Inadvertent

Neither Gandhi nor Martin Luther King were accidental in their commitment to non-violence. Each of them, publicly and privately, acknowledged that his choice of this method of resistance was intentional. It would only work in a society with a free press, basic humanity and a democratically elected government. When British soldiers killed unarmed Indian protesters, it was reported to a morally outraged British public who demanded reform of the nation's colonial policies. Failure to comply with the demands threatened the ongoing viability of the party in power.

Fire hoses and attack dogs did more to advance the Civil Rights movement in this country than MLK's eloquence. Injustice to a defenseless crowd of peaceful demonstrators activated a sensitive television audience more than history or rhetoric ever could, and sweeping legislation gave civil rights to blacks, women and perhaps, in the future, gay Americans.

The fact that non-violence was pragmatically chosen does not invalidate its morality. Jesus is absolute about turning the other cheek. He is not trying to evoke some response in doing this. Non-violence is for the cameras and the jungles; reported by the JERUSALEM NEWS or secretly practiced in the bowels of the Soviet gulag; never to gain support; always to gain God's presence.

Christians tend to have big agendas - the greatest being to win others to Christ. But if you can't turn the other cheek, what are you winning people TO? If Jesus can't change you once He owns you, why should He own anyone else? And if you don't want to be owned and do the things asked of you - in the spotlight and in blackness - why continue under an inappropriate description? Being a Christian involves knowing the way and trying to walk it. Lacking either of these two things, all you can ever be is inadvertent, a random flicker in a world that needs floodlights.