He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me“.
Mark 8:34
Say what?… Oh so… such familiar words. But what do they mean for our generation and our current congregations. Take up your cross and follow?
Here is a thought…did you know that the original meaning of the word martyr meant witness? Crosses are not actually part of our thinking in the world we encounter today. For most of us I suspect, the only cross we ever consider is Jesus’ cross, certainly not ours.
At least for the first recipients of the gospel message, crucifixion was actually a very visible barbarous punishment the Romans had designed for trouble-makers. What we tend to overlook is Jesus’ death was only one of very many. In 4 B.C. for example, (around the suggested time for the birth of Christ), a good number of nationalistic Jews used the death of Herod the Great as an excuse to rise in revolt against the Romans with the idea of driving them out for once and for all. The Romans predictably struck back with venom. When those rebels fled into the countryside in their thousands, the Roman general Varus hunted them down. The first-century Jewish historian Josephus tells it this way:
“Upon this, Varus sent a part of his army into the country, to seek out those that had been the authors of the revolt; and when they were discovered, he punished some of them that were most guilty, and some he dismissed: now the number of those that were crucified on this account were two thousand. (Antiquities 17.10.10)”
Two thousand of your fellow countrymen (and some women) crucified at one time! Now that would provide a vivid set of memories. Remember too that the Romans also used crucifixion as a means of quelling rebellion in advance making a great show of the public humiliation and pre-crucifixion torture. It is only in religious art that those on the Cross were allowed the dignity of clothing. The crosses of potential or actual rebels would be placed alongside public roads where the naked bodies would continue to hang for some time as a visual warning.
Sometimes the number crucified was considerably more. Remember Mark was writing shortly after the total disaster of another failed rebellion. Something like 70 years after the first post-Herod rebellion, in Jerusalem and nearby Judea, thousands upon thousands rose in revolt against the occupying Romans. Initially, with numbers on their side it looked as if the rebels would prevail. Rome sent an army, beat them back and then besieged Jerusalem. Those who attempted to escape were shown no mercy. The historian Josephus claimed that 500 a day were first whipped then tortured in the most public fashion and finally crucified outside the walls of the city. The Roman general Titus, perhaps sickened by the systematic cruelty continuing day after day, at least expressed pity, yet clearly believing that only an extreme example would totally extinguish the rebellion, he allowed it to continue to its inevitable conclusion. (Jewish War 5.11.1)
Not all of Christian life involves facing serious issues but perhaps we should note two things about Jesus’ challenge. First that challenge was personal. It is still us as individuals not as a group that we are called to respond.
The catch with joining in with a congregation is that if their majority preference is to lead the untroubled life then the challenges for the whole group to care about our neighbours, to seek justice for others, to genuinely demonstrate care about the lonely and the sick seems unlikely to get group buy-in. Perhaps this is why, in so many Churches, the leaders’ decisions seem to include putting the tasks of the kingdom into the too-hard basket.
Indeed, at first glance it almost appears that the Church has watered down this part of the gospel to avoid credible challenges to issues of justice and morality and so downplayed the sacrificial attitude till what now passes for Sunday observance would scarcely raise an eyebrow from the authorities, still less trigger fully fledged persecution.
Perhaps like those crosses in history, the real action is often in how we deal with real and sometimes uncomfortable issues away from the bubble of the Church family.
Because the risk of suffering is not part of the easy deal most seek, we can almost expect today’s echoes of Peter’s response to Jesus in what we hear from many modern Churchgoers. Don’t forget according to Mark, Jesus would not let Peter get away with the easy option. Why do we assume that if we are today’s followers of the same Jesus we can avoid his challenge?
I even wonder if many of us here are strongly tempted to shut our eyes to what a whole life response to Jesus might do to disturb a quiet life.
The whole point of Jesus’ question about who the disciples saw him to be was not so much he wanted them to see he was the Messiah – but rather to show that his role required him to face the real-life danger of taking on the dangers ahead in Jerusalem.
