The guy who got punched was pretty foolish. He was talking to a man who was brave enough to be flung 250,000 miles up into space and land on the moon in a flimsy contraption (with only sixteen seconds of fuel left).

The moon-landing-was-faked conspiracy theorists are just silly people.

I wrote a note to the manager of our "Christian" radio station complaining about his broadcasting of Jim Zilonka of "Cultivate Ministries" claiming the Moon landing was a fraud. The manager was unaware that he was broadcasting a nutter over the airwaves. I guess these guys don't have any sense of responsibility at all.

I think that if anyone could "respond to such people with Christian love" it would be you, Bill.

Cool side note: Buzz Aldrin is the first man to take communion on the moon.

He's also from a generation where being called a coward was usually (rightly or wrongly) met with a punch in the face.

that's gotta hurt too....... 'cause I'm thinkin' Buzz Aldrin is likely "old man strong"

Buzz has also had to deal with this rubbish for 40 years. I'm sure it would grow a bit thin after a while.

So when is it appropriate to be the one delivering it to the "other cheek"?

Based on the Sermon on the mount, even if you take the interp that the turn the other cheek thing is about not retaliating to insults (I think it goes beyond that, but that's just me) it's hard to justify Aldrin punching this guy.

Here's a little background:

Most astronauts have refused to grant him interviews due to his questionable tactics used in attempts to obtain footage of them as he challenges them that the moon landings were a hoax. He approaches all three astronauts of Apollo 11 at different times and also interviews Eugene Cernan, Alan Bean, Alfred Worden and John Young. In each case, the astronauts are dismayed that the nature of the interview and each ends the interview shortly after Sibrel challenges them about the authenticity of the NASA footage. Where some interviews are in the astronauts homes, others are at public appearances and in the case of Michael Collins, the setting is outside of a supermarket.

The most infamous incident involved Apollo 11 crew member Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon. According to Aldrin, he was lured to a Beverly Hills hotel under the pretext of an interview on space for a Japanese children's television show. When he arrived, Aldrin claims Sibrel was there demanding that he swear on a Bible that he had walked on the moon. When Aldrin refused, Sibrel called him a coward, a liar, and a thief (although 'thief' was somewhat muffled by Aldrin's fist).[1] Aldrin punched Sibrel in the jaw and the incident was captured on video. Sibrel later attempted to use the tape to convince police and prosecutors that he was the victim of an assault. However, it was decided that Aldrin had been provoked, and did not actually injure Sibrel, and so no charges were filed but the incident was covered in the media.

Coincedentally, I picked up a biography of Neil Armstrong this past weekend and found that story related there. A few days after this, and the LAPD's laudatory decision to not press charges against Aldrin, this same guy was stalking Neil Armstrong and his family at his own home. What a winner this guy is.

I don't think Aldrin was in any danger. I know it's a hard teaching, but I'm not comfortable with the list of exceptions that always come with it.

My flesh is glad Aldrin punched this jerk. I would want to do the same thing. It doesn't make it right.

(I do agree that if there was real danger - such as if they were alone in an alley or something - the punch makes sense).

Also, at least from the video, it doesn't appear to me that Aldrin punched the guy to defend himself or his stepdaughter (I realize he says he did). I just think he was extremely offended that the guy called him a coward and he took vengeance on the guy.

Punching this guy actually increased the danger of something bad happening. It's not like Aldrin laid him out or anything (all the punch did was make him take a few steps back). If this guy was nuts, he might have pulled a gun or something.

I guess my point (or maybe it's a hobbyhorse :-) - I'm all over the defense of others, and possibly even self defense (maybe) being allowable in light of the turn the other cheek command. But in this case it looks like a clear instance of a punch delivered in retaliation for an insult.

John Eldredge probably thinks I'm a girly-man for saying so . . .

I am very comfortable with the exception when the defense of others is necessary. Most other exceptions I've heard talked about seem to me to be watering down the teaching.

And, as I said, in this case I don't think that Aldrin was justified. Doesn't mean I'm not glad he did it, but I'm a sinner who likes to see retaliation happen and is more comfortable with justice than I am with grace.

