![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Is a Christian Nation Even Possible?
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 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, NIV)
This paradoxical commandment of Jesus has been swirling around in my head lately with the latest wave of violence in Israel and Lebanon (even though neither side is actually Christian), and thanks to some recent conversations that I’ve had on the subject. I find politics to be a tricky thing to talk about with people, which might come as odd from someone who has essentially made a career out of talking about tricky things. I guess I have hit a point with spiritual investigation, where I am able to admit for myself and to get (some) others to admit that, hey, maybe none of really knows the truth and your guess is as good as mine. But when it comes to matters of the state and the running of the affairs of men, I have generally found that people are a lot more hard-headed. For better or for worse, I’m sure that our certainty comes from the simple fact that politics relates to this world, which we can see, touch and feel. As denizens of and perceivers of this perceptible world, we tend to feel very confident in what we see as its truth.
At this juncture, I know better than to try and disabuse anyone of political certainty. I have tried and failed many times, and what I offer in exchange - doubt, uncertainty and humility - is certainly no great prize. But I would offer this experiment for people to try out and see where it takes them: if you believe that within the spiritual realms truth might be either unknowable or simply indescribable, then try applying that viewpoint to the realm of all-too-human affairs.
If you are “successful” with that experiment, what you might find that certain long-held beliefs and personal patterns dissolve, making way for new insights and interpretations into human situations. And this too is how I interpret Jesus’s commandment to “turn the other cheek.” There are fascinating and historically potent explanations of this teaching and how according to Jewish and Roman laws, these teachings upset customary power balances and human relationships. But even just taken completely literally with no hermeneutical explorations, this teaching is still extremely profound and confounding.
Imagine you are mugged on the street. The mugger demands your wallet. Applying this teaching, you cheerfully hand over the keys to your new car, wish him luck and invite him over for dinner sometime as well. A coworker spreads a nasty rumor about you around the office. You approach her and divulge all of your deepest and darkest secrets that you’ve never told anyone else, since she’s clearly so interested with your personal doings. Imagine we magnify the scope of this teaching societally: you walk into a bank in desperate need of a loan. The bank gladly hands you not a loan, but an outright cash gift far in excess of your request. A nation is attacked by terrorists, who destroy symbolically significant landmarks. The victimized nation doesn’t retaliate but throws a parade for the terrorists, thanking them for pointing out the nation’s unhealthy attachment to its own landmarks and the negative patterns which they symbolize.
It sounds like opposite day, doesn’t it? It sounds like that episode of Seinfeld where George decides to do everything in complete opposition to his normal instincts. As a result he lands a girlfriend and a high-paying cushy job with the New York Yankees. It sounds like an absurdist surreal fantasy land, but is it? Maybe there is a reason Jesus also proclaimed that his kingdom was not of this world. Because his teachings in their utter simplicity dissolve the rules by which this world works. What would happen if at every moment of crisis in your life, you turned the other cheek? What would happen if every business did the same? Every government?
The lines that separate us and hold us in place would wither away. And from that newly fertile soil something else would grow up creatively to take its place. Maybe (probably) it will never happen. Maybe it’s idealistic and unreal. And if it is, what’s the purpose of ideals? Why should we have them or shouldn’t we? Maybe we shouldn’t cling to them either; maybe we should let them dissolve with everything else. See, I told you I wasn’t going to offer you anything in return but more doubt, and uncertainty.
- Syncretic notes
- Is the end of the nation-state near?
- My god’s better than your God
- Tank you so much for making us a sovereign nation
- Christian Missionaries, CIA Agents?
- Prev: Ants Marching
- Next: Tom Cruise’s Mystery Baby
July 14th, 2006 at 11:53 am
I love that Walter Wink article that you link to– it’s one of the best I’ve seen written on the subject.
I think the issue might not be whether a Christian Nation is possible; anything is possible. I think a question is whether it would be possible as a matter of policy. In order for this kind of change to occur, one of two possibilities would need to occur. In the first possibility, this approach would need to be a matter of policy, enforcable by law. If this were to occur, the repercussions would likely be pretty bad, because then you’d end up with absurdities like civility laws (for instance, in the final episode of Seinfeld, when the four end up in prison for making fun of a fat guy). I recently read about a Japanese Shogun who was so compassionate that he passed sweeping social reforms designed for the welfare of dogs. Under his government, somewhere along the lines of 60,000 people ended up being put to death for mistreatment of animals. So, no, I don’t think such a thing would be possible or valuable as a matter of policy.
