had special meaning in Jesus' time; it had to do with the angle of the hand as you hit someone the first time. If the recipient of the hit turned his or her cheek, the perpetrator had to use the other side (I think it was the inside) of the hand to strike a second time, and this was considered cowardly and demeaning to the attacker; so, by turning the other cheek, the victim avoided retaliating with more violence, but also shamed the perpetrator ... I am not sure it would work in today's world... the meaning is lost on 21st century attackers !

David Mundy said...

Interesting. In any interpretation, de-escalating violence is a conscious, if seemingly counter-intuitive choice. Thanks Judy.