josephholubsermons


 

                    The Way of the Cross:
A five-part series on the meaning of the cross for today.

The Way of the Cross - Part 1  
"The Cross of the Kingdom"

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news^* of God,^{* 15}and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near;^* repent, and believe in the good news.’^*   (Mark 1:14)

Christianity’s single most important symbol is the cross.   Many Christians practice the ritual of making the sign of the cross, or wear crosses as jewelry, or crosses are tattooed into the skin.  I don't recall ever being in a Christian worship space that didn't have a cross prominently displayed.  In Protestant churches the cross is usually portrayed as empty, pointing to the resurrection.  In Roman Catholic churches the cross is most often portrayed with Jesus on it, still bearing the wounds of the world.  Down through the centuries many different depictions of the cross have emerged ranging from the most common Latin cross to more elaborate crosses like the Russian Orthodox Cross or the Jerusalem Cross and many more, each one bearing a different shape and symbolic meaning.   Behind our altar here at LOTM, we have this unique rendition of the cross we call the "Tree of Life Cross." 

But in whatever form or expression, the cross symbolizes that the death and resurrection of Jesus lie at the heart and core of Christianity.   That Jesus died is at the heart of our faith, but he didn’t merely die.  He was executed.  To my knowledge, Christianity is the only major religious tradition whose founder was executed by established authority. 

I grew up in a tradition that emphasized the cross as a doctrine to believe more than anything else.  We were taught in no uncertain terms that Jesus’ death was central to God’s plan of salvation and that Jesus had to die to atone for our sins.  It was hammered into our heads that we were wretched sinners, and that in order for God to forgive, God demanded that a sacrifice must be made.  A substitutionary sacrifice had to be offered to God or there was no forgiveness.   The only acceptable sacrifice was Jesus who was not merely human, but also the Son of God - sinless - spotless - without blemish – the perfect sacrifice.   Only his substitutionary death made our forgiveness possible. 

In this particular paradigm to be a Christian means one has to confess belief in this arrangement, and if you don’t or cannot assent to this particular paradigm of understanding then you are not “saved” and you stand outside the parameters of God’s grace.   That's the understanding (paradigm) that I grew up with, and for a long time I accepted this paradigm as the only authentic paradigm that explains the mystery and meaning of Jesus’ death. 

However, a closer reading of early church history reveals that this particular paradigm did not reach its fullest expression and dominating position until centuries after Jesus.  Its fully developed form first appears in a book written by Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1097.  It gradually became the major centerpiece of medieval Christianity and played a prominent role in the Protestant Reformation, and it continues into modern and post-modern times.    But there is nothing to suggest that this paradigm necessarily played a dominating role in early Christianity. 

In fact, a closer reading of the scripture reveals that there were numerous understandings and other operative paradigms of the mystery and meaning of the cross/resurrection of Jesus that co-existed side-by-side in the early communities that sprung up around Jesus.

The fact is that the New Testament actually presents no less than five separate interpretations of the cross/resurrection of Jesus, but unfortunately they have been over-shadowed and almost smothered by this one predominant atonement paradigm.   So, on these Wednesdays I will take a brief look at each and suggest what it might mean for us as 21^st century followers of Jesus. 

What we see in the gospels, especially Mark's gospel is that Jesus was crucified for his politics.   Now that shouldn't surprise us.  We have just endured an election cycle, and it is fresh in our minds just how the political process can work in our context.  We are acutely aware of how nasty and vicious politics can get in our relatively civilized society, and how people attempt to symbolically crucify others in the political process.  To say that Jesus was crucified for his politics should come as no surprise - not even to us. 

One definition of politics/political is:  the use of a strategy to advance an agenda.   Jesus had an agenda and his agenda was the "Kingdom of God."   Almost all biblical scholars agree that the phrase "Kingdom of God" is perhaps the best short-hand summary of the message and passion of Jesus.   In Mark we are told that Jesus began his ministry with the sermon (inaugural address), "The Kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe in the good news."    Kingdom of God is also the subject of many of his parables, aphorisms and short sayings, and it lies at the center of the best known Christian prayer of all time that Jesus taught us:  "Thy kingdom come... on earth." 

Kingdom of God is a metaphor that has various meanings in the message of Jesus, but a primary meaning was political.   Jesus could have spoken of the family of God, or community of God, but he didn't.  He spoke of the Kingdom of God - and "kingdom" was intrinsically a political term especially in biblical times. 

When Jesus used "Kingdom of God" language, it was in direct contrast to the political kingdom that ruled the world in his day and time - the Kingdom of Rome/Caesar and its local arm/expression, the Kingdom of Herod.   And what is the Kingdom of God?   As John Dominic Crossan puts it, "It's what life on this earth would look like if God sat on Caesar's throne",   in contrast to what life was like under the domination system of  Rome and its collaborators.  

And what was life like in those times?   There's not enough time to go into detail, but life was difficult and oppressive for the vast majority of the population.  There are three general things we can say about what life was like under the Roman domination system of biblical times. 

            One, it was politically oppressive.  Rome ruled the Jewish homeland through native collaborators from the elite classes.  The vast majority (90%+) of the people had no voice in the structuring of society but were ruled by the monarchy and wealthy elites and were always under the threat of violent enforcement.  