On the other hand, if everyone started putting these ideas into practice as individuals, it would certainly be possible. In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus talks about how when one is asked for money, we should give it away to someone who won’t be able to repay us. This was a pretty radical idea, b/c typically the only people you would do that for were immediate family members. So he’s basically saying, treat everyone the way you’d treat your immediate family members.
To me, this means (when possible) helping anyone who asks without considering what they can do in return, be they family, friends or strangers. It means being completely open and honest to everyone about everything. It means trying to stop being afraid of people you don’t know simply because you’ve been told to by the media or otherwise. Of course, so-doing often produces a ripple effect among those with whom we’re surrounded. Theoretically, if everyone treated everyone else this way, eventually we’d simply unconsciously have this “Christian Nation.”
Also, the difference between your approach to this particuar passage and the more fundamentalist approach is pretty profound. Many Christians prefer to follow the letter not of Christ’s law, but of the Law found in Levicticus and Deuteronomy (eye for an eye, etc.). So in some regards, a “Christian Nation” would be pretty miserable.
July 14th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
If it were enforceable by law, then it wouldn’t truly be turning the other cheek, because the law itself would violate the principle of turning the other cheek. Law is based on enforcement, coercion and punishment. This is the anti-Law then because it dismantles coercion and punishment at their root assumptions and strips them of their power. Without law, you have no nation.
July 14th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
This line of thought is big among Quakers (whom I grow ever more interested in, although their church has apparently suffered pretty much the same watering-down as every other) and Leo Tolstoy professed something along these lines.
July 14th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Tolstoy is mentioned in this Christian Anarchism article on Wikipedia which is in certain respects pretty similar to what I outlined above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism
July 14th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
That “turn the other cheek” thing is one of the coolest things Jesus said. I think that while the example with the mugger you gave is a bit extreme, if everybody tried to do that once and a while, the world would become a better place. Whats really funny is that the hard-core christians would have a really hard time with this. Right after September 11th, a church near where I live flew a “We will not forgive, we will not forget” banner, pretty much the opposite of what we’re talking about.
July 14th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
You pose an interesting question Tim, one whose timing is exquisite, given the current round of dick-swinging going on in the Middle East.
While everyone fairly understands the differences, at least topically, between Old Testament morality (‘Eye for an eye…’) in contrast to that of the New Testament (‘Turn the other cheek…’), I suspect that many people fail to realize just how profound the difference really is. Setting aside the question of literal interpretation of scripture, it might be enlightening to view the difference between OT & NT thought as reflecting an evolution in understanding of mankind’s relationship to the Creative Force of the Universe &, as a consequence, man’s relationship to his fellow man.
It is rather tragic to consider that in nearly two millennia mankind has made so little progress in transitioning to this ‘new’ world –view. Unfortunately, the Middle East as a whole today remains a horrible mishmash of corrupt theocratic Old Testament-style bloodshed & revenge… which is more often than not exploited by the techno/pluto-cratic money grubbers of the West who slink behind supposed Christian ideals while acting in an amoral secular fashion…
Ironically, were Jesus to appear today amongst many of those who profess to be Christians he would likely have just as much of a destabilizing effect now as he did then… & would just as likely face execution. His teachings stand in stark contrast to those espoused by many of those caught up in worldly pursuits. Now, as then, his teachings have a profoundly anti-structural quality (which serves to underscore the liminal nature of the Christ figure, marking the transition - the crossing of the boundary - from one age of thought to the next). It is a quality which stands in direct opposition to the current world order, which does not understand it, indeed cannot comprehend it, & is directly threatened by it… for to renounce control over one’s brothers & sisters would require the renunciation of the pursuit of power & dominion over others… a thought which is completely alien to those ‘lords of this world.’
On a lighter, yet no less important note, I appreciate the reference to the Seinfeld episode in which George has the moment of epiphany in which he realizes that he ought to act in opposition to his typically flawed impulses. Though it flies in the face of ‘trusting your gut’, which I believe has value (provided your ‘gut’ has a healthy dose of intelligence, humility & wisdom in equal measure)… It reminds us that when we continually butt our heads against a seemingly intractable problem, perhaps our methods require revision instead of repeating. Perhaps it would do some good if the world’s current leaders sat around & had a Seinfeld-fest & discussion afterward…
Coming full circle… a better world, if one believes a Christian world to be ‘better, will never be possible unless individuals act in accordance with such a system of morality… with change then radiating outward & upward in expanding circles of social interaction. Given the current state of the world, things look bleak. But never say never.
The universe has an uncanny habit of proving us wrong, just when we think we have an answer figured out…
July 14th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Interesting comments.
