The other cheek

I have never understood why one person might attack another for an opinion expressed. I guess I have spent too much time in the academic world where debate is expected. Usually sides of a linguistic issue are debated, then people see evidence of both examples/counter-examples. At the end of the discussion, no one is expected to change sides. Anyone listening can weigh for themselves what the evidence is and choose to remain neutral, bring up further examples or counter-examples, side with one view or another, or be indifferent to the whole discussion. Rarely have I encountered vehemence, passion for one's view yes, but rarely vehemence with a fair amount of venom spit my way in such debates.

So, when the spit venom happens, it usually takes me off-guard. Also, usually when it happens it is rarely about the topic under discussion because I am prepared to argue the case for a position and concede the evidence given in the counter-examples or account for the counter-examples within the scope of the linguistic theory being offered. What takes me off-guard, then, is the resulting personal attack or the judgmental condescension of a person on the other side when the evidence stage of discussion is ended. What takes me completely off-guard is when a person does not engage in the debate at all, but takes the judgmental condescension/personal attack route first, without engaging in theoretical discourse at all.

Such an experience I offer to the one who can make all things work together for good. I follow the route the Master Teacher suggested, "If someone strikes your right cheek, turn the other to him also." The debate takes second chair. The lesson the Master Teacher wants seen is primary. More lives are touched by memory of a scene than by tenets in a debate. Actions over words any day of the week. Especially actions recommended by the Son of God. It is my offering. So be it.