            Two, it was economically exploitative.  The powerful and wealthy structured the economic system so that most of the wealth produced by the nation ended up in the hands of the wealthiest 1-5%.    The consequences for the peasants (over 90% of the population) was poverty, subsistence living, malnourishment, hunger, disease, shorter life expectancy, and other hardships.   During New Testament times things were getting even worse.  Herod the Great and his sons were spending lavishly on their royal lifestyle, massive building projects that favored the wealthy and an increasing regular tribute payment to Rome; all of which necessitated a larger extraction of wealth from the peasant classes - making them poorer than ever.

            Three, it was all religiously legitimated.   Caesar was considered divine and even called a son of god; so it was affirmed that the existing social order, as oppressive and unjust as it was, reflected the will of God, and the wealthy elites believed their privileged status came from God. 

            Into this kind of world, and in contrast to it, Jesus came preaching and embodying the Kingdom of God - God's passion for a different kind of world.   For Jesus, it was a society built on the foundation of the prophets of the Old Testament who affirmed social justice for all people;  a kingdom in which the least and the last would be first;  a kingdom in which the proud and powerful would be humbled; a kingdom of sufficient bread for all and the forgiveness of financial debt the wealthy leveraged against the poor; a kingdom where the ritually unclean were embraced; where outcasts were included; a kingdom attained not through military violence, economic exploitation, or political coercion but through non-violence, love and the pursuit of social justice. 

When Jesus rode into Jerusalem the last week of his life, he was riding into a confrontation with the kingdom of Caesar and it collaborators.  His life and his message was obviously becoming a threat, and one of the ways the world deals with a threat is to eliminate it.   At the end of the week he was crucified on a Roman cross - which we must never forget was an imperial form of execution reserved for two categories of people: chronically defiant slaves and those who challenged Roman rule; in other words those who refused to yield to the established authority.   In the end Jesus was executed by the established political authorities of his day who were threatened by God's radical transformed vision for their world that Jesus represented in his life and message.

But it didn't end there.  It didn't end at his cross because Jesus' followers and the community that grew up around him experienced Jesus as an ongoing living presence in the resurrection.  They understood the resurrection as the vindication of Jesus' message about the kingdom of God, and the indictment of the oppressive domination systems of the world.    What invigorated and empowered the Jesus community was they understood the cross, not as correct atonement theology to believe, but a way of discipleship; a way of following; a commitment to a path of challenging oppression and injustice.

The early followers of Jesus leave us a legacy of taking up the cross of discipleship.  For us, to take up the cross and follow involves, in part, confronting the powers that rule this world when they oppress and cause suffering and injustice.  It means we must take the initiative to be educated to better understand the complex issues of our time and the root causes of suffering and injustice - and then to take compassionate action. 

It is a part of the legacy of the cross we have received.   I pray it will be a part of the legacy of the cross we pass on.

The Way of the Cross. Part 2     "The Cross of Old and New"

“Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain, but if it dies, it bears much fruit.”   - John 12:24

Christianity’s single most important symbol is the cross. These Wednesday evenings we are taking a look at the various meanings (paradigms) of the cross found in the New Testament.  I will speak about five distinct meanings the cross had for the early followers of Jesus, and we will take a brief look at one each week.  Last week we began with Jesus’ politics.   The gospels are clear that Jesus came proclaiming the kingdom of God, and what was the kingdom of God but God's vision of what the world would really be and look like If God sat on the throne and not Caesar. 

For Jesus, it was God's passion for a different kind of world - one in which people have enough, not as the result of charity but as a fruit of justice.  God's passion is for a world not dominated by unjust and oppressive domination systems, large and small, ancient and modern that are so commonplace we see them as normal.  The gospels clearly show that Jesus’ message about the kingdom of God was a polar opposite of the Kingdom of Caesar and Rome and exposed the fact it was politically oppressive, economically exploitative and religiously legitimated.   

Jesus was crucified (executed) on a Roman cross because he refused to yield politically to the established authority.  His message was a threat to the political authorities and their collaborators.  The early followers of Jesus knew that to take up the cross and follow Jesus was to take up Jesus’ passion for the kingdom of God, quite possibly at the cost of their lives.  But it was a risk they were willing to take and give their lives.  For them the cross and resurrection was God’s vindication of Jesus’ cause.   The first meaning of the cross is to, Take up the cross of the Kingdom of God. 

This evening I want to speak of a second meaning of “taking up the cross” that is prevalent in the New Testament, not only in the gospels but in Paul’s letters.  This meaning of the cross can be symbolized by the plants growing in these flower pots.  These plants are a living metaphor of a passage found in John 12:24 where Jesus said, “Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain, but if it dies, it bears much fruit.”  These plants are not wheat but Nasturtiums, but the principle still applies.  My confirmation youth planted these from seed about 6 weeks ago.  We were learning about this very passage of scripture.   They painted the pots, prepared the soil, planted the seeds in the soil and since then they have been in my office by the window where I have kept them watered.  

