My Take On 'Turning the Other Cheek.'

I recently posted this 'Grouchy Morale Booster' message: #grouchymoralebooster moment:

'Turn the other cheek' is interpreted to mean accept abuse.

My interpretation is 'turn the cheek' of your attacker by defending yourself.

No spiritual text I've read EVER said, 'Let people 'go upside your head!'

As a lifelong consumer of self-help and motivational content, I've added my spin on these themes with trademark edginess as a 'recovering grouch.'
This above message addresses a dilemma I've examined since boyhood, what does the biblical injunction to 'turn the other cheek' mean for modern self defenders?

Growing up in the American South right after the assassination of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., his nonviolent tactic was preached from pulpits and by parents throughout my region, and nationally.

I respectfully disagreed with not defending myself against aggression, a stance I maintain to this millisecond. Shhh, don't tell anyone, but I even defended myself in a high school religion class against a racist student who punched me.

Said defense isn't just theory to me. It's reality.

Nonviolence as Dr. King and his peers practiced it, modeled after Mahatma Ghadi's nonviolent defeat of the British in India, was a tactic, a heroic one, designed to highlight systemic brutality they challenged with their bodies.

Growing up shortly after such heroism, the self defense message of Malcolm X, another form of heroism, appealed more to me. It's in that direction that I lean, alongside the broader Second Amendment movement most often associated with the political right, though armed self defense collectives have risen among Black nationalists and political leftists as well.

I strive to never be the aggressor but to always respond should a physical aggressor cross my path. My advocacy urges people not to attack aggressors unless a weapon is brandished or assault is underway.

Going to jail for 'jumping the gun', i.e., striking without being struck first, isn't a worthwhile self defense goal. Most jurisdictions quickly produce handcuffs shortly after you say you hit the other person first, no matter how vile or menacing their words.

In that sense, 'turning the other cheek' as popularly understood, definitely keeps us out of trouble.

What's troubling to me is telling otherwise sane, self loving people that becoming human punching bags is somehow noble or even, godly.

I've explored major and minor spiritual texts, and that of secular systems, for a lifetime. Nowhere in this spectrum of beliefs and theories have I beheld passive acceptance of brutality as a common thread.

Nonviolence is a tactic, one which we're free to use or not use. Obviously, I argue against its use after hostile contact is made.

God, Intelligent Design, fill-in-the-blank name from your faith or philosophy, didn't designate me to be a human punching bag.
If you turn my check with a blow, I'll do the same back to you. Aggressors are not untouchable superiors.

Good people will either stand up to aggressors, within the law and their competence, or bow down as volunteer hostages or worse.

That's my take on 'turning the other cheek.'

Nadra Enzi aka Cap Black addresses 'anti safety' theory and policies through advocacy and consulting.