Posted on by Abe Austin

Turn the Other Cheek

I spoke yesterday about two sides to God’s Justice, one that condemns the wicked and one that exalts the pure in heart. One of the scriptures I quoted was Jesus teaching his followers to “turn the other cheek.” I wanted to explore that sentiment even more, but my comments were becoming large enough that I decided pulled them out into this separate post. To help us get into it, let’s pull up the relevant verses:

Matthew 5:39-40:

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.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

Imagine if Christ has said “whosoever shall smite thee on they right cheek, do not strike him back,” or if he had said, “if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, just let him have it.” If those were the things that he had said, then this would already be advocating for an unexpected, unnatural behavior, one that is much more mild than we are accustomed to. What Christ would be asking of us in this case would be a sort of passive pacifism, a call to inaction.

But those are not the things that Christ actually said. He took it a step further and said “turn to him the other [cheek] also” and “let him have they cloak also.” This is not passive inaction at all, but active action. We are actually being told to do something. Specifically, something that deliberately causes greater harm to our own self!

I don’t think it wise to assume that Jesus was just exaggerating when he said these things, to suppose that he just really wanted to hammer home the point of non-retaliation. The more I’ve thought about, the more I think he really meant that when someone does you harm you, should actively double up on it!

Christ is not calling for non-retaliation, but rather a sort of reflected retaliation. When one cheek is struck, justice requires that another cheek be struck in return. Christ’s advice does not dissolve that justice, but rather states that we should have that recompense be met upon our own person. He is calling us to take the retribution of justice and absorb within our self! We are taking the punishment for their own crimes, and that terminates the cycle of harm right there.

And this, of course, is the very thing that Christ did for all the world. In his atonement he was unjustly condemned, which to be balanced out would require his persecutors to be justly condemned by God. But Christ accounted for both the initial offense and the recompense in his sacrifice. In submitting himself to his condemnation, Christ took not only the direct pain of what they were doing to him in the moment, but also the pain of what the Father would do to them in return, paying the price for their sins that they might go free. They were both condemned and redeemed in the single act of Jesus’s death.

Christ is the end of the back-and-forth nature of justice. He takes the never-ending cycle of harm and self-closes the loop in his own person. And in his injunction to “turn the other cheek,” he is asking to us to do the same thing in our own small way. We can be the cul-de-sac where the road of affliction turns back on itself and dissolves.

Of course, as with Christ’s atonement, it is still up to the offender to accept the grace that is offered. You have done your part to preserve peace in the world, but the world still has the choice whether to take that peace or not. And if the world rejects that opportunity, then it is doubly condemned for having struck the innocent twice!

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Two Halves of Justice

Some time ago I did a study on the qualities of Justice and Mercy. One key takeaway was how justice is both a law for punishment and reward. If we harm another who doesn’t deserve it, justice demands that now we be harmed. Conversely, if we do good to another who doesn’t deserve it, justice demands that now we receive good, too. Justice can be either the vehicle for our damnation or our ascension, depending on which way we choose to engage with it.

Recently, I thought some more about this dual nature of justice, and I wanted to point out two more observations that I had.

Two Teachings of Justice)

I’ve realized that the complete picture of justice is only seen by combining two Biblical laws that were given by two different men at two very different times. The first treatise on justice comes from Moses, when he famously pronounced “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” This mandate was given while describing the rules for punishment that would befall those who broke Hebrew law and wronged their neighbor. It was, therefore, a representation of only the negative half of justice. To this day, no one uses the term “an eye for an eye” to mean paying a good deed forward, only for retaliation against the wrong that has been done by another.

The second treatise on justice was given over multiple discourses by Christ. His famous injunction to “do unto others what you would have them do to you” is, at its core, a call for justice. “Doing unto others” is giving the just reaction to a yet unreceived action.

Jesus also invoked the image of justice when he stated, “with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.” That is you being recompensed equally for how you treat another, which is another way of saying ‘justice.’ Undeserved kindness that you show to others must be returned by undeserved kindness from God because the scales of justice require it.

