According to the concepts of many faiths, the suggestion of turning the other cheek to your enemy is the focus in maintaining peace. It means allowing offensive behavior to persist in spite of how it affects a person or group. In Christian scripture, Matthew chapter 5:39, King James Version, Christ teaches, “…That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” So the question of many is, “but what if I run out of cheeks?”

The phrase, turn the other cheek holds various meanings and is construed in various degrees. In truth the phrase is giving reference to maintaining peace but there has been conflict as to the meaning and to the extent one must struggle through in order to keep relations calm. Turning the other cheek implies that although there is likelihood of further abuse, one remains calm and peaceful.

There is the common view that one must remain peaceful no matter what brutality is afflicted. Turn the other cheek then the other then the other and the other. This was the mindset of many in the civil rights struggle in the United States during the 1960’s. Marching under the leadership of the honorable late Doctor Martin L. King Jr. who studied the teachings of both Jesus Christ and Mahatma Gandhi, people believed in their peaceful resistance to abuse, terrorism, and murder. They relied on guidance from a heavenly source for patience and for strength to take such treatment, activists created a peaceful resolution. 

 Later in the in the 60’s and the 70’s the hippie movement took on principles common to Gandhi’s teaching and that of many gurus throughout the world. Calling for peace and freedom of expression in one form or another. These are the mindsets that brought people together in protest against war and corruption in government. These are the people who began fighting violence against man, animals, and the environment.

Those who fought peaceably and for the cause of peace in the 1960’s and 1970’s are called pacifists. They are sometimes depicted as a bit nuts, naïve or delusional because their efforts seem to be directed toward a goal so far fetched. Still, these activists must not be confused with cowards afraid to fight. More often than not, they put themselves in great danger for the cause of peace.

One conclusion that developed from these eras is there is a time for turning the other cheek. Even the referenced biblical scripture has been interpreted as such, giving reference to Jesus Christ’s own acts of force. The book of John, the King James Version of the Bible, chapter 2:14 -15 explains that people were in a temple in Capernaum exchanging money when Christ went in and completely wrecked the place later deciding that the temple was unfit to remain standing. From this, the idea of turning the other cheek may seem contradictory. Yet, others have concluded that this is exemplary of the fact that there is a time and place when it is best to avoid confrontation and a time when confrontation is absolutely necessary.

 Pacifism and just cause ideologies are not the only interpretations dictating just what it means to maintain peace.  Radical views essentially command people to fight in order to have peace. War is encouraged as a way to obtain peace. Within religion warfare is a directive from a particular god or group of gods justified as vengeance or persuasion toward faith in this particular deity.

 Yet as individuals, people attempt to determine how the phrase turn the other cheek applies personally. In marriage, for example, two completely different individuals join forces in an endeavor to develop a life together, share finances, raise a family, and become better because of one another. But coming from completely separate backgrounds with different family structures and family histories and traditions, what is common sense to one spouse may not be so common to the other. These differences will eventually come to light at the most inopportune moment causing either warfare of calling for patience.

It is at these moments when the individual must decide whether it is right to turn the other cheek or voice their concerns. If a husband finds it humorous to jest about his wife’s snoring, yet the matter is extremely personal to the wife, does she speak up or since it is not major offense, does she keep quiet for peace’s sake. Likewise, if the wife speaks up and in the midst of her objection she criticizes the husband’s low paying career choice, does he in turn retaliate in his own defense?

 It has been my experience that turning the other cheek is a major responsibility. Whether fueled by religious, global, or personal perspectives, one should be advised, that it is individual and societal judgments that dictate what this phrase means at any given moment.

 In personal matters, it is best to first decide what is important before resolving to let all things offensive slide.  For the sake of marriage, family, or friendship some things that happen will be inadvertently offensive. When this is the case, one must assess whether the breach is due to negligence or ignorance. When it is concluded that the offense is ignorance based then one must begin to inform his or her loved one about his or her expectations and values. Ignorance can cause damage simply because of miscommunication and varying outlooks. Communication in this instance is key to reaching conclusions that would otherwise be left in ambiguity. In the situation where negligence is the agent of which an offense is made, one may decide to communicate or, if it is rare that a violation occurs, let it rest, as a simple mistake, misnomer, or poor choice not intended to harm. This is one method of turning the other cheek.

But, the idea is a bit contradictory because one will not expect to be offended again in the same manner by someone acting mistakenly. Letting things rest should not be confused with the idea of not communicating or holding things in. When a person decides it best to not speak up about something he or she must show by example what is expected using moments most consummate to explain expectations. However, in any case inadvertent umbrage is best handled when approached with gentle verbal open communication.

 At other times attacks are implemented intentionally. It is necessary to confront these issues toe to toe. This is called nipping it in the bud. When things are nipped in the bud, it often leaves room for peace. The offender knows upfront where the limits are when it comes to his or her behavior in relative to a person or a group. Turning the other cheek is not an acceptable excuse when this is the case unless it is a method used strategically to eventually bring your position into perspective. When turning the other cheek to your enemy on this front, certain offenses may be aloud to go unchecked as pawns are allowed to be taken in the game chess.  It is a defensive strategy and not a cowardly attempt at not getting into trouble.

 All too often people are abused under the impression that they are abiding by religious or moral standards that require them to turn the other cheek. It is important to hold on to these values because moral tradition is tried and true. However, the idealization and mythification of actions in the past suppress the true intent of the behaviors of heroic members of humanity in our history. This allows true history to be forgotten or seen as some impossible annexation never to be realized by the mere mortals of modern society. Turning the cheek in all situations in order to avoid conflict is neither logical nor realistic. However, if done with the proper intuition and approach the turning the other cheek concept is definitely a tool, which can prevent conflict for the future.