The rain
will pack
the old dirt down.
There is no such thing
as fresh soil
however many
years they toil.
A Collection of Strangers, “Dust to Dust,” by Summer Collins
Again I saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun. And behold, the tears of the oppressed, and they had no one to comfort them! On the side of their oprressors there was power, and there was no one to comfort them. and I thought the dead who are already dead more fortunate than the living who are still alive. But better than Both is he who has not yet been and has not seen the evil deeds that are done under the sun.”
Ecclesiastes 4:1-3
One v one me, bro!
Any Xboxing 12 year old at some point in his career
I was tempted to go and finish my final essay for my Religion class that was due about 27 months ago (a story for another time) but felt as though I would have more fun doing this.
I made a post today (March 2nd as I’m starting this) where I made the comment of how one should not treat others how they have been treated, but how they would want to be treated. I was tempted to just leave it at that, along with the piping hot tea emoji and boxes of teas in the background, but I decided to do a hashtag instead, because who actually uses them unironically, right? I put “#titfortatis” and two results popped up. The one being #titfortatischildish, which I used because it matches my opinion on the idea. The other, which was right beside it, was #titfortatisfairplay. I had work to do, so I didn’t bother to look into the hashtag (like I actually follow any hashtags), but the phrase kept in my mind.
In the world we exist in which civilization has existed for a few thousand years—note I said civilization, not creation or mankind, that is a post for another day—tit-for-tat has been the basis for general fairness. Hammurabi’s Code, the four thousand-year-old preserved written law from Babylon, has the idea of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. That is the basis of tit-for-tat: retribution.
A brief explanation of tit-for-tat: in a situation in which two parties are in relationship with one another, each will act in turn how the other acts. In the case of a handshake, if a hand is extended, the other offers his hand and they shake—positive-positive. Now, let’s say that the first party extends his hand and the other party decides to slap this hand—positive-negative. According to the strategy of tit for tat, the original party should slap the, now opposing, party’s hand—negative-negative. This slapping continues until the original slapper extends his hand again in peace, in which case the hand extends once more.
This idea appeals to all rational minds. Everyone is treated how they treat others. Problem solved! Israel and Palestine, everything’s good now, go back to your corners! Russia and Ukraine, you guys are fine! Just extend hands and forget the last couple years happened.
Wait… that’s not happening?… the violence is still going on?… tit-for-tat is flawed due to the reality that it can only truly work when both parties are on equal footing and doesn’t take into account escalations of violence resulting in a feedback loop?… it also doesn’t take into account biases of past experiences, the emotional spectrum, and various other illogical consistencies that summarize what it means to be human?… and in application people only seem to consider tit-for-tat more when they seek retribution and revenge, not with gifts and blessings?… well damn, that sucks.
And yet, who can talk down on tit-for-tat? We’ve all done it. It might not have been an initial reaction. Some of us might keep getting bullied and degraded by the same party over and over again. I’m not going to try and argue that the opposing party doesn’t know what they are doing. Sometimes that’s the case, but people seem to have the habit of continuing to do something when they know they can get away with it. Sometimes there’s a rationalization: “Oh, they think it’s funny, it’s just a joke hahaha.” Or, “they just need to grow some thicker skin.” Or, and we’ve all heard this one before, “I don’t see what the big deal is.”
Apathy: the ultimate flaw and the ultimate fuel of tit-for-tat.
It’s very easy for a bystander to support tit-for-tat. It’s even easier if you are a friend of the two parties and want to see them get along: you love both of them. However, in the midst of conflict, especially after a prolonged period of abuse and injustice, even is sometimes not the answer. This doesn’t even go into the idea of what is considered “even.”
To use an example in notable history, after the Holocaust a group named the Nakam (Hebrew for “revenge”) sought for the death of six million Germans to pay for the lives of the Jews who were slaughtered. Abba Kovner, the leader of the fifty man organization, was seeking what Dina Povet, a scholar on the radical, used the phrase “a nation for a nation.”
Like many of you, there’s a discomfort that comes with the Nakem group. Tit-for-tat was the fuel and fire of their campaign (which was thankfully unsuccessful as they tried to poison water mains), and, like the Nazis, they didn’t care if you were mother, father, child, son, daughter, saint, or sinner. If you were German, you were a fair target.