Moses gave the half of justice that condemned the guilty, but Christ gave the half that exonerated the innocent. Christ did not contradict the law of justice given by Moses, he completed it, and both halves have been in full force forever after.

Judicial Justice and Personal Justice)

It also stood out to me that Moses’s half of justice, that of punishment and redress, is the correct form of justice for a people. The chief purpose of a judicial system is to provide protection for the innocent, and to right those that have been wronged. In the western world our sense of national justice still mirrors that of Moses’s. Our court systems are in essence an eye-for-an-eye, intended to allow the victim to be restored to whole by taking from the perpetrator.

Meanwhile, Christ’s half of justice, that of forgiveness and reward, is the correct form of justice for the individual. We do not compel a person in our laws to forgive another who has wronged them, or to turn the other cheek, but we do applaud them when they choose for themselves to take that higher road.

And this is how it should be. There should be a default protection for the weak and innocent, and there should also be an option for the individual to waive the offense if they so choose. We are properly incensed at a judge who decides to withhold justice, while we are properly in awe of those who, without compulsion, show their offender mercy.

One law, two halves, each aligned with the righteous and blessed order of God.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Creating Our Own Monsters

People play a dangerous game when they insist on casting entire demographics as villains. I have seen several examples in society of everyday people that wish to “just get along” being accused of actually being the enemy. Ironically, those that take the route of disingenuous accusation tend to summon the very evil that they fabricated. They are crushed by their own myth.

Different cultures will call certain races inherently evil. Sexes are encouraged to see their interaction as inherently adversarial. Members of a caste are despised simply for being of that caste. In all of these examples, the accused are told that their lack of personal transgression does not absolve them, they are covered in sin or blood no matter what they do, fundamentally evil since the day they were born. We are told that some groups are just against other groups, always have been and always will be, and that’s all there is to it.

Division in the West is growing rapidly, and we are becoming a more race- and gender- and class-obsessed people. In earlier times we were been more willing to look past what another person is to see who another person is. I’ve recognized in myself how when speaking with others I tend to wonder what they are wondering about me, whereas before I would just speak as though we were one and the same.

Ideally we would be able to reject the false accusations out of hand. We would refuse to adopt propositions about ourselves or others that we do not believe in. We would continue to live good and wholesome lives, treating all as equals, letting the inaccurate labels just slide off our backs. But the more society pushes certain demographics to hate other demographics, the more the hated are going to accept that the haters are their true enemy. And when enough people accept these opposing side, horrible things will follow.

We may have to grapple with terrible monsters then, but it will be monsters entirely of our own devising.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Those Who Cannot Do, Deconstruct

The Human Nature)

It is in our human nature to advance and improve. We are never content with the accomplishments of the past, we always seek to be better and better. We are a race of inventors and innovators, creators and pioneers. Entirely new branches of science, technology, medicine, and mathematics are constantly being opened, and old branches pushed further than ever before.

This is a divine characteristic within us, linked to our need for personal self improvement. It shows how our hearts and minds are constantly pulled toward the ideal. We seek perfection in all its forms, and that gives us the power to do brave, new things. Just as our pioneering spirit leads us to invent life-saving methods, it leads us to engage in soul-saving repentance. This is unquestionably a good thing, and a clear sign of our divine heritage.

But what happens when we lack the innovation to improve on what has already been done, but retain the desire to advance something new?

Deconstruction in Place of Innovation)

Ever since the social sciences began, one truth has emerged above all others: people do their best when they are raised in the traditional, nuclear family.

When a society has each of its children raised by a devoted father and mother, there is less crime, less mental illness, less depression, less suicide, and less drug use. When children have a devoted father and mother they report greater happiness, participate more in their society, obtain higher levels of education, earn more money, give more to charity, and live longer, healthier lives. Society settled on the traditional, nuclear family many years ago, and there simply has never been a better system ever found.

