Turning the Other Cheek

At Mass this morning the gospel reading was taken from the Sermon on the Mount, maybe the most difficult of Jesus’ teaching for me to understand, let alone put into practice. He tells me that if a man presses me into service for one mile I should go with him two. Does He mean that if a man rapes and murders one of my children I should offer him another? I don’t think I could do that. Am I like the rich young man who walked away sadly because his possessions were many and dear to him? There are inspirations around. The tragedy of slaughtered Amish children in Pennsylvania last year comes to mind. When the community reacted by reaching out to the family of the murderer in the spirit of Christian love they offered themselves as models for us all. I might be able to do that much. I hope never to be tested. I’m not even sure it is always a good idea; witness the perverse incentive of modern suicide assassins who expect rewards for their families in return for their own martyrdom. Our homilist this morning invoked the image of September 11th and wondered aloud if a more generous response might have served us better than the one we chose. He didn’t offer an answer, just the question, and the observation that sometimes the unexpected kindly response can turn away even the greatest wrath. It’s a good question and not an idle one. It’s the sort that makes me think. In all of history I can recall only two pacifist movements that achieved major political success, Mahatma Gandhi’s Indian Independence movement in the 1940s and Martin Luther King’s American Civil Rights Movement twenty years later. Nelson Mandela’s anti-apartheid campaign might also qualify. Now don’t get me wrong. The messages of Jesus and His Apostle Paul were profoundly peaceful but I don’t consider theirs a political cause and neither had the effect of turning away much wrath at the time. Gandhi, King, and Mandela were special cases. They faced adversaries much more powerful than they but their opponents could be and in the end were influenced by societies who were ready to listen to their grievances. In that way they were the opposite of us today. We face a far weaker enemy who resorts to terrorism as a tactic because they have no more effective weapon of force to use. But still, are there better ways to employ peaceful measures in this Long War we find ourselves embroiled in? I don’t mean just humanitarian efforts like aid to the victims of last year’s Indonesian tsunami, or rebuilding schools and hospitals in Iraq, though we certainly have moral obligations to do all of those things. I mean genuine efforts to reach out to those who hate us most. We do have far greater resources than they. Can we look past the vituperative, try to understand and do something about legitimate concerns? I don’t suggest appeasement as some would. I can’t believe Jesus meant for us to abandon our friends to their fate in time of danger. But it seems to me there are many things we could and should do without any expectation of gratitude, not as a reward for good behavior, maybe not even in our own enlightened self interest, but because they are the right things to do. Shouldn’t we trade with our enemies when it benefits the needy, even if it also aids those who wish us ill? Shouldn’t we welcome students into our universities who come from countries where anti-American sentiment is strong? Some of them might use the knowledge in attempts to harm us but shouldn’t we try? We can take reasonable precautions without shutting ourselves off from those who need us can’t we? What else should we be doing?