When we hear about the Nazi’s mass killings the feeling is one of disgust. It is the example used of the evil that humanity is capable of. And yet, with the Nakem, we don’t feel disgust. Our discomfort comes from the idea that we get why they want to do what they do. The reason we are not on board is because we know that won’t fix anything. Six million Jews will not come back if the Nakem were to enact their plan, but 12 million humans, born of mothers and vulnerable to the tearing of flesh, would be dead.
I use the example of Nakem to irritate the subtle feeling that tit-for-tat gives all of us on an individual level. That trace of a tension, that iota of itching, is the awareness that when the day ends and the sun is gone, tit-for-tat does not work. The morning sun will rise, sure, but it may be shining on soil with more blood than the day previous. Tit-for-tat’s only success is keeping the world and its people in the uncomfortable reality that the broken system that we have made for ourselves will continue to be broken as long as everyone plays their parts.
And yet, throughout history we can see astounding light from archetypal individuals who saw that the law of nature that tit-for-tat represents was not the way for things to get better. Those who recognized that the way to beat the system of tit-for-tat was not to fall into the cycle or to step out of the cycle and drift away from humanity, but to act as a force that goes against the system of retribution and slow the vortex’s of human violence with peace and love. This group of people who I call Buffers. Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Ghandi, Billy Graham, John Lewis, and Mary Teresa Bojaxhiu ie Mother Teresa are some of the last century’s Buffers who recognized that the only way to help heal the world was through an idea explicitly stated in the book of Titus, “Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say,” and empowered and delegated through spirit of the Second Greatest Commandment, “Love others as much as you love yourself.” And all these people I have listed recognized that the One who said this was on to something. So much so that they saturated their lives through this idea, having great masses following them to enact change in the world through it. Though not a Christian himself, Ghandi could say nothing negative of Christ’s teachings… only that his followers were nothing to write home about, to put it nicely.
And I’m sure of the people who read this no one can say that they fully disagree with the idea of the loving their neighbor as themself. And I’m also sure to bet there is a quick “but” that follows this slight head nod, in that there is no confusion that their disagreement outweighs their agreement:
“But you don’t know ___ and what they’ve done.”
“But you don’t understand what ___ feels like.”
“But this idea has not been working, look at what ____ did ____.”
I don’t mean to say I do not believe in a world without punishment. I mean to say that our motivation on seeking and receiving consequence needs to change for the world to be better. Retribution and revenge is the language of tit-for tat; justice and mercy is the pulse that carries love and change that is found in the heartbeat of Redemption and He who gives it. Throughout the last decades of our global history, the sound of justice has penetrated ears and minds so powerfully that many folks have either chosen to be deaf or hypersensitive. Some will claim that no justice is needed, look at all our peace; some may reject peace, calling us to look at what we try and pass as justice.
I could quote the entirety of C.S Lewis’ essay “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment”on the subject of justice and mercy, but I’ll try my hand at the quote which will make uncomfortable both those who hunger and thirst for justice and those who fear mercy will not come: “To punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal.” And I’ll go a step further than Lewis. In a world in which Justice is perfect and mercy is overflowing, the criminal will humbly approach the victim of their crime themself, fully aware of their actions and its consequence, and filled with guilt—not shame, but guilt—asking that they may do what they can to make things right. The victim, in full right to ask of what is needed to be make things right, will ask for less. They need not go so far as to set the criminal completely off the hook, because what kind of deterrent would that be? Instead they will see that in complement with the criminal’s humility and recognition, love and mercy will help grow not only the one on his knees asking for forgiveness, but to those touched whenever he stands in the freedom of forgiveness and mercy.
We needn’t be scared of punishment in a perfect world; and we oughtn’t to be frustrated through mercy. And to those who say that this is not a perfect world, I ask then to what are we aiming? Are we rehearsing that we may not curse at the driver who cuts us off just so that missiles may barrage citizens in the East? And should every war end in ceasefire at high noon tomorrow, who is to say that the everyday actions of all the common folk would not have another raging by dinner?