If every alternative strategy for raising humanity has fallen short, then one would think that continued research would be focused on how to strengthen this family unit. How can we better support the working father and the nurturing mother? How can we better train the raising generation to prepare themselves for those roles? How can we remove the temptations and obstacles that lead people to choose harmful alternatives? How can we shore up the children who lose one of their parent-pillars due to some tragedy?

Remarkably, though, those are not the sort of questions that the social pundits of today tend to focus their energy on. In spite of all evidence against it, social academia continues proposing ways to subvert, twist, and fully replace the ideal family. They push for alterations to laws and social norms, even though those changes have no evidence of yielding positive results. They criticize the standards and principles that have stood for years, even when those standards demonstrably lead to a better quality of life for everyone involved.

A society that achieves the pinnacle has the unfortunate tendency to adulterate its adventurous spirit and deconstruct that ideal, crippling and breaking it simply for the sake of having a project to work on, never mind if that project destroys millions of lives along the way! Those that lack the skill to build and improve occupy themselves with tearing apart!

The Ease of Destruction)

And, unfortunately, the rule of the universe is that destruction is always easier than construction. Chaos comes more easily than order. Toppling is always faster than stacking, scattering easier than gathering, breaking more accessible than creating. Even a minority in a short period of time can undo what a majority took a very long while to accomplish. If current trends continue, the collapse of the most basic social unit will occur, and it will be many generations of horror before that good thing can be built back again, if ever at all.

In short, we have very good reason to be very fierce about promoting and protecting the traditional nuclear family, and in renouncing and destroying every bastardized alternative.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Reasons for Disbelief- The Shattered View

I have published several posts exploring different reasons why people refuse to live by faith, or believe in the gospel, or accept God as their father and creator. I spoke of people who renounce God due to passive skepticism, or having a hierarchy of authority that is incompatible with God, or possessing an instinct to believe every idea from other people, or being swayed by close relationships, or having model of the world that refutes the need for a Creator.

Through all of these varied reasons, though, I think there is one shared core, something that I started to describe with my last post, and today I will summarize my series by laying out that common theme in greater detail.

Breaking Reality)

The core reason why most people refuse faith is that, on a fundamental level, they are converted to a worldview that is incompatible with the reality of God. Their current worldview might make them try to justify their sins, depend on a relationship with someone who is in opposition to God, or fear being damned if they give up on old ideals. Most of us find things that we rely on to make sense of the world and cope with our fears. And because we are human, we tend to choose imperfect things that are not God.

In short, accepting God often means shattering our entire conception of reality and personal safety. It means cutting out the foundation with nothing more than the hope that there will be a God who catches us as we fall.

There are many who first profess not to believe in God with an attitude of calm rationality, but who then devolve into hysterical, emotional outbursts when faced with a well-reasoned argument for God that they do not have a refutation for. This is a fear-based reaction, a survival mechanism to scare away the proselytizer who is pulling apart the disbeliever’s entire universe. The fact is, most people don’t care what the argument for God is. They might have pretended to have rejected Him for intellectual reasons, but most of them actually have an emotional reason for not surrendering to Him. You’re never going to be able to reason someone into abandoning a position that they are still using for a crutch.

All of the reasons for disbelief that I have given in this series come down to these elements of fear and coping in one way or another. When people see the evidence for God, they are able to work ahead and intuit how an admission of His reality might require them to stop relying on old superstitions, or end certain relationships, or do the hard work of investigating the truth, or stop listening to certain authorities. For most people, these are massive, life-changing alterations, and they are scary. This is why those who proselytize are to do so in a spirit of understanding and love, having great reverence and respect for the great undertaking they are inviting people to.

But the hardness of the way is in no way a justification for not following it. For any of us who are on the precipice of breaking a false worldview, may we be reassured by the knowledge that we were born to do great and heroic things, the greatest and most heroic of which may very well be smashing this carefully-crafted reality, casting aside the crutches that we have always depended upon, and taking a leap of faith into the unseen and unknown!