I would think a “christian nation” of the sort suggested would end up nailed to a cross and stabbed.
It seems to me the only way a person could live like this would be if that person could abandon any attachment to his or her continued earthly existence. Or maybe the real lesson is that this is the correct path?
July 14th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
I love the sound of an “absurdist surreal fantasy land.” My God, a statement like that makes the imagination dream!~
July 14th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
If everyone started to “turn the other cheek,” I would carve out an empire in the style of Genghis Khan. Those Machiavellian few would not hesitate to take advantage of such a fertlie landscape. This, I believe, is the same reason that communism (true communism, not the authoritarian attempt tried by the USSR) doesn’t work. A small local scene gets it all set up, working great–equality of the people, a communal means of production, an intelligent barter system, etc–then “outsiders” come in and take it over and create hierarchy again (see Paris Commune, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune). Or the “commune” decides it needs to protect itself and takes over its neighbors, also establishing some sort of hierarchy (citizens vs. conquered). “Turn the other cheek” would work great. Until, that is, Genghis swoops in and cuts your head off.
Ronin
PS In my view, Christianity as policy would only work in a fuedal political landscape, ie the heavenly hierarchy replicated on Earth. A monotheistic worldview can’t ultimately handle the idea of “rule by the people” (democracy). It will always trend towards kings, dicators, authoriatarian rulers, etc
July 14th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
since i can only assume you’ve never had someone make a serious attempt to end your life, i will politely refrain from expounding my opinion of this thought experiment.
July 14th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Since this country was founded on freedom of religion, which also implies freedom FROM religion, thinking about having a christian nation (especially given the current hatred and bigotry being practiced BY Christians against everybody they can’t stand (atheists, muslims, women, gays, etc.), is a pointless exercise. I don’t particularly care to live in a country where the dominant religion espouses more hate.
July 14th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
pmp:
No offense intended, but that seems to me to be a cop-out. We all bring experiences to the table we share. It seems that when this “table” is enshrouded with fear, such as I assume, your experience with someone wanting to end your life, it is quite impossible to think, react or act rationally, let alone compassionately towards a future idealistic goal.
My exgirlfriend once had one bastard of a boyfriend. He was her boyfriend that followed me in her life. They did lots of drugs, hard drugs, and drank like fish. Sometimes when it got real bad for her as she was strung out and being consistently abused she would call me at all times of the night and morning. Often I would field calls anywhere between 2 AM and 8 AM. Every call was a call not from someone who had just woken up, but a call from someone who had been snorting coke, drinking vodka, getting beat up/raped (who knows!) for hours on end previous to the call. Unsettling to say the least.
Well one time, this guy decided to make her call me and have her ask me questions — try and get me to become emotional, direct, helpful — in essence talk shit about him. Long story short, I did just as I was snared into doing. Because no sooner do get my opinions of her mess off my chest and he pipes up on the phone that he was basically gonna kill me, knew about my “sexual dysfunctions”, knew that I “stole money” from her and that he knew where I lived and where I worked. Which he did. I was frankly, more than a mite frightened. But I played along and argued on the phone with him for what seemed like hours. He bragged about being from Detroit and that he had all kinds of hard-assed friends who would make my life miserable.
I told him he was lucky he was talking to me, otherwise he’d be dead. I told him that they and their drug addled delusions were exactly what they were and that instead of me coming to kill him myself that I recommend he leave me the fuck alone.
Anyhow, my pulse raced for the rest of the night and the day that followed. I ran through every paranoid dys-fantasy my mind could supply. I knew I was being watched on some level and I knew whatever might be planned for me I would still be taken by surprise.
Later that next day myself and some friends decided to go out to a place lakeside for some drinks. On the way there I received a call from their number. Thinking it was my exgirlfriend who needed help I answered. Wasn’t her. It was him. He launched into a tirade and demanded we meet to “settle this”. Of course there was never any “this” between us. I said I was out and that he was more than welcome to come meet me where I was. He didn’t like that idea. I told him if he wanted to kick my ass or kill me, he was going to have to come to where I was, as I was out to have fun with my friends. If he wanted to ruin my night I said he was welcome to do so.
So a half hour or so rolls by and in comes the kid and two of his friends. All from Detroit and one of them even a 6′10′’ black dude. He sidles up next to me at the bar, while my friends automatically dispatch themselves to see what was up with the other guys he brought. Immediately he invades my personal space. He has me straddled and thrusts his face entirely too close to mine in an attempt to intimidate further. I follow suit and get even closer to him — to the point even that he asks me why I am getting so close. I say, it was you who started it, I’m just trying to annoy you as much as you are annoying me and I’m running outta room.
