Written by Richard Butrick   

Consider just these three stalwarts of New Testament Christian ethics.

Renunciation of violence: "If a man strikes you on one cheek, turn the other cheek", (Luke 6:29)

Forgiveness of sins: "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us", (Matthew 6:12)

Unconditional love: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Luke 6:27-28)

It would be impossible for nations or communities or individuals to survive if these commandments/principles were strictly followed.

Individuals

Consider

Woman shot by Detroit home invaders shoots back

At about 3 a.m., the men entered the home on the 12000 block of Whitehill through a front window and a rear door. They confronted the woman and one shot her. She returned fire, and they fled on foot, Donakowski said.

It's the second time in as many days in Detroit that a woman has fired back at criminals; on Monday, a 27-year-old woman shot an attempted carjacker in the arm, police said

Did these women turn the other cheek? Forgive those who trespassed against them?

Consider

Mother of Californian woman 'shot dead at random' by illegal Mexican immigrant who had been deported FIVE TIMES condemns officials who let him stay

Is condemning forgiving? Is it not appropriate to point the finger at the lax policy enforcement involved and demand accountability - demotion or what ever?

Communities

Consider

Rotherham child sexual abuse victims to take police to court

England has probably the most massive Muslim rape and prostitution problem in Europe, in large part because the British government refuses to acknowledge it. Two years ago, the British online paper The Daily Mail reported that hundreds of white British girls were groomed to be used as prostitutes, rape victims, and sex slaves by Muslim men (whom the British media refers to as “Asians”):

Police and social services have been accused of fueling a culture of silence which has allowed hundreds of young white girls to be exploited by muslim men for sex.

Is seeking out and punishing forgiving?

Consider

In riot outside synagogue, French Jews were left to protect themselves

But video footage from the violence outside highlights another reason the incident seemed to some like a watershed moment: The ferocious and unusual response to the threat by young Jewish men who pushed back the pro-Palestinian rioters.

Is it not noble to risk life and limb to protect one’s own community from mob violence?

Nations

WW1/WW2 or even the revolutionary War. Love your enemies? Nuff said.

The typical reaction to presenting examples of cases where it would be absurd to take the above stalwarts of Christian ethics literally is that everyone knows that they are not to be taken literally and that exercises like the above amount to no more than beating a dead horse. As everyone knows, these principles are meant as guidelines not absolute rules. For example, the “turn the other cheek” admonition is an admonition not to be too quick to resort to violence - violence begets violence. It is a cautionary verse reminding us that in reacting in anger we often do that which we come to regret. Reflect and use judgment. There is usually a better way than just reacting in anger.

The trouble with this defense is that it verges on triviality. One should never be too this or too that. If it is too this or too that then it is just that and thereby unwarranted. Moreover, just reacting in anger presumes there is a more intelligent way to proceed. By all means let us all be intelligent as opposed to dumb in our dealings with others.

But the “guidelines” defense invariably does just that. Namely claim that the “principles” are admonitions that are context dependent and that common sense and judgment should be used in their application. Ok. Then stop trotting them out as if they were unqualified edicts and admit that appeals to common sense and judgment are lame guidelines.

Revising the three “principles” in accordance with the guidelines approach might look something like the following:

Violence: Let us not be too quick to react in anger

Forgiveness: Let us not be too vindictive against those who trespass against us

Love: Let us not be too quick to demonize (use love instead ??) our enemies/adversaries (smart diplomacy?) that we can both act as rational agents. (ok this is a hard one to relativize).

Either the principles are absolute and stupid or relativized and lame.

False alternative? Well that depends on whether one can dig out hard principles of conduct from celebrated post WW2 writers on Christian based moral philosophy from Martin Buber (I-thou) to Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Rather than working with this or that stated principle directly from the New Testament they reconstruct a vision of Christian morality from the general thrust of the Testaments. Try this account of Bonhoeffer for openers:

The first rule of Christian ethics, according to Bonhoeffer, is that there is no such thing as Christian ethics. The knowledge of good and evil is a result of the fall, and the return to God means abandoning all our knowledge of good and evil.

This is what makes the evocation of Christian ethics so unhelpful. As Bonhoeffer puts it: “The first rule of Christian ethics, is that there is no such thing as Christian ethics“. It is perhaps better described as 'Christian Inclinations'. Those who wag their finger asking us to follow Christian ethics are in effect asking us to abandon all our hard won experience based knowledge of good and evil for a handful of biblical exaggerations of what constitutes good and bad behavior.

Christians are well-advised to bear in mind that they only have two cheeks.