I am very comfortable with the exception when the defense of others is necessary.

So if you're a soldier, you shouldn't shoot back at someone shooting at you, only if they're shooting at your comrade.

And anyone attacked while alone, be it myself or my wife, should not defend. Would you instruct your wife or daughters in this? Don't defend yourself?

Wouldn't it be an act of grace to prevent someone from committing murder or assault?

Just asking.

I don't know.

I'm open to it for self-defense as well. I just think our sinful hearts jump to "I need to defend myself here" too quickly. For instance, getting back to this post - do you really believe Aldrin was defending himself here? I think it's clear that he was insulted and took retribution on the guy. I'm glad he did it, but that's because I'm sinful.

On a side note: the talk about a soldier in war isn't applicable to this. That is the government wielding the sword and I don't believe it's covered in the turn the other cheek passage. If we're to go down that line of debate, I'll just concede now, because I don't think that will be fruitful.

Finally - I've never seen anyone turn the other cheek physically, and rarely when it came to personal insult, so as far as I'm concerned this is academic.

We suck at following the sermon on the mount.

Here's something I say with great trepidation, and I think it with great trepidation too. I mean, I figure God is going to get me if I follow this line of thought too far, but still, this is how I see things, and it has really been bothering me for some time now, for various reasons:

I think an awful lot of outright abuse is suffered because people are told in church to always be forgiving, to always offer the other cheek, to love your enemies, and so on. There are all kinds of wives and children -- and alot more husbands than we suspect -- taking it on the chin figuratively and literally every day of their lives because some preacher told them, "Oh no. Hitting back, yelling back, giving up on the relationship, is wrong."

Aldrin's actions frankly went against everything I see in the New Testament. But in my heart of hearts, I can't help it, I loved it. There. I said it. Lord, help me.

There's a lot of abuse suffered outside the church that have nothing to do with the "turn the other cheek" command.

Yes, but that's not what my comment was about.

There are many psychological reasons people can't stand up to their abusers.

Yes. And I hypothesize that one significant reason among other is precisely that their real or perceived spiritual authorities have taught them not to.

Some of those people are churched, and the church has to reach out to them and stand up to that kind of abuse.

Yes. But I hear alot of churches preaching on forgiveness and turning the other cheek. I see some efforts on the part of churches to help abused spouses and children "escape," which is laudable as far as it goes. I have never seen a church do what I would call "reaching out and standing up to abuse." I have heard of a church telling an abused wife that it was immoral for her to leave her husband, BTW.

But there are many outside the church who suffer the same thing ...

But might it be that in the church, alot of abuse occurs because people are taught that they can't stand up for themselves?

... which is why I don't think this can be pinned on teaching the Sermon on the Mount too much.

I'm not trying to "pin" anything on the SotM. Running out of time here, but I think I've made my point clear.

I hope I haven't offended you. I had some quibbles with what you said, but I wasn't attacking you personally.

OK, thanks Andrew. I'll calm down now. As you may have gathered from what I wrote, I, myself have quibbles with what I wrote. Was wondering what other perspectives there might be out there.

But might it be that ... alot of abuse occurs because people are taught that they can't stand up for themselves?

It might, but I don't think it is in most cases.

OK, we're clearly disagreeing here, but at least we've made contact. (Speaking of making contact, touchdown for the lunar lander over at WeChooseTheMoon.org is only twenty minutes away!) I said what I said because some things I have seen within the past several years lead me to believe that this precisely is the case. Of course, your experience is not mine and vice versa, but I'm wondering what other folks have seen along this line.

If two stories are near identical except for the fact that one victim is churched and the other isn't, why would we assume that the reason victim A is suffering can be directly attributed to the teaching she hears at church?

Again, no assumptions on my part. I really think I have seen this very thing happen.

I only meant to say that teaching Grace and forgiveness in church is necessary ...

Yep.

... and frankly, most churches don't do it enough.