We sat there arguing about this and that. I’m in total disbelief the whole time as he laments all the “Seattle pussies” who never want to fight. I respond, “Why would I want to entertain your violence? To be like you?”. Sorry bro, got better things to do. Such as have fun. Told him he didn’t look like he was having much fun. Yadda yadda.
Suddenly the conversation turned into small talk and he said he had to go or that I should quit being nice because he was starting to like me. I replied, “that’s alright. You already do like me. You like me because I gave you a chance.”
At that moment, he totally relaxed and invited me to some function or whatever (yeah right). So he gets up, summoning his friends and leaves. Not thirty seconds pass and one of my friends (the bartender) pipes up: “Here he comes again”. I’m thinkin’ great! Fuck. It ain’t over. But what he did was astonishing to me and left me with one of the best sensations I have ever felt. He told me he was sorry, that he respected me and that he owed me a drink.
So we did a shot together. I offered to buy him one and he refused saying that he had somewhere else to be.
My friends were amazed that I didn’t invite them out with me to kick his ass. It’s long been known now, as my “Gandhi Technique”. It has never failed me, ever in life as I have had many, many enemies, but not once have I had to fight for any other reason other than self-defense. All I can really say is, this “technique” easily turns one’s “enemies” into staunch allies. You treat them with kindness. . .
Sorry if that’s all a little hard to follow. I just thought I should jam that out.
July 14th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Again pmp, I want to make clear I am not making light of your situation whatever that may have been.
July 14th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
You offered me something much more than that. You offered me a healthy dose of insight accompanied by a great read. CWG often says that we should not only turn the other cheek but basically “bend over and take it repeatedly”, (in so many words), which would in turn dispose of the energy the other persons demanding of you, negating the need for the person to punish or inflict pain on you in whatever way that they are. My first instinct is to resist the Other, however. I feel almost compelled to retreat, or get angry, or ignore someone who’s in need because. . hey, I’ve got my problems too. Don’t bother me with yours! But eventually, I hope to God I’ll realize that the Others problems ARE my own, because we’re all connected. . .and I’ll never escape my pain or isolation unless I confront it not only in myself but in all my other selves as well.
July 14th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Can anyone explain how the idea of “turning the other cheek” is consistent with Jesus’ throwing the money changers out of the temple?
Anyone?
July 14th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
Interesting post. This whole topic reminded me of something my favorite author once wrote:
July 15th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
Oh dear. So many good points spanning both ends of the spectrum.
JK, that’s an incredibly awesome story, and I admire you for the kind of person you are.
Ronin, you make a good point with your Genghis Khan scenario. It’s hard to see that not happening, at least with the state of things being what they are today (though as you say, and as JK clearly illustrates, better options do exist on a smaller scale).
But it echoed what first popped into my mind while reading this post:
July 16th, 2006 at 1:01 am
thebrooke:
That quote is dead on! Human nature…
Paul
July 16th, 2006 at 5:09 am
Just one more point I wish to illuminate (this topic has captured my attention for some reason): Non-violence, looked at in an amoral analysis, is simply another tactic for achieving one’s strategic ends. It can be considered a form of asymmetrical warfare, where one side has an enormous operational or tactical advantage over the other. It would have been suicide for the early Christians to take the Roman Empire head on, just as it would have been suicide for colonized India to take the British empire head on. By using non-violence the disadvantaged side could use the enemies’ own moral center against them, thereby gaining a strategic dominance.
In this sort of analysis it would make no sense to think of non-violence as universally applicable, as any specific tactic is only applicable in paticular situations. Different situations require different tactics. To tie this to my comment above, if Gandhi had tried to prevent a Mongol horde from invading India simply by using non-violence, it is quite reasonable to assume Genghis killing him, his family, his friends, his pets, his crops, and razing everything around him in a five mile radius to the ground. Indeed, the Mongols were quite fond of doing this as one decimated village meant the next ten would give up without so much as a whimper. Non-violence just would not work in a situation such as this.
And Paul, the idea of “turning the other cheek” and incident with the money-changers have no problem hanging together in an amoral analysis. Each were tactics used by Jesus to achieve differing strategic aims- strategic aims which were, of course, tied together by his doctrine: the supremacy of his Father’s Way to all others. In the end, I gotta say, the man (if he existed) was a fucking genius.
Peace,
Ronin
July 16th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Hi Ronin,
That’s interesting, I hadn’t thought about it like that.