The New Testament describes this paradigm of the cross in various ways.  One way is the metaphor of rebirth.  In John’s gospel, chapter 3, there is the familiar story of Nicodemus and Jesus.  John’s gospel is filled with double meanings and symbolic language, and he says that Nicodemus came to Jesus “by night.”  It is John’s way of saying that even though Nicodemus was a leader in the religious community he was living in the dark.  Symbolism of light and darkness abounds in John.  In John’s gospel Jesus is the light shining in the darkness, the light of the world, the true light that enlightens, the one who gives sight to those who are blind.  And Nicodemus, the one living in darkness, comes to the light.  After engaging in a rather convoluted conversation Jesus tells Nicodemus that he needs to be “born again” or “born from above” as the Greek words carry both meanings.   John intends for us to take it both ways.  His message to Nicodemus is that the religious life involves a spiritual rebirth, a new life centered in the Spirit of God – a personal reorientation. 

We see the same theme developed in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke where Jesus says, “Whoever does not take up (carry) the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.”    The cross was a symbol of execution and death.  “Taking up the cross” meant following Jesus on the path of dying.  To make sure we understand it metaphorically Luke adds the word “daily.”   “Take up your cross daily.”  Follow Jesus on the path of death daily.  To be a disciple is to follow Jesus into death and resurrection daily – a metaphor for new life. 

In Paul’s letters we see the same theme only articulated even in a different way.  165 times in his letters Paul uses the term “in Christ.”    "In Christ" is Paul’s shorthand phrase for the new life offered in Christ.  In 2 Corinthians he declares this great verse, “So if anyone is in Christ there is a new creation; everyone old has passed away (died); everything has become new. (rebirth) 

To the Galatians he said, “I have been crucified in Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives within me.”  (a metaphorical description of the experience of death and rebirth)

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and Paul all uniquely describe this common experience that lies at the heart of the Christian life – death and resurrection – death and new life – dying and rising with Christ. 

The experience can be described and expressed in many ways.  The point is what all of these biblical witnesses are saying is that it is an experience of letting go of an old identity and experiencing a new identity; letting go of an old way of being and doing, thinking and living and embracing a new way of being and doing, thinking and living; and letting go of an old orientation and embracing a new orientation.  

But why do we need to die to an old identity/an old way of being and be born into new identity/new way of being.  Why should we even care? 

Genesis says that that we are created "in the image of God."  I don't presume to know all of what that might mean, but I do think it means that our deepest self, our original self, if you will, was fashioned with God's imprint upon it.  It is the most essential and core part of who we are, and it's buried deep within us.  I think our greatest creativity comes from that deep original self: expressed in painting, writing, music, dance, poetry, composition and love.  I think our truest and most authentic prayers come from that deep self - those unspoken, unbidden prayers that can unexpectedly rise up from deep within us, believers and unbelievers alike, whether we even recognize them as prayers or not.  I think our best dreams and our greatest visions for peace, unity, fairness and equality for all humankind come from there too. 

But somewhere along the line, life does its thing to us.  We become self-aware and self-concerned.  It’s a part of growing up.  We experienced the pain of being wounded in all the ways the world can wound, and suddenly the quest for security becomes paramount.  Rather than being true to that inner self God put there in the first place, we set out into making ourselves into what we perceive the world wants us to be.  In the process we can lose touch with the heart that God gave us.  We become obsessed with appearance, achievement, affluence and security.  Fear and anxiety set in and take control and we lost touch with the deepest self that God put in us in the first place - we lost touch with the heart of God.   We can live our lives unauthentically from the outside in rather than authentically from the inside out.

Parker Palmer tells an amazing and captivating story about a little girl, three-years-old.  She was the first-born and only child until the birth of her little baby brother.  She was very excited and within a few hours after the parents brought the new baby boy home from the hospital, the little girl made a request that she wanted to be alone with her new brother in his room with the door shut.  Her request made the parents uneasy, but they remembered they had installed an intercom system, so they would be able to hear if anything strange was happening. 

So they let their daughter into the baby’s room and shut the door.  They raced to the intercom to listen.  They heard their daughter’s footsteps across the floor, imagined her standing next to the baby’s crib, and then they heard her say to her three-day old brother, “Tell me about God – I’ve almost forgotten.” 

It’s an evocative story that suggests that we come from God, and that when we are young we intuitively know this.  But in the process of growing up, of learning and responding to this world we increasingly forget the one from whom we came and in whom we live.   We increasingly are immersed in a world of estrangement and self-preoccupation.  We find ourselves living in the exile of the wilderness of the world's expectations and values and are shaped exclusively by them- and a connection with God and our deepest self can be forgotten.  

So when Jesus invited Nicodemus into rebirth, or Jesus spoke of the grain of wheat that must die in order to bear fruit, or when Jesus challenged the disciples to follow him in the way of the cross, or when Paul spoke of the new creation, each was describing in their own unique way the path of being reconnected with God from whom we came.  Each speaks of dying to the false identity that the world has thrust upon us, and being born to a new identity centered in the Spirit of God. 