I think we're kind of "multiple personality" about it. No, we should never show grace to godless liberals and people who go trick-or-treating at Halloween!!!! But the husband (Or wife!) who's slapping you around, the bully at school who's driving you to swinging from the end of a rope, no, you shouldn't ever stand up for yourself with them. That's just wrong. Or at least, that's what I hear in churches. (One big exception here is the Word of Faith crowd, with their, "They can't do that to me! I'm a child of God!" attitude. But I take it for granted that everyone reading this blog knows those people are whack jobs. Hmmm, maybe I could have been a bit more gracious there, myself.)

And Grace does not mean allowing yourself to be abused ...

Glad to hear you say this. But I think the logical implication of most pulpit and Sunday School teaching is the exact opposite.

Again, I didn't mean to appear combative, and I hope you took no offense.

Yep, we're cool. Sorry for the itchy trigger finger.

Andrew and Bob - good conversation. Thanks

Bob - I missed the landing because I had a meeting at work. I'm in the grieving process now . . .

Jared - you wrote: Everyone adds an exception (or two) was my point.

I agree. My point is that it's rare to find someone who can give a concrete example of when this passage applies.

Can you do that for me?

I wasn't judging Aldrin (who, as I mentioned on another thread, a Christian or at least took the sacrament of communion on the moon). We all (myself included) applauded what he did here. I just don't think I'm right to applaud it.

For me, Aldrin's response here would have been considered a basic example where turning the other cheek would have been warranted. I would think that this is one we would all agree on. He was insulted. He retaliated when he shouldn't have*. But I get the sense that in this case there's an exception (after all, his step-daughter was with him).

So many exceptions:

The teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, or at least the principles therein, has caused people to endure abuse when they shouldn't. People need to stand up for themselves.

Men's ministries openly teach the opposite of turning the other cheek (read WAH some time for some examples).

Self defense is a permissible exception to the turn the other cheek teaching.

As is defending others**

If punching someone might prevent them from committing a greater sin, that also is permissible.

From my view, we've pretty much ruled out every concrete example where a turning of the other cheek would be commanded. And even if we agree that it only relates to retaliation related to an insult, what's with all the applause for Aldrin's action?

Can you give me a concrete example of when one is to turn the other cheek?



* OK, maybe I am judging him

** (full disclosure: I agree with this one but don't think it's related at all to the teaching, since it's not our cheek that's been struck).

I know this is you and Jared's thing, but I'm going to butt in real quick.

I think someone needs to distinguish between self-defense and retaliation. Retaliation has revenge as a motive ("he insulted me/punched me/shoved me, so I'm going to take a swing"), while self-defense is motivated only by the idea of preserving your own safety. I think the Bible makes it clear we aren't to take revenge of any kind. It's not our job to try and balance the scales. If a dude slaps me, I don't have a right to slap him back. If he starts wailing on me, I have a right to do what it takes to get him off me, but I don't have a right to jump on top of him and knock all his teeth out for the sake of teaching him a lesson. As with most of the ethical commands of Christ, the heart is the most important part.

Game on!

Jared and Andrew

Thanks. I do think that the difference between self-defense and retaliation may be significant. I'm chewing on this, but well-said by both of you.

I think, in general, my concern boils down to mainly this: most of the time when a discussion gets into the Sermon, and particularly the turn the other cheek teaching, everything devolves into "well, He couldn't have meant that, because that's impossible. What would you do in this situation A, or this situation B, or . . . ?"

I'm just not sure that the human possibility of following that teaching has bearing on whether it's true or not. I think your contention, Jared, that we bounce it against other scriptures is refreshing when it comes to this topic.

Finally - OK, all this being said and to continue beating a dead horse get back to the main post: do you think, if you were in Aldrin's position, you would be justified in punching this guy and why?

No, because he's my neighbor.

Awesome.

I can't say I applauded him punching the guy. I can say there was a moment where I had a visceral HECK YEAH moment, but if I were in his shoes I wouldn't have punched the man and his punching him was in no way justifiable.

If a man challenges you/calls you a coward then hitting him doesn't disprove that. Asking the accuser what courageous thing he's done might be a better approach.