Thinking it through, I suppose that in that situation Jesus concluded that turning the other cheek would not work, and that aggressive action was necessary, and even righteous.
Is that putting it fairly?
Thanks,
Paul
July 16th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
See, this is what I love about a forum such as this. I am actually reading sane, balanced, reasonable views. I am actually talking to people who aren’t just extreme charicatures, polarized at opposite ends of issues, (or all cliquing it up at one end, with all the philosophical inbreeding that leads to). Dare I believe that there really is a thriving community of sane beings who can view things (relatively) objectively, open-mindedly and creatively? Sweet.
I’m probably coming off like a huge kiss-ass, but that isn’t it. It’s just, this is one of very few (good) websites dealing with these kinds of issues that aren’t just full of new-age saps, and a few, equally extremist bullies on the opposite end of the spectrum that get off on preying upon the rationally weak. I don’t need to tell you how fucking pointless and retarded the resulting discussions are. I drifted away from internet discussion boards and have avoided the ‘blogosphere’ for a long time, for this very reason. My recent impulse to dive back in, and start blogging it up, has thankfully not lead me astray.
Thanks for restoring my hope for humanity.
Fin.
ps - Ronin, why have you no blog? Get on it man.
July 16th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
I just watched the Last Temptation of Christ a few days ago - one of my all-time favorite movies. In it, Christ is simply portrayed as a human who was doing the right thing, who got confused and who changed his mind a lot. First he believed in love, then the axe, and then that he had to die. It to me is a lot more complex, beautiful and ultimately human interpretation than that Jesus’s arguments and life were intended to be a perfectly logically sound and rational endeavor. Which one of our lives really is even remotely close to that?
July 16th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
Hey Tim,
I’ve meant to see that movie but never have, will make it a priority.
If that interpretation is correct I imagine Jesus himself wouldn’t be sure whether a nation based on the concept of turning the other cheek could survive.
Good discussion.
Paul
July 16th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Tim, first of all let me say, great blog. There’s not a lot of sites that I check on a daily basis, but this is certainly one.
The Last Temptation is one of my favorite movies as well. It did, though, have a very singular viewpoint- to portray Christ as man as opposed to Christ as God. This was, I believe, Scorsese’s conscious intent. This is not a bad thing, of course, and this viewpoint is probably the most relatable (unless you’re a Christian). But the beauty of a great myth (and Christ is a great myth) is its ability to be seen through many different lenses, and each lense has its own insight into Truth and your own life.
My favorite viewpoint is the idea of Christ as the Next Man, or Evolved Man. Now I agree that most people don’t act very logical and rational throughout their lives; but this is Christ, he’s not supposed to be like most people. In my mind, he’s the ideal of the next stage you strive to reach. This is not unlike most Christians view of him, though they assume that, because of original sin, the ideal is unattainable. I try not to baggage myself with artificial limitations like that (Lord knows I’ve got enough real limitations to keep me busy).
In any case, this viewpoint is not necessarily that Jesus’s life was “perfectly logically sound and rational…” Just that Jesus, when he came across a situation such as the money-changers, would have been uniquely able to deal with the situation in rational manner (as opposed to simply acting out ego-impulses as most of us do) and turn the situation to his own advantage.
Of course this is not the only valid, or best, or superior viewpoint to read the Christ myth, just one viewpoint with what I see as valuable insight. The human lense is just as valid and just as insightful. This isn’t relativism, though. I’m not talking about values or morals or ethics–I’m simply talking about reading a myth. Thats it. The viewpoint is valid if you personally gain something from it.
Thanks again for the great blog,
Ronin
July 16th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
thebrooke,
Thanks for the kind suggestion. I just don’t have the intellectual cojones to come out with something useful or insightful every other day. It would quickly end up being quite uninteresting. It would probably also end up becominging a blatant ripoff of another great blog, Alchemically Braindamaged (http://uroboros.wordpress.com/). Zac’s recently switched to audio-which I’m still trying to get a handle on, but he’s up there with Tim as a site I check every day.
Ronin
July 17th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
[…] There have been some excellent conversations here recently about the ultimate nature of Christ’s teachings. I specifically zeroed in on the notion of turning the other cheek to kickstart the conversation and it eventually morphed into other areas. One reader named “Paul” asked in the comments to that post: “Can anyone explain how the idea of “turning the other cheek” is consistent with Jesus’ throwing the money changers out of the temple?” […]
July 26th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
[…] [See also my post on Christian Nations for an exploration of this idea] […]