I wonder how many of us would have been tempted like Peter to try to talk him out of that bit. Even today asking those who support him to be prepared to pick up their cross is at variance with what is all too often offered in the name of the Church – namely the easy realization of the dream of a better life.
Jesus’ insistence on taking up of the cross is probably the opposite of good marketing but it still represents a truth which has played out many times in the history of his followers.
What Jesus was calling for showed deep understanding of the human psyche. Surely what traditionally motivates all of us in a biological sense is that regardless of our public exterior, we imply our right is to maintain a faith which allows us a relatively trouble-free life. Jesus was in effect by his example, insisting that to follow him meant widening this circle, putting those seen as traditional rivals and even enemies as legitimate priority for our concern. Think about it. No wonder so many get angry when someone tries to change what people believe to be their right.
We have the perfect example right now with our own part into the international response to the world’s problems. Yes of course most of us are uncomfortable as bystanders to the belligerence of resistance movements responding to persecution. But reacting by cheering the West for destroying the rebels with all those bombing raids (along with innocent bystanders) is not Christianity – particularly if we are not then prepared to go in and restore the towns whose bombing we supported. Is it surprising that few Churches are insisting we put ourselves out for the victims? I am guessing it would not be popular.
Following conscience issues which interfere with entrenched views is seen as undermining existing authority and status. As a nation we seem pre-programmed to hold on to our nation’s hard won riches and not share them with the needy… why else would our churches be muted in their protest when our government gives such a small percentage of GDP to International Aid programs, or when rich nations won’t share vaccines with those with poor health systems.
One risk is the personal danger we anticipate in protesting too loudly. Should this surprise us? What would happen to a modern-day Martin Luther saying the Church is no longer following Christ in its actions – or a Bible scholar showing why current theological teaching no longer reflects the essentials of Christ’s teaching. True these criticisms may no longer result in public torture and burning – but that only because there are now more civilized ways of gagging the cross carrier.
Think back to David Fredriech Strauss who in 1835 published a ground-breaking book The Life of Jesus Critically Reviewed. His discoveries about the Bible would seem commonplace today but because in his day he threatened tradition, he was simply removed from his university position and blocked from ever teaching again. Closer to our time this was very similar to the fate that awaited the Bishop of Woolwich, John A T Robinson who explored some doubts in 1963 with a small book Honest to God. He clearly offended the established Church and was in effect publicly pilloried, blocked from promotion and given a very minor teaching post until his death in 1983 without even the status of University lecturer at his previous University of Cambridge.
Clearly there are few scholars whose work is significant enough to enrage the church but we all live in a world where privilege and discrimination are enshrined in policy – and where nations construct policy with personal advantage very much in mind. Speaking up or focusing on the needs of the disadvantaged is not a formula for personal advancement but it is hard to see how we can pretend that such a course of action has nothing to do with following Christ.
Traditionally we take what Bonheoffer used to call the “cheap grace” option where we leave it at a few token prayers for our enemies and the patronizing prayers for the less well off. At least that way we inflame no passions. Should we be insisting on genuine action – altering immigration policies to let more from other cultures and races in to share our advantages, raising overseas aid quotas to match UN recommendations, raising minimum wage packets, putting environmental concerns ahead of the wealth of multinational shareholders and then watch the anger levels rise. In the Church the cheap grace option is to put peace for our local congregation ahead of the need to get down and dirty where the real problems of the community confront our preferences.
Paul Tillich understood the heart of the problem when he said that when the Divine appears in its depth it cannot be endured…. It must be pushed away by the political powers, the religious authorities, and the bearers of cultural tradition. In the picture of the Crucified, perhaps we should also notice the rejection of the Divine by people who might look suspiciously like us.
The original meaning of the word Lent was borrowed from Northern hemisphere time between winter and spring when the thaw began. Its religious meaning gradually morphed into a time of self-examination … the 40 days of wilderness reflection when we prepare ourselves for Easter.
It is true that we can avoid the pain of self-examination, but to do so is evading Christ’s challenge to shoulder our cross. It may just be that the analogy of melting that which is frozen also has something to teach us for this time of Lent.
Bill Peddie's website 