Quote:
Originally Posted by Disciple
The Sermon on the Mount is fundamental to the New Covenant. I'll begin there.
Matthew
5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
This is the foundation of the passive resistance that Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. used. For example during the bus boycott. The law was that Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus. This is like be smitten on the cheek. Deciding that if you won't let us sit in the front we also won't sit in the back is like turning the other cheek.
Of course, imho, the best example of turing the other cheek is Jesus willingly going to the cross. The crucifixion of Jesus is absolutely critical in the New Covenant and is set as an example for all believers when Jesus said that we must take up our cross and follow Him.
|
From an objective point of view, it is not "just" that someone would
compel me to go a mile. It certainily doesn't achieve further justice that I go another mile.
This principles I don't think were spoken as a basis to seek justice. In fact, they mostly imply that you cannot expect justice in the human experience. Instead, do not focus on human justice - seek after God's kingdom. Humans seeking human justice seems to be the OPPOSITE of Jesus' argument in the sermon.
Do not get me wrong. I think the civil rights struggle was a noble chapter in American history. I like to think I would have been marching right alongside. And I think it was an attempt to reach toward a better "justice" in America.
I also agree that invoking Christian principles was
effective part of the argument.
But none of this justifies taking Jesus' argument out of context and employing for one's own political aims EVEN IF I happen to agree with your political aims.
Is the distinction I'm making clear?