The new life experience to which these metaphors of the various biblical witnesses point might involve a sudden life-changing epiphany like what occurred to Paul on the road to Damascus in the book of Acts.  I don't doubt that such sudden transformational changes can occur and do occur.   But for me, the new life process to which the biblical witnesses refer are a more gradual process that continues for a life time.  It applies to the regular rhythms of my daily living.    

The daily-ness of the process fits my experience and my personality.  A day doesn't go by when I don't realize that I am dwelling on something negative or self-centered, or something has consumed me that I realize I must die to, let go of, or rise up and out of to use the language of metaphor. 

The final thing is that this process of new life, rebirth, letting go, embracing the new, death and resurrection or whatever you want to name it or call it is not unique to only Christianity, but it's an experience that occupies a central place in all the enduring religions of the world.  Perhaps in our conflicted world when so many perceive others who are different as adversarial this might be a piece of common ground up which we can meet, interact and build bridges of understanding and respect.   

“Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain, but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” 

The Way of the Cross,  Part 3      "The Cross of Resolute Love"

 "They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them; they were amazed and those who followed him were afraid."   - Mark 10:32

It took the early followers of Jesus a long while to come to grips with Jesus' death.  In fact, if it were not for the reality that the Jesus community experienced him as an ongoing and living presence (resurrection), he likely would have been totally forgotten, and we certainly would not be here tonight doing what we are doing.   At the time of Jesus, the popular expectations of the messiah did not include execution on a Romans cross.  That was confounding and confusing.   The diverse books that now constitute our New Testament, so neatly bound and unified in our beautiful bibles,  took decades to be written and centuries of convoluted history to emerge in the form we have it today.   This neat and tidy unified presentation we have in our bibles disguises and cloaks the intense, lengthy, messy and diverse process it took to eventually take this form. 

In fact, a closer look at the development of the New Testament and the acceptance of the books that were eventually included and accepted as authoritative reveals a long, struggling process of debate, discussion and discourse - sometimes heated and enormously conflicted.  Why such a complex and tortuous process?   The reasons are numerous, way more than I can talk about tonight, but essentially the various factions of the church could not agree on who Jesus was, what his death and resurrection meant, and what writings were a faithful and truthful testimony to it.  In other words, there was diversity of viewpoint. 

Even among the early followers, in the immediate decades following Jesus' crucifixion, we see several interpretations of the cross and resurrection emerging.   These Wednesday evenings I am  touching on five interpretations of the cross I see in the New Testament.  

The first week I described the "Kingdom of God" meaning of the cross; that Jesus was crucified because he proclaimed the non-violent radical love, compassion and social justice of the kingdom of God, which was opposed to and a polar opposite of the ruling kingdom of the day - the kingdom of Rome.   Jesus was crucified because his message challenged Roman rule and Rome's collaborators and the economic exploitation and political oppression propagated by both.  The early followers understood the resurrection as a vindication of his kingdom message and, as a result, were willing to take the same message to their world - many at the cost of persecution.

Last week I described the death of Jesus on the cross as a revelation of "the way." (way of following; way of living) Many of the early followers of Jesus understood his death and resurrection as the embodiment of a path of personal transformation that involves the rhythm of a daily dying (letting go) to an old way of being, thinking, living and doing and rising (embracing) to a new way of being, thinking, living and doing. 

Tonight we look at a third meaning of the cross that was taking shape among the early communities that sprung up around Jesus.   We see this understanding show its face in Mark 10:32-34 in Jesus' total resolve to push forward into Jerusalem even though Mark indicates he was well aware of the ambush that was waiting for him there.   Mark says, "They were on the road , going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them; they were amazed, and those who followed him were afraid." 

According Mark, Jesus had already outlined for his disciples, in gruesome detail, what was going to happen to him in Jerusalem when he got there.  Mark pictures him as a man on a mission who was seemingly possessed by a death wish. "They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them..."   That's a picture of a person with resolve and resolute determination.   But I don't think he had a "death-wish."  I would rather call it a "love-mission."  Jesus was a person so filled with the Spirit of God, the love of God, and the message of God's Kingdom that he was committed to taking it as far as he could; even into the face of rejection and death.

I like to tell my confirmation youth that the life and death of Jesus tells us that God's love does not "chicken-out!"   For me, that essentially summarizes this third meaning of the cross we see in the New Testament.  In the life of Jesus we see God's resolute love taking shape and it was a love that did not "chicken-out." 

A couple of months ago we showed our confirmation youth a video that was produced by ABC news.  It was kind of a candid/stealth camera situation but without the humor.  This wasn't too funny.  The scene took place in a New Jersey coffee shop where three actors each played different roles staging a situation.   One actor played the role of a very prejudiced clerk behind the counter taking coffee orders.  The other two actors were Hispanic and played the role of customers.  The Hispanic actors pretended they could not speak any English.   The idea was for the clerk behind the counter not to serve the two Hispanic men because they did not speak English.  The actor-clerk behind the counter was also to assume they were undocumented workers.   The purpose of this little staged scenario was to see the reaction of the other customers in the busy coffee shop who had no idea this was all staged and being recorded by a hidden camera.

