{"id":7384,"date":"2020-01-29T14:33:17","date_gmt":"2020-01-29T20:33:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thedisciplemaker.org\/?p=7384"},"modified":"2020-01-29T14:33:17","modified_gmt":"2020-01-29T20:33:17","slug":"how-one-religious-idea-gave-us-integrated-lunch-counters-and-so-much-more","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.navpress.com\/sites\/thedisciplemaker\/2020\/01\/how-one-religious-idea-gave-us-integrated-lunch-counters-and-so-much-more\/","title":{"rendered":"How One Religious Idea Gave Us Integrated Lunch Counters (and so much more)"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>
This post originally appeared as part of a series by the author on MikeFrost.net<\/a>.<\/em><\/h6>\n

Sure, religious zealots have done some terrible damage throughout history, but some beautiful religious ideas have also shaped history for the better.
\nThis post is part of a series looking at some of the ways religion has changed the world. I look at how the Benedictines figured out how to make amazing beer here<\/a>, how a Calvinist preacher created a world where John Coltrane\u2019s A Love Supreme was possible here<\/a>, and how an 18th century renewal movement unleashed the abolition movement here<\/a>.
\nHere\u2019s a fourth religious idea that changed the world.<\/p>\n

The Idea: That Human Suffering Can Be Redemptive<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The idea that the suffering of one Christian can be used by God for the benefit of others is as old as the Christian movement, but one regularly ignored or forgotten by believers and nonbelievers alike.
\nChristians believe that Jesus\u2019 suffering on the cross pays the penalty for their sins, but even before his death Jesus taught his followers that their own suffering could have a redemptive power.
\nIn Matthew 5:38-39, he said,<\/p>\n

\u201cYou have heard that it was said, \u2018Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.\u2019 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It\u2019s a well known saying, but its meaning often eludes people. He wasn\u2019t commending passive\u00a0acquiescence, but something far more powerful.
\nNote that Jesus specifically refers to being slapped on the\u00a0right<\/em>\u00a0cheek. Ever wondered why he does that?
\nWell, in Jesus\u2019 time the left hand was considered \u201cunclean\u201d, or at least only fit for unclean tasks. I\u2019ll let you figure out what that means. Using your left hand, even as a gesture, carried a penalty of ten days\u2019 penance in the Qumran community.
\nSo if someone was slapped on the right cheek it would have to have been done with the back of the assailant\u2019s right hand. And a backhanded slap was always intended as an insult.
\nIf you slap someone with the back of your hand you\u2019re trying to humiliate them, to put them in their place. It was a way to admonish your inferiors. Masters backhanded their slaves; husbands slapped their wives his way; parents hit children like this; Romans backhanded Jews. In all these examples, the relationships were not considered equal. The one who was slapped, be it a slave or a child or a Jew, could\u00a0never<\/em>\u00a0retaliate.
\nSubmission was their only response.
\nThat\u2019s why Jesus\u2019 advice to offer the left cheek was so revolutionary.
\nWhen a Jew offered a Roman oppressor the left cheek they were robbing him of the power to humiliate them.\u00a0 The person who turns the other cheek is putting the assailant in a tricky situation. Should he hit his victim\u2019s other cheek? He can\u2019t backhand his victim\u2019s left cheek with his right hand (try it \u2013 it\u2019s impossible). If he hits him with his left hand he dishonors himself. If he hits him with a fist, he makes the other his equal.
\nIn other words, turning the other cheek is a way of undermining the whole idea of institutionalized inequality.
\nIt strips the oppressor\u2019s power to dehumanize the other.
\nAmerican theologian, Walter Wink said that when people followed Jesus\u2019 teaching on turning the cheek they were doing the following:<\/p>\n