Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer and you may be thrown into prison. (Matt 5:25)

The recent primary victory of Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock underlined the theme of “principled” leadership, a recognizable message of the Tea Party movement (New York Times, May 9, 2012).  While “principles” are sorely needed in federal politics, they are frequently a code word for recalcitrance and irresponsibility. Sometimes we refer to those who act from inflexible principles as “radicals” or “terrorists.”

I remember the 1970’s as defined by principles. You either favored peace or war, love or hate, freedom or repression. “Radical” was often used positively, as someone who wanted to change what was wrong with society. We acted on principles by marching, sitting in, or impeding traffic.  And we often had positive outcomes: the end of the Vietnam War, Civil Rights legislation, the exposure of Watergate.

But the radicals of the 1970’s were assimilated into government, institutions of social reform, even into churches.  They realized that they could change institutions from within and by negotiation, instead of by naked resistance. “Reformer” became the preferred term for “radical.”

The Tea Party represents contemporary radicalism, along with the “Occupy” movement. The difference is that the Tea Party wants to radicalize from within. They assume they can jam the cogs of government by their intractability.  They operate on pledges and vows that make their representatives pawns of their principles.  This is probably not what the Founders had in mind for a government of checks and balances. It is probably not what Jesus had in mind when he exhorted his followers to honor the principles of the law.

The fifth chapter of Matthew, the Beatitudes,  is all about reconciliation with enemies, reconciliation with spiritual brothers and sisters, reconciliation with the adversary taking you to court. The whole notion of “settling out of court,” which is advocated by Matthew 5:25, should be of particular interest to those who think our society is too litigious.

But Jesus was not merely concerned with short-circuiting the justice system, he was interested in reconciliation, bringing foes together, dissolving feuds.  And it is in this teaching that he undermines radicalism as we know it. He wants parties to be reconciled and to work together. He wants compromise and forgiveness.

I don’t like Christians who challenge my morality on the basis of partial reading of scripture, so I don’t wish to force my reading on others. But I see the Beatitudes as a central message of the Gospels, and the theme of reconciliation as the essence of Jesus’ teaching, and I think radicals ought to consider it, along with the notion of principle.  “Principle” can be suffocating and polarizing to mutual destruction.

The “judge” in Matthew 5:25 could be the Judge of all. The Gospels are suffused with stories of unforgiving masters and ruthless judges, whom God will not forgive.  Radicalism, while admirable in those who sacrifice their livelihood for their beliefs, can also destroy those who are trying to lead and mediate. A “principled”  stand can be alienating and deadly.

So judge carefully whether what you call “principle” is merely “recalcitrance” and ruthless opposition.