Yesterday I was reading a sermon where the Savior sets forth the higher law in regard to the law of Moses. Instead of "an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth," Jesus outlined that whoever smites you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. If anyone sues for your coat, give him your cloak too. And if anyone makes you go a mile with him, go two miles with him. Give to him that asketh thee, and give to him that would like to borrow from you.
Talk about a difficult set of scriptures! I wondered if anyone that lives a normal, everyday life really lives by these words? To me, this block of scripture meant pure selflessness to others, not thinking about your own interests at all. I at least could not claim to live by these teachings. But even thinking of how truly selfless Jesus was during his lifetime, I didn't picture him always doing what others wanted him to do. He always did what the Father did, but Christ was not a super-meek and submissive person to his fellow man. Needless to say, I was perplexed by the text and wanted to reconcile the teachings to everyday life.
Spencer and I were talking about this on our way up to Salt Lake land. His BYU religion professor Stephen L. Robison claimed that this scripture needed to be understood in the context of Jewish culture. When it said "whosoever shall smite thee on they right cheek, turn to him the other also" it meant that you get back on your feet after someone takes you down. This answer didn't satisfy me though. I understand that you could rationalize Jesus' teachings by saying He wanted to stress a point of humility to others, so He fell down pretty hard on the side of selflessness. But when you are looking at the text of the scriptures (the New International Version is virtually identical to the King James version), I found some serious doctrines that are hard to rectify with real-world life.
Every once in a while, God sees what's happening in our lives and intervenes to teach a principle. I was supposed to take a right at the 1300 S exit, but instead got in the left lane. Once I realized my mistake, I sheepishly tried to inch back into the long line of cars also desiring to go right. The people in the right lane were livid mad that I was trying to cut in front of them. One grandma would net let me in one inch and the backseat 45-year-old man was shouting at me from behind the window. Three or four other drivers met me with similar contempt. I stared at these people with a calm and fixed demeanor. Then it struck me. This is what turning the other cheek meant. God was teaching me an eternal principle on I-15. These scriptures didn't mean letting bad people do bad things to you, but rather having a different mindset. When someone does something bad to you (like cutting in front of you [this is really bad guys, huh]), give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you'll get burned by someone who is really trying to maliciously do bad things to you (and cut in front of you on purpose). However, it may also be the case that they just missed a turn and need to get back into your lane. Why risk turning into an evil human being because this person might cost you 5 seconds of your day. Life is short, be nice to people. Maybe your example will help someone else be nice.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I had a dream last night about your blog. I dreamed that people had commented on this post and were debating it with you. Long comments about scientific studies showing how being mean could be better for you. Debating whether or not turning the other cheek was the best decision. I even remember one commenter saying, "I appreciate your thoughts Trent, but I have to disagree."
It was odd. Funny, but odd.
Those are some very good insights. We actually talked about this sermon in institute last semester. Brother Frogley told us that when they were required to go a mile to offer to go two, it was a way for the Jews to take control back from the Romans. It was a way for them to have control and choices because they were choosing to go two and it took the power away from the Roman soldiers who were forcing them to take time to stop what they were doing and do their bidding. I think there is also more to it than that, but I would have to look through my institute journal.
Kristen, thanks for the comment. That is very interesting insight. When we have a duty or a sense of obligation to do something, in a way I think it diminishes our power to choose. We can maintain our sense of agency if we somehow convince ourselves that we would choose to do that even without the duty being there, but that is hard to do. I agree that the mentality of turning the other cheek is a way of preserving your agency.
Post a Comment