The bottom line was none of the customers in the coffee shop would side with the two Hispanic men, but many of the customers simply reinforced and parroted the actor-clerk's prejudice.   Some of their comments became downright insulting and dehumanizing, and many made totally false assumptions regarding the two men, calling them criminals and terrorists, saying their money was no good and accusing them of frightening the customers.  The two Hispanic actors were totally polite and civil, and never lost their cool through the entire scene.  All they were doing was trying to order a cup of coffee and a bagel.

The gospels testify that Jesus' love never chickened-out, never sold out to anything, never caved-in, never watered-down to something innocuous and bland.  Even when facing his own death, when the temptation to perhaps dilute his message of the inclusive love of Kingdom of God was the most extreme, he didn't back-off.  

The apostle Paul echoed it when he said, "(he) emptied... and humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death---even death on a cross." (Phil. 2:8)   

In John's gospel we see it in Jesus' answer to Pilate's question, "Are you the King of the Jews?"   Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world... if (it) were my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over..." (John 18:36)     Jesus wasn't talking about heaven, but he was talking about the character of the Kingdom of God and the shape it takes in this world; which is non-violent, compassionate and characterized by a cherishing and justice-seeking love.

But Jesus had demonstrated that love all along his journey to Jerusalem in his life and ministry.  He loved the rejected and despised; lonely and lost; unclean and uncouth. 

This interpretation of the meaning of the cross says two powerful things to me personally.  First, It causes me to ask myself questions, "Where and under what circumstances does my love "chicken-out" and cave-in?"  "When does my love hit a wall and cannot go any further?"   "When do I surrender my love for something less than the radical, unconditional, life-giving love the characterized the life of Jesus?"  What fears?  What prejudices?  What peer pressures?  What self-interests?  What  inconveniences?  What social issues?  What race or ethnicity?  What political viewpoint?  What religious expression?  What personal values?  What is it that in the face of my love withers and evaporates like the morning fog when the heat is turned on?   I can only answer that for me.  You will have to answer it for yourself.   The only thing needed is honesty devoid of self-delusion. 

The second thing this interpretation of the cross does is that I need that picture of Jesus that Mark paints in his gospel.  "They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them..."   

"Jesus was walking ahead of them."   I need that picture, and I believe Jesus' early followers did too, or Mark would have never mentioned that little detail.   I think the early followers of Jesus were acutely aware that the road they were following him upon led metaphorically to Jerusalem; to radical self-giving love; to taking up their cross for sake of God's love and God's Kingdom in this world; and they were not necessarily any more courageous or brave than us.   They too like us lived with fear and prejudice and many things that would suffocate love into oblivion.  They needed Jesus to be their point-man; the one to inspire them from within with courage and commitment.

They were following a resolute love that does not chicken-out, but led them past all the things that would have stopped them from loving, all the things that would have reduced them and dehumanized them - and in the process received the gift of their fullest, most profound and most beautiful  humanity.

The same resolute love is still out there ahead of us, inviting, beckoning and calling us to follow him to Jerusalem - and beyond!

The Way of the Cross, Part 4.        "The Cross of Non-Violence"

 You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” ³⁹But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also."   (Matthew 5:38-39)

How did the early followers of Jesus and the early communities that sprung up around Jesus understand the cross?  This has been our mini-journey on these Wednesday evenings.  Thus far we have looked at three ways and tonight we briefly explore a fourth.  What we have discovered is that, for them, the cross was not the basis of a doctrine to be believed, but a way to follow – a life to be lived.  Tonight we continue with that theme.   

There is a strong and predominant myth that is implanted in our hearts and minds as children and  reinforced over and over again throughout our formative years so that by the time we are adults it this myth is accepted as truth. It is a myth that has been around since the beginning of human history.  It is the Myth of Redemptive Violence.  Every culture in history has bought into this myth as the highest truth, and it is embedded in all the structures and institutions of every culture.  It enshrines the conviction that violence saves; war brings true peace and that might makes right.  Every super-hero cartoon from Popeye, Power Rangers to Bat Man, and every western movie ever made advances the myth and keeps it going. 

(In the face of that myth Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount) You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” ³⁹But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also."  (Matthew 5:38)

It’s been my experience that many Christians give lip service to these verses, but at the same time dismiss them as naïve idealism.  The reason: because we believe in the Myth of Redemptive Violence as a higher truth.  We take “turn the other cheek” to mean a passive resignation that has made the Christian Way seem cowardly in the face of injustice.  Jesus words, “Resist not evil” seems to advance the idea of letting evil have its day unabated.  Many people have taken this teaching of Jesus as an invitation to bullies and spouse-batterers to wipe up the floor with their passive Christian victims. 

Tragically this interpretation to Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount is a gross misunderstanding and a total distortion of what Jesus really meant.  In fact, if we look closely at the context we will see this is not at all what Jesus meant or intended.  Jesus wasn’t into passivity or cowardice.  What he did mean was actually politically and culturally revolutionary, and had a lot do to with what got him crucified.

The misinterpretation of this passage begins with the word "resist.”  “Do not resist an evildoer.”  That phrase is frequently interpreted as passive nonresistance, and who wants any part of that?  The Greek word for “resist”, "atistenai”, is used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament and it means “warfare” or to resist violence with violence, to return evil with evil. 