I say this because we will not experience a perfect world, but what is to stop us from living our lives as if we did? What is to stop us from holding those we love accountable to their actions and having those we wish not to see a feeling of peace when they step away from us? Michelangelo did not take a chisel to a piece of marble and smash as hard as he could indiscriminately to burn off a little steam. Over the course of three years, he appropriately applied more pressure to the edges that were harder, and mindful of the edges which needed only a light polish, so that he made something beautiful. Though the marble resisted, though it may have cracked under little pressure and stayed like a rock under greater, it slowly passed away to the artists design: accepting both what was meant to be stripped away and what was designed to remain.
I have experienced this from the perspective of the statue. Though I felt I was pretty altogether, there are those in my life have seen a sharp edge that needed to be smashed away. I have lived with those men and I am grateful for them. They saw immaturity in my humor and preciously chiseled so that I may have humor that uplifts. They saw an inconsiderate intellect and took a sharp tink to the heart of the issue, hurting for a moment, but then polishing and sanding to ensure that a slow and steady tongue would remain.
As we go along the paths of this world, take into consideration the words of Alphonse Elric, who existed in the fictional world where alchemy exists and the law of the land is that, to obtain, something of equal value must be lost, proposed this idea at the end of the journey for his body:
Alphonse: “We feel like it’s our turn to repay the happiness that’s been given to us.”
Miss Hughes: “Isn’t that like what the alchemists believe? Equivalent exchange?”
Alphonse: “It’s equivalent if you take ten and then you give ten back… but if you take ten and add something of yourself… you return eleven. It’s not much, but it’s an all new principle we are trying to establish. And now we just have to go out and prove that it actually works.”
Al doesn’t know if this idea will work, but after all that he’s seen and the way in which the law of equivalent exchange has ravished his world with blood, violence, and genocide, he is willing to sacrifice a little bit of himself with every interaction in order to offset the ineffective Natural Law of his world. I believe that when one is blessed, they should bless others, not as a gift, but as the natural response to that blessing. For this blessing was not mine at first, so what right do I have to not pass it around. In kindergarten, did we all not get a chance to touch Jimmy’s model plane when he brought it in for show-and-tell? Did we not treat it with care, happy that we just got a chance to touch it that we didn’t have before. Sure, there was the kid that cried that he wanted one, thinking that if he took Jimmy’s plane than he would have one, but looking back we know that that is the behavior of children. Though such things have grown in scale as we grow into adults, should we not remember the lessons of these foundational teachings? Thank Jimmy, for he gave us a chance. Let us not go out and spoil it.
As a final word, for those who cannot quench the frustration that the perfect world will never be formed in our eyes and that no matter how much of ourself we give the blood will still cry from the earth, consider this:
If we view God’s wrath as merely divine disappointment, Jesus at the cross becomes less a necessary sacrifice and just an act of humanitarianism. It is because God has a wrath that seeks to destroy genocide, sexual slavery, domestic violence, and all the things we know to be evil does he want to destroy the small, everyday part of those things inside of ourselves. He merely asks us to give a little of ourselves so that we may comfortably make the mistake of accidentally cutting off our neighbor and be forgiven, but also so that we may choose to be cut off and forgive those in front of us.
And for those who can’t make the stretch to believe in the supernatural resurrection and the entity of the Father, I ask you to consider the future of us rejecting the Natural Law of tit-for-tat on the scale of humanity. We are not looking turn the heater off, but to slowly turn it down so that we may not set our house ablaze. Let us not look to ignore evil, but treat the one who has been taken hostage by their actions as the person you needed when you were younger. Let us not brush away blessings nor keep them close-fisted, but let them increase so that curses may in turn decrease. Whether that looks like reducing expectations, having that hard conversation in a slightly softer voice, hugging the person who slapped your hand, or just taking the extra minute to clean the dish that isn’t your mess, showing the one who did it through love so that they themselves may know the beauty of cleanliness.
I speak to myself on the last one.
Now, I’ve spent four too many days on this essay. I’ve got a much longer book to write and a much shorter 27 month late essay to ignore.
In peace and love for peace and love to the One who gives peace and love,
Nic Nelson
#blessingsforblessingsisgood