Some of this blog’s readers were surprised that I quoted Jesus’ words in my July 20 post. What I was advocating with those words, though, is certainly relevant for people who are adherents of other religions—or of no religion—also. When carefully considered, many of the latter may well be implementing Jesus’ words more than most conservative evangelical Christians are.
In this post I am
thinking primarily of Jesus’ words in Luke 9:23.** Here
is the NRSV translation of that verse: “If any want to become my
followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.”
Traditionally, that important verse
has been interpreted along the following lines, and here again I am using
assistance from Claude, my A.I. “buddy.” (He/it told me in less than five
seconds what I would have written in 15 minutes or more before chatbots became
available.)
For many/most conservative evangelicals,
taking up one’s cross means “personal sacrifice or suffering endured for one’s
faith—enduring persecution, ridicule, or hardship for holding to Christian
belief and behavior (often framed around culture-war flashpoints: refusing
certain entertainment, standing firm on sexual ethics, facing mockery for
evangelizing).”
This is the “quietist or
status-quo-affirming” position. Since the cross is about internal spiritual
struggle, it is not seen as having anything directly to do with the political
world. If it does become a bit politicized, it is usually understood as bearing
social stigma for “traditional values” positions.
However, the real meaning of Jesus’
words in about taking up one’s cross is quite different.
New Testament
Christians were opposed by both religious and political powers.
The Jewish leaders saw Jesus and his followers as a threat to their religious authority,
and Caesar saw Jesus, who claimed to be Lord, and the Christians who called him
Lord as a threat to his political power. Both powers first wanted to get rid of
Jesus and then sought to eradicate his followers.
Crucifixion was one of the main forms
of capital punishment used by Rome in New Testament times. It was specifically used
for insurrectionists and rebels against Roman rule. That means of execution was
designed to be maximally public and degrading. It was usually carried out along
roadsides near cities, precisely as a deterrent against sedition.
“Pilate also had an inscription
written and put on the cross. It read, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews’”
(John 19:19).
That’s part of why the charge on Jesus’s
cross ("King of the Jews") matters—it marks him as executed for the
crime of insurrection/treason against Rome, not blasphemy.
So, what does
taking up one’s cross mean in the present day for us USAmericans? Among
other things, it means opposing the Trump “regime” and his efforts to demonize
his political opponents by calling them Communists (see this YouTube video
of his July 4 speech).
_____*
** Were these really the words of Jesus? My local Thinking Friend Phil
says that he thinks the same words in the Sermon on the Mount were Matthew’s words and not necessarily something
that Jesus said. I disagreed, saying to Phil that even though the writer of the
Gospel of Matthew may not have literally heard and written down those words
when he heard Jesus say them, I think they would have been accurately handed
down by “oral tradition,” which was very reliable in New Testament times, long
before there were printed documents to hand down.
Leroy, my comment about the sayings of Jesus was narrower and much broader than you describe in the footnote. I was narrowly focusing on Matt. 5: 21-26 about anger and murder, and broadly wondering about the effect of persecution to "water down" the Ten Commandments. I wondered if the survival instincts of early Christians tempted them to shape their oral tradition as non-threatening to the Roman Empire. And secondly, I wondered if Jesus had lived into his old age, would he have changed his mind about any of his earlier sayings? Specifically, I imagined a conversation with Jesus about 47 years of anger by Americans toward Iran: is that anger equivalent to our recent assassination of Iran's leaders and all the bombing we are currently doing?
ReplyDeleteMe: Jesus, consider the community of Iran in 1979, when ___ American hostages were held for ___ days. A lot of anger was stirred up in the community of the United States. But our leaders refrained from a murderous campaign to free the hostages. And then our next leaders worked out a deal to free them. But in 2026, our new leaders decided to bomb Iran, killing a lot of civilians along with many of Iran’s leaders. Perhaps that anger from 1979 was part of the motivation, and perhaps it was a new fear of impending nuclear war and a desire to force Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons. Would you say the anger in 1979 was equal to the killing in 2026?
Jesus: Philip, I see your point. Having angry thoughts is human in certain situations, but how you act on those thoughts matters, and how the target of your anger acts also matters. In my teaching that Matthew paraphrased, I gave the example of a person who had caused someone to hold a complaint against him, and I taught that the person who caused the complaint should seek reconciliation before leaving a sacrifice at an altar to God. In your example with Iran, my teaching would put the burden on the hostage takers, not the hostages. Still, if the hostage takers never seek reconciliation for 47 years, or if new reasons from fear or anger arise, it becomes necessary for the hostages themselves and their allies to reach out, not to bomb. Furthermore, bombing is never to be justified, even to prevent a future war with nuclear weapons. If the best that can be achieved is peaceful co-existence, do that. Continue to reach out and seek reconciliation; find areas of mutual interest that you both can work on together and thereby build trust with one another over time.
Me: Thank you, Jesus, that’s exactly what I wanted you to say.
Thanks for your comments, Phil. And I know what you were focusing on, but the words I cited about taking up the cross were in the narrow part of the Sermon on the Mount that you cited, so I think what I said in disagreement is applicable and correct. And, of course, I also think you have a right to disagree with me if you are so inclined.
Delete