Jesus said to his disciples: "If
your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him
alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does
not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be
established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to
listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the
church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Matthew
18:15-17
In stark contrast to, “turn the other cheek,”
here Jesus lays out a process for mediation that ends with treating someone who
has hurt us and refused to make restitution as an outsider or even as an accomplice of the Roman occupiers.
This is scandalous only if one reads the
exhortation to turn the other cheek as a command intended to improve social
order. In all likelihood, Jesus intended
it as a spiritual exercise – one that demonstrated to the disciples that retaliation
and anger leads to self-diminishment.
Similarly, when Jesus sent out the disciples with no change of clothes
and no money, requiring them to beg for their daily bread, he was emulating
(perhaps consciously) the discipleship program of the Buddha as it was then being practiced at the far reaches
of the area conquered by Alexander. For both spiritual
leaders, this was not an economic program – it was a spiritual exercise of self-denial
and reliance on community.
In my book, Faith on a Stone Foundation, I make the scandalous observation that
Jesus never commands anyone to give up their possessions or wealth to change the
economic circumstances of the poor. Rather, it is always an exercise in
self-denial or living simply.
One objection I hear quite often is that
the Beatitudes require care for the poor.
But do they? Is Jesus saying, “bless
the poor with alms so that they will no longer be poor”? Or is he saying the
poor are already blessed in some way? In all likelihood, Jesus is rejecting the idea,
prevalent at the time and still prevalent today, that God metes out reward to
the good and punishment to the bad. Wealth,
Jesus was saying, is not a sign of God’s favor and, in fact, God’s attention
rests far longer on the poor. The poor
are not cursed by God, but are blessed by His sympathy. This was very good news for the poor, but in
direct contradiction to the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ theology. Jesus makes precisely this point again in Chapter
Nine of the Gospel of John.
We often take Jesus's exhortations as demands for moral behavior, but Jesus's intent is far more often spiritual exercises. What's the harm in seeing Jesus as a moral cheerleader and moral example? Well, first, we have a responsibility to understand Scripture as it is and not as we want it to be. Second, secular values and the values we attribute to faith are practically identical (be nice, give generously to charity, develop your talents, etc.). If faith is indistinguishable from secular concerns, then it becomes insipid and irrelevant.
We often take Jesus's exhortations as demands for moral behavior, but Jesus's intent is far more often spiritual exercises. What's the harm in seeing Jesus as a moral cheerleader and moral example? Well, first, we have a responsibility to understand Scripture as it is and not as we want it to be. Second, secular values and the values we attribute to faith are practically identical (be nice, give generously to charity, develop your talents, etc.). If faith is indistinguishable from secular concerns, then it becomes insipid and irrelevant.
Of course, Jesus preached love. But clearly, he intended that we really love
each other – not just act like we love each other to receive divine reward or
avoid divine punishment. This is not a
moral exhortation, setting out what is prohibited and what is obligatory; but
an emotive one, setting out what we are to one another and to God.
Image: Red Nebula
