Jesus and The Social Gospel (Part 6)

In the previous article in this series, we made the case that Jesus was neither a social revolutionary, nor someone who ignored social injustice altogether. Rather, the dawning of the Kingdom that he proclaimed implicitly challenged all forms of real oppression that clearly violate the reign of God and the shalom he desires for his people.

In my web series In Search of Jesus , I dedicated a whole article to a sharp critique of the work of the late New Testament historian Marcus Borg. But not everything that Borg wrote was misguided; in fact, he performed a vital service for us by uncovering the implicit call to non-violent direct action against social injustice in many of Jesus’ teachings and parables. Here we will let Borg explain all of this in his own words:

[Jesus said] “Do not resist an evildoer.” But the Greek word translated “resist” most often means “resist with violence.” Thus, rather than counselling non-resistance to an evildoer, which would imply doing nothing in the face of evil, the verse really says, "Do not resist an evildoer with violence.” As the following statements of the text make clear: resistance yes; violence no.

The next three statements provide specific examples of nonviolent resistance. The second statement says: “But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other cheek also.” The specification of the right cheek and the awareness that people in that world used their right hand to strike somebody provide the key for understanding the saying. How can the person be hit on the right cheek by a right handed person? Only by a back-handed slap (act it out and see for yourself). In that world a slap with the back of the hand was the way a superior struck a subordinate. The saying thus presupposes a situation of domination: a peasant being backhanded by a steward or official, a prisoner being backhanded by a jailer, and so forth. When that happens, turn the other cheek. What would be the effect of that? The beating could continue only if the superior used an overhand blow — which is the way an equal struck another equal. Of course, he might do so. But he would be momentarily discombobulated, and the subordinate would be asserting his equality even if the beating did continue.

The third statement, “If anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give him your cloak as well,” imagines a situation in which a person is being sued for his outer garment because of non-payment of debt (and only a very poor person would have only a coat to offer as collateral). In that world peasants commonly wore only two garments, a long tunic, and an outer garment that served as a blanket. The effect of giving up the inner garment as well as the outer would, of course, be nakedness. The act would not only startle the creditor, but would also shame him, for nakedness shamed the person who beheld the nakedness. Moreover, it would be a symbolic statement: look at what this system is doing to us, stripping us naked.

The fourth statement, about going the “second mile,” refers to a known practice of imperial soldiers. Soldiers were allowed to compel peasants to carry their considerable gear for a mile, but no more. The reason for this restriction was that soldiers had been abusing the option by forcing peasants to carry their gear all day (or even longer). The result was not only popular resentment, but peasant’s ending up a day’s journey (or more) from home. And so the restriction was introduced, and soldiers faced penalties for violating it, some of them severe. In this setting, what are you going to do when an imperial soldier requires you to carry his gear for a mile? Do it — and then keep going. The situation … is almost comical — imagine an imperial soldier wrestling a peasant to get his gear back, while the peasant says, “No, no, it’s fine. Let me carry it another mile.”…

[W]e should not think of these as “rules,” as what one should do every time these cases happen. It is difficult to imagine Jesus intended “turn the other cheek” as a rule to follow every time one was beaten, for it would not take long for the person inflicting the beatings to realize, “Oh, it’s the old turn-the-other-cheek trick.” Rather, they are meant as creative examples of nonviolent resistance whose purpose is to spark the imagination to create more.

The fifth statement begins with a more general statement: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” In the context of the preceding statements, it means loving your enemies while at the same time also non-violently resisting them. (Jesus. Harper One, 2008, p. 248-250).

These are creative gestures against social injustice on a personal, micro-level, we might say. But even with regard to broader, political and economic injustices, the implications of the gospel — both the gospel preached by Jesus, and the gospel message about Jesus — should not lead us be utterly passive or unconcerned. Anglican Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, for example, a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, focused his ministry on this whole aspect of Christian discipleship. Bishop Tutu non-violently challenged the oppressive, racist policies of the government of South Africa of his day, and called the churches to task as well for their frequent watering-down of the moral demands of the gospel of Christ.

First, he assailed the attitude so prevalent in his country that “You must not mix religion with politics.” For a Christian, this division of life into closed compartments, “secular” and “sacred,” is simply an impossibility:

If we are to say that religion cannot be concerned with politics then we are really saying that there is a substantial part of human life in which God’s writ does not run. If it is not God’s, whose is it? Who is in charge? … Christianity knows nothing about pie-in-the-sky when you die, or a concern for man’s soul only. That would be a travesty of the religion of Jesus of Nazareth, who healed the sick, fed the hungry, etc. … If it must needs be so for the Son of God, it could not be otherwise for his church. (Hope and Suffering. Font, 1983, p. 170 and 85)

Second, Bishop Tutu warns us that we must be on our guard when people proclaim this false attitude. The very timing of it often betrays its true intention:

If the church demonstrates a concern for the victims of some neglect or exploitation, or denounces the widening gap in the country between the very few who are rich and the vast majority who are poor … then the  church will be accused of meddling in affairs it knows very little about. This kind of criticism will reach crescendo proportions if the church not merely provides an ameliorative ambulance service, but aims to expose the root causes …. [T]hen it will arouse the wrath of those who benefit from the particular, inequitable status quo … that is when you hear the cry, “Don’t mix religion with politics!” (p.37)

Bishop Tutu shows us that in social situations of oppression or exploitation, neglect or injustice, God is not neutral. Rather, he actively takes the side of the down-trodden, and strives to set them free. This theme occurs often in the Bible; for example, in the story of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, in which God ultimately liberated the Israelite slaves from their Egyptian taskmasters. Bishop Tutu complains that all too often, Christians forget

that its Lord and Master was born in a stable, that the message of the angels about his birth was announced first not to the high and mighty, but to simple rustic shepherds. The church forgets that his solidarity was with the poor, the downtrodden, the sinners, the despised ones, the outcasts, the prostitutes, the very scum of society. (p. 85)

In short, in a phrase used by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, entry 2448, Jesus had a “preferential love” for the poor — a special compassion and concern for their plight, not because they are necessarily better than other people, but simply because they often suffer the most, as he once suffered. And “the poor” here includes not only those who are socially and materially poor, but also those who are spiritually destitute, trapped in sin and guilt, and in danger of everlasting loss. Whenever Christians forget any of this, they fail to live as true disciples of Christ. 

Next Time: The Kind of Messiah No One Expected

Robert Stackpole, STD

© 2020 Mere Christian Fellowship