WWJD, Anyway? Turn the Other Cheek, or Turn the Tables?
There is a debate going on right now in various blogs on the Blogging Network about whether it is right or wrong for a Blogger A to censure (not censor) Blogger B for what A views as offensive, blasphemous, or inappropriate material. In one series of comments, it was suggested that the offended person should turn the other cheek — the implications being that (a) if you don’t like it, no one’s forcing you to click on it, and (b) you shouldn’t try to censor another person’s expression of his or her creativity or beliefs.
The Turn-the-Other-Cheek proponents pointed out Jesus’s example of non-violent protest and meek acceptance of abuse as evidence that He would tell people to let it alone. (See here and here for the gospel passages containing this admonishment.)
Other bloggers chimed in with the story of Jesus upending the moneychangers’ tables in the Temple (see here and here for the gospel accounts), to illustrate that Jesus didn’t always take the quiet and unobtrusive way out.
What needs to be understood is the context of the situations that Jesus was addressing in these seemingly contradictory passages. The instruction to turn the other cheek is delivered during the Sermon on the Mount, as part of a longer discourse on how to live a blessed and peaceful life even when surrounded by your enemies. Remember that Israel, at this time, had been forcibly subjected to Roman rule, and the Romans were none too gentle in their occupation. They could force a person to carry their gear for a mile, could commandeer clothing, food, supplies, and transport for the use of Roman officials, and demand exorbitant taxes that would make America’s income tax system look pathetic. What Jesus was saying here was that you should not resist in situations like this, but that you should submit to civil authority so long as it did not demand that you violate core principles or beliefs. If a pissed-off Roman smacks you one, don’t fight back, because there is no way you will make it out of that altercation alive. Preserve your life, even at the expense of your pride. In other words, don’t attack back in an attempt to save your own pride.
The moneychangers, however, were a different matter. In those days, the Temple was the place that Jews were required to go, from wherever they lived in the world, to worship and to perform certain sacrifices. Obviously, if you came from Greece or Gaul (present-day France), your denarii or francs had to be converted into shekels—the coinage used in the transactions of the Temple. Hence, moneychangers in the Temple. However, the moneychangers were businessmenas well as priests, and they knew how to tweak the values so that they could skim a little off for their own profit. The problem was that these men were thereby lying to people and cheating them, on the very threshhold of the Holiest place on earth, and in the garb of those who were serving God. These men were defrauding those who were coming to pay homage to God. They were taking advantage of those who could not speak for themselves or defend themselves—if the priest tells you that it takes 200 denarii to make 1 shekel, how are you to know if they are telling the truth or not? (Think about it. Do you really know how much your $100 American translates into francs when you visit Paris, or do you just trust your banker to be honest in changing your money? Same thing.)
So Jesus took matters into His own hands and chose to defend God’s house against the thieves who were robbing honest, hard-working people who wanted to pay homage to God. If you accept the doctrine of Trinity, you will realize that Jesus was defending His Father’s (and His own) good name. Even if you don’t accept the Trinity, you can, I think, appreciate that Jesus was acting in defense of the helpless, ignorant, and innocent.
Thus, we see that there is a place for “righteous anger”—the outrage over an innocent person’s being taken advantage of, even without their knowledge. Jesus demonstrated that there is no call to defend yourself, especially if it’s only to salvage your pride, but that there is always a call to defend the otherwise defenseless and to confront thieves, blasphemers, and liars when their actions directly damage God’s name or injure the helpless and ignorant.
As for the current BN brouhaha, I dare not say what I think Jesus would do. My own stance has been to ignore it as much as possible, refusing to click on those blog titles or online handles that I found offensive. I don’t feel capable of defending God’s reputation; it’s better I just pray that God will convict those whom I think are doing wrong, if they are, in fact, transgressing. Otherwise, I’m going to stay out of it.