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.
DeleteCorrect, Dr. Seat! Jesus did not teach except within the Jewish prophetic tradition. He consistently updated that tradition, too. So, the Mountain and Plain sermon(s) (did Moses deliver sermons "on the plain" as well?) echoed the Ten Commandments. I am persuaded, too, that Cross-Bearing was first a corporate movement (didn't most of the disciples "follow" Jesus in pairs and groups?) though certainly many earliest converts followed cautiously, individually, and sometimes in secret. I am convinced, too, that American civic Christianity has typically missed the mark about "allegiance", especially when politics and religion were involved, as they are today. Individual and group "following" do not necessarily equate to ethical and moral consistency fitting to the Jesus Gospel of the scriptures.
ReplyDeleteHere are comments from Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy, for your comments about 'taking up one’s cross.'
"A friend in my high school class, Roger Bergman, wrote a book in 2020, "Preventing Unjust War: A Catholic Argument for Selective Conscientious Objection." Roger is a professor emeritus at Creighton University, where he taught peace and social justice studies. His book is based on the life of Franz Jägerstätter, an Austrian farmer who in 1943 refused induction into Hitler’s Wehrmacht. He was arrested, tried and convicted, and executed by guillotine in November 1943. He received little or no support from the Austrian Catholic hierarchy. He was beatified in 2009.
"Jägerstätter based his objection to Hitler’s war on Catholic social and moral teachings. Roger argues that Catholic teachings justify selective conscientious objection, which is not pacifism, but objection to unjust wars. Most wars start as unjust wars; a pacifist might argue that all of them do. Nonetheless Jägerstätter took up his cross and courageously lost his life in doing so
"Roger and I agree that the Iran war is illegal, unjust, and unnecessary, and one for which selective conscientious objection seems appropriate. Roger told me that the Center on War and Conscience has been inundated with inquiries since the war began, although he has not heard of any refusals to serve. Hegseth may be suppressing that information.
"The Trump administration wants to begin registration of all young men beginning in December. I shudder to think what may be planned."
Thanks, Eric, for introducing the book by your high school friend and the info. and comments about Franz Jägerstätter, about whom I have vague memory of. I was a bit confused, though, about why the Center you mentioned is being inundated with inquiries about becoming COs as we have an all "volunteer" army now. I guess that is only because of fears that our current unhinged POTUS will possibly launch a major war against Iran that will entail renewing the draft.
DeleteBut regarding the last statement, I can't see there is anything nefarious in such an automatic registration. It has long been, and still, is the law that all 18-year-old men (with a few exceptions) have to register, so what Trump is proposing seems to be doing young men a favor for doing automatically what now they have to take the initiative to do to follow the law.
It seems to me it would not have made any sense for Jesus to use taking up one's cross as a metaphor for self-sacrifice unless he himself was self-consciously an insurrectionist against the rule of Rome, but so far as I know, there's no evidence of that. A number of stories in the gospels show Jesus fairly indifferent to whomever was governing except insofar as they were unjust and hypocritical. The gospels suggest he was more concerned with the hypocrisy of religious authorities. And his moral affirmations were those for acts contrary to the typically self-interested behaviors of people everywhere. As the Jesus Seminar has written, "There is no evidence that the cross served as a symbol of radical self-denial outside the context of the crucifixion of Jesus or prior to that event." (The Five Gospels) That being said, it appears that Jesus was indeed remembered as a prophet or wisdom teacher who promoted loving compassion, self-sacrificial care for others, and allegiance to a divine reality transcending the everyday realities of the cultural and political.
ReplyDeleteAnd while I am sympathetic, even in agreement, with liberation theologies, it seems to me we are making a transposing leap from the teachings of Jesus regarding everyday human relations and allegiances to the inspiration of political movements. I think the leap is justified by our "reading" of Jesus's teachings and actions, but it has required a transposition of the spirit of his life and teachings to social and political realities, as well as the recognition that the early church was wrong about the literalness of an eschatological second coming. I would thus agree with Eric that Franz Jägerstätter got right the implications of the spirit of Christ with regard to Nazi Germany and induction into the Wehrmacht.
While I agree, Leroy, with your conclusion that followers of Jesus need to oppose the dominant political trends current in the USA, I'm having trouble understanding why Jesus's crucifixion as an insurrectionist would justify that. It seems to me that whatever we mean when we talk of the "spirit of Christ" goes further to inspire concern about justice and liberation with regard to political and cultural collectivities.
My two cents' worth! LOL! Thanks for the inspiration you generously give us with your blog entries.