 Jesus is saying that when confronted with oppression and evil, do not oppose it on its own terms.  A better English translation of this verse might be, “Do not react violently to the one who is violent toward you.”  Jesus is saying is don’t let your opponent dictate the method and means of your opposition.  Jesus is urging his followers to find another way to respond to violence and oppression that is not passive and also not violent.  He is encouraging his followers to follow a third way – his way – a way that is assertive and yet non-violent.   

When we look at Jesus in the gospels we see that he never displayed passivity in the face of evil and oppression, nor did Jesus respond to it with violence.  However he did respond, and we could describe his response as non-violent resistance.  That is what is being described in this passage and also what characterized his life.   

“If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.” We must pay attention to the detail to this potentially violent engagement.  You are probably envisioning a blow with the right fist.  However, such a blow would connect with the left cheek, not the right.  To hit the right cheek with a fist would require the left fist.  However, in Judaism the left hand could only be used for unclean tasks.  In some Jewish communities to gesture with the left hand was insulting and was punishable by exclusion from community life for a period of time.  The description was intentional.  To strike someone on the right cheek with the right hand required a backhand blow.  

In their culture a backhand was intended not to injure, but to humiliate or degrade.  The backhand was never administered to an equal, but only to someone considered inferior.  In their culture, masters backhanded slaves; husband, wives; parents, children; Romans, Jews.  The whole point of the blow was to force a subordinate, who was out line, back into place. 

It is critical to remember that Jesus was mainly speaking to Jewish peasants; people who were accustomed to being subordinated and degraded, especially by the Romans.  Jesus was saying  that when they were humiliated by the oppressors to refuse to passively accept this kind of humiliating treatment.  If they “backhand” you, then “turn the other cheek.”  Turning the other cheek (the left cheek) makes it impossible for the oppressor to use the backhand again because the nose becomes the target of the backhand.  Offering the left cheek is a gesture that makes the left cheek a perfect target for a blow with the right fist, and we know from numerous Jewish sources only equals fought with fists.  That’s the key to understanding this.  The last thing the master or oppressor wanted to do was to establish an underling’s authority as an equal. 

Turning the other cheek, when seen in context, was an act of supreme defiance that renders the master incapable of asserting his dominance in this relationship.  By turning the other cheek the subordinate one is saying, “I am a human being.  I am an equal.  I won’t be humiliated anymore.”   That is not passivity.  That is a posture of non-violent resistance.

What the oppressor wants is meek acquiescence, not non-violent resistance.  The oppressor wants the subordinate to cower and shrink, not respond in expressive assertiveness. 

Jesus has made his point.  Suddenly and surprisingly the oppressor has been stripped of his power to dehumanize and instill shame, and the real intentions of the oppressor have been unmasked and seen in the light for the evil they are.  And when large numbers of people begin behaving in a manner such as this, you just may have a social revolution on your hands. 

Jesus message to the oppressed peasants was to not passively submit to Roman oppression, but also not react violently; to follow another way; a way that can affirm your dignity and change the power equation between you and your oppressor. 

It is important to understand Jesus words beyond the literal.  This is not a rule to be followed legalistically, but an example given to spark a variety of creative non-violent resistant responses to violence and oppression. 

It is also not to be understood as merely a technique for outwitting the oppressor, but rather a means of opposing the oppressor that creates, at least, the possibility of the oppressor being transformed.  

When we look at the life of Jesus what we see is that in the face of oppression he abhorred both passivity and violence as a response.  He embodied for his disciples another way.

Of course, the motive and energy behind Jesus’ strategy was that God loved both the oppressed and the oppressor – God’s love was radically inclusive, and he never doubted it for a moment.  

In the end when he rode into Jerusalem, it was if he intentionally sought out the confrontation with his oppressors, and I think he did!   He told his disciples several times of the conflict that lay ahead of him in Jerusalem.  Jesus wasn’t passive.  The non-violent resistant love that beat within his soul motivated him to seek out confrontation in order to bring out into the open the pathology of Roman oppression.  Jesus was not idealistic or sentimental about evil.  He did not coddle or cajole his oppressors, but he moved toward them proactively with non-violent resistance that was ultimately loving because it opened up new possibilities for both the oppressed and the oppressors.

Many of the early followers of Jesus took this meaning of the cross to heart.  They understood the resurrection as the vindication of Jesus’ non-violent way; and the indictment of the oppressive powers of the world. For three centuries after Jesus no Christian author or theologian can be found that approved, for example, of Christians participating in battle and warfare.  The early church theologian Tertullian advised soldiers who converted to Christianity to quit the army even if it meant being imprisoned or killed for refusing to fight. 

It wasn’t until the time of Constantine when the church tragically became married to the empire that it stopped opposing war and violence and began to rationalize the necessity of war and violence as a means of preserving the empire that protected the church.  Sadly and despicably from the time of Constantine forward, in every age since, people over and over again have put a sword in Jesus’ hand for one cause or another, and in the process have created new forms of evil and divinely sanctioned expressions of violence – which is the worst kind of evil and violence there is. 

