The book talks a lot about how Jesus' methods of doing things were completely different from anything else - that his "kingdom's" focus was far different that any others. Specifically his reactions to injustice and violence. The book argues that Christ's method was neither passive nor vengeful, but an alternative "third way". The authors point to Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount and the idea of "turning the other cheek" (Matt. 5:38-42):
"When hit on the cheek, turn and look the person in the eye (v. 39). In the orderly Jewish culture, a person would hit someone only with the right hand. In some Jewish communities, if you hit someone with the left hand, you could be banished for ten days. So a person would have to use a back slap to hit someone on the right cheek with the right hand. It's clear that Jesus described a backhand, like an abusive husband to a wife or a master to a slave. It was slap to insult, degrade, and humiliate, a slap meant not for an equal but for an inferior, to put someone in their place. But by turning the cheek, the other person said, 'I am a human being, made in the image of God, and you cannot destroy that.' Do not cower and do not punch back. Make sure the person looks into your eyes and sees your sacred humanity , and it will become increasingly harder for that person to hurt you." (Claiborne & Haw, pgs. 92-93)
It seems to me that most of the interpretation regarding this Scripture centers on meekly submitting to the assailant and allowing God to have His justice rather than you fighting back or seeking vengeance on your own. Claiborne and Haw's take on the passage is entirely different - there is a powerful dignity and boldness to be found within the victim's reaction. It is as though they are actively fighting back without violence and not simply allowing themselves to be passively tread upon.
This idea really struck me and i think it is a good lesson for the church as a whole. Especially within the culture, I think Christians have a tendency to stoop to either violence or passivity and fail to go that "third way". Often we either passively wait as culture passes us by and we are rendered totally irrelevant or we over-aggressively attack it back and completely alienate the people around us.
A specific example that comes to mind for me is the homosexual marriage debate. Obviously many Christians are very outspoken against anything having to do with homosexuals. There is a whole bunch of homophobia and aggressive verbal attacking that goes on from people claiming Christ. On the other end of the spectrum, there are the more "PC" Christians who, embarrassed by their more conservative brethren, are highly passive and willing to give into the marriage thing so that people aren't offended and turned away from the Gospel. I definitely fall more on the "PC" side of things, but as I've thought about it more and been confronted with this "third way" stuff, the more I believe that there is a way for traditional, God-ordained marriage to "turn its cheek" and show that it is sacred and created by God and that it is OK to stand up for marriage and kids having a normal mom and dad. It is also OK to offend some people (there are good and bad ways to do it) because the Gospel is offensive and Jesus was offensive - but He spoke the truth and stood up for the truth and he did it without being passive or violent.
Honestly, I don't know what taking the "third way" looks like in this particular situation (and many other situations) and it is oftentimes scary, but it is something that I'm going to try to work on.