Jesus’ cross, life and resurrection reveal that the very heart of God is a heart of non-violence and inclusive love for both oppressed and oppressor.  The way of non-violence, the way Jesus chose, is the only way that is able to overcome oppression and evil without creating new forms of oppression and evil that make us oppressors and evil in turn. 

Some of those in more modern times who were inspired by Jesus and this understanding of his cross, life and resurrection were: Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and many others.  Their lives, along with Jesus, point us to a new way of confronting evil and oppression that can lead us into profound experiences of personal and social transformation.

The Way of the Cross - Part 5       "Did Jesus Die for Our Sins?"

 "The next day he saw Jesus coming towards him and declared, ‘Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"  (John 1:29) 

"³⁷Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last. ³⁸And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom." (Mark 15:37-38)

These Wednesday we have briefly looked at various understandings (paradigms) of the cross that were emerging at the time of the writing of the New Testament.  The early followers of Jesus had to come to terms with the unexpected event of Jesus' death on the cross.  On the one hand, they confessed Jesus to be the long-awaited Messiah, but on the other hand the popular expectations for the Messiah did not include the Messiah dying by crucifixion at the hands of the Rome and its collaborators.   Whatever did it all mean?  What did his death mean?    

Thus far, I have described four emerging ways: 1) Jesus' proclamation and embodiment of the Kingdom of God exposed the domination system of Rome and its collaborators that politically and economically oppressed the poor masses. Jesus was crucified as a political subversive.   2) They lived the cross and resurrection as a way of life and a path of following; a way of dying to the old and rising to something new; a way of taking up their cross and following and embodying Jesus' life through theirs.  3)  They understood the cross as the revelation of the depth of God's resolute love; a love that doesn't give up or surrender.  4) They understood the cross and resurrection as the indictment of deeply embedded systemic powers interwoven into the fabric of the institutions of society and culture. 

Tonight I want to look a fifth paradigm of the cross that really has been the overwhelmingly dominant paradigm of the cross, so dominant that it unfortunately smothers the other four paradigms that we've talked about and effectively pushes them off the stage. 

This is the paradigm with which most of us have grown up. It is of course, the sacrificial understanding of Jesus death; that "Jesus died for our sins"; a phrase so familiar to us that it often becomes cliché-like and rolls off our tongues with no more meaning that the Lord's Prayer sometimes rolls off our tongues.

Even though the ingredients of this sacrificial understanding of Jesus death are present in the NT, its fullest development into the form we all know actually did not occur until the Middle Ages.

In its fully developed form this meaning of the cross sees the story of Jesus primarily within the framework of sin, guilt and forgiveness. The premise is that we have all sinned against God and are guilty.  A second premise is that our sins can only be forgiven if an adequate sacrifice is made.  Animal sacrifice cannot not accomplish this, nor can the sacrifice of an imperfect human.  Thus, God provides the perfect sacrifice in the form of a perfect human, Jesus. Now forgiveness is possible, but only for those who believe that Jesus died for our sins.  We see this theme beginning to take shape in John's gospel, the latest of the four gospels written in the last decade of the first century and also in the anonymous epistle to the Hebrews.  What we see is that among some Christian communities, Jesus and his death were beginning to be seen in the context of the Jewish Liturgy of Yom Kippur.  In the Liturgy of Yom Kippur an unblemished young male lamb was offered as a sacrifice for the sins of the nation.  Also, a goat was released into the wilderness, symbolically bearing the sins of the people taking them away into the wilderness.  In this paradigm Jesus is seen understood as both that lamb and that goat. John the Baptist's words when he saw Jesus coming, "Here is the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" are actually the words taken directly from the Liturgy of Yom Kippur placed on John the Baptist's lips by the gospel writer John.   

If you think about it, when taken strictly literally this paradigm presents us with some rather strange paradoxes and difficult problems.  It implies that God is only able and only willing to forgive sin if adequate sacrifice is made; that God must be appeased and God's forgiveness purchased. It implies that Jesus' death on the cross was necessary and not a consequence of his proclamation and embodiment of the Kingdom of God.  It also introduces a requirement into the very center of our life with God: knowing about and believing in Jesus and his sacrificial death.  If you don't then you are not forgiven.  It seems like, when taken literally, it puts God in a very small box and makes God's grace conditional ("conditional grace" is an oxymoron) and inaccessible to many.  It also changes the meaning of faith. The other NT paradigms that I have talked about over the last four weeks, each in its own way sees the cross and resurrection as a way of following, a path of following. In these paradigms faith is defined as commitment to and faithfulness to living Jesus' life in the world right now.  It is about a life of servant-hood, love, peace-making and justice to mention but a few.

A literal reading of this paradigm changes faith into belief or assent to the claim that only the sacrificial death of Jesus brings forgiveness of sins, and if you don't have that specific belief you are not forgiven.  Armed with this literal understanding of Jesus' sacrificial death, the church has often promoted a narrow, judgmental, parochial and exclusive religion.

Tragically, I think this paradigm has been largely misrepresented since its earliest historical roots. So, I will put another spin on this paradigm to enlighten us a little and move away from this strictly literal understanding which, in my mind, presents many problems and conflicts.

In its first century setting, the statement that Jesus "died for our sins" had a different meaning and  emphasis.  We need to understand something about the sacrificial system that was centered in the temple in Jerusalem.  According to temple theology, certain kinds of sins and impurities could be dealt with only through sacrifice in the temple. The temple claimed an institutional monopoly on the forgiveness of sins; and because forgiveness of sins was considered a prerequisite for entry into the presence of God, the temple also claimed an institutional monopoly on access to God. The temple hierarchy held all the trump cards on access to God and forgiveness.

Much like the church at the time of Martin Luther centuries later, a monopoly like that gave the temple a great deal of leverage and control over the masses of people.  So, the earliest followers of Jesus using the temple's own language of sacrifice, turned it around and put it back in the faces of the temple hierarchy that temple sacrifice was no longer viable.  To say that "Jesus was the sacrifice for sins" was really a radical subversive anti-temple statement.  Using the temple's own language, it subverted the sacrificial system and the temple's institutional monopoly to mediate God's grace and access to God. 

The early followers of Jesus  were simply saying to proponents of temple institutional theology, that Jesus had  provided the sacrifice and thus had taken care of whatever it is you think separates you from God.  The gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke tell us that the curtain of the temple was torn in two when Jesus died.  The curtain of the temple separated off the innermost sanctuary of the temple called the Holy of Holies which represented God's purest presence.  The tearing of the curtain is a metaphor for the good news of unhindered access to God. God's love, grace and kingdom, as embodied in the life of Jesus, was now loose in the world and did not need mediation by any institution - it was free and unrestricted.  "Jesus died for our sins" was a metaphor that announced the end of temple institutional monopoly on the mediating of God's grace.  It was originally a subversive metaphor, not a literal description of God's purpose or Jesus' vocation;  it was a metaphorical proclamation of the radical unconditional love and grace of God available to everyone and mediated by no one - inclusive, and without requirements - and it still is! 

There is one more important piece. By the time that the gospels were written the temple had been destroyed.  In the year 70, in response to the Jewish rebellion, the Romans reduced the temple to rubble.  So, in addition to being an anti-temple statement, it also provided hope for people to carry on with their faith without a temple that no longer existed.

Did Jesus have to die?  A literal reading of a fully developed  sacrificial paradigm of Jesus cross says "Yes," he had to die.  It was something that had to happen and was foreordained by God. 

A metaphorical reading of this paradigm, rooted in the context of a first century anti-temple response, would say "No," he didn't have to die.  He died because he came announcing and embodying the social justice of the Kingdom of God and was crucified by the powers that opposed God's Kingdom.  He didn't die for the sins of the world, but if anything, he died because of the injustice of the world.  Jesus' life had already clearly demonstrated that the heart of God is a heart of love, grace and forgiveness.  Jesus was forgiving sins long before he died on the cross and so was God.  God's ability and willingness to forgive didn't hinge on Jesus' death on the cross.

One question we could ask is why did this sacrificial paradigm become the overwhelmingly dominant paradigm especially over the last millennium?   Why the dominance of this paradigm and not equally shared with the other paradigms?  Quite frankly, this is the only paradigm of the cross we ever hear about!  Why? I think there are a couple of reasons.

            1)  It is an easy paradigm to institutionalize, monopolize and exclusivize.  How ironic is it that the religion that formed around Jesus that declared an end to the temple's institutional monopoly on mediating God's grace, within a few hundred years was well into creating its own ecclesiastical institution that would declare the same monopoly.   

And we still see it today in denominational arrogance and exclusivity with an assortment of denominations and Christian expressions claiming their way is the only authentic way and everybody else is at best half-fraud if not altogether grievously missed the boat! 

            2)  Another reason is that by making this paradigm paramount and the others hardly noticeable it gutted Christianity of its primary motivation to be an agent for radical social transformation.  From the time of Constantine, when the church was politically legitimated and intertwined with the institutions of culture, the church has faced and often yielded to the temptation to ally itself with powers and forces that are partly or altogether in opposition to the kingdom of God.  It's not that the church hasn't performed noble acts of social service, but it has historically been slow to take the lead on issues of human rights and suffering and often found itself either tacitly or overtly supporting oppression.  The other four paradigms speak of the cross as a path of political and personal transformation in a manner the sacrificial paradigm does not. 

I began this little series five weeks ago with the statement, "Christianity's single most important symbol is the cross."  And it emphatically is!  But the cross, even for the early followers of Jesus had a variety of meanings.  We need all of those meanings integrated into our faith journey if the Christian faith is going to be relevant in the 21st century.  

We desperately need the cross of social and political transformation as Jesus proclaimed and embodied the Kingdom of God.  

We need the cross of personal transformation, a dying and rising daily to old ways of being, doing thinking, to rise up and embrace new ways of being, doing and thinking.

We need the cross of the resolute love of God that stops not even at death to get to us and fill us.  

We need the cross that declares that the way to fullness and life is the way of servant-hood and self-emptying; taking up our cross and following. 

We need the cross of the radical grace of God that is free without requirement or restrictions. 

To be true to the teachings of our Lord and the integrity of faith - we need them all.