You’ve done an excellent job of connecting the deeper meaning of Jesus’ metaphor of taking up the cross to the systemic injustices of both ancient and modern times.
The idea that ‘take up your cross’ is more than just about personal sacrifice, but about challenging oppressive structures is a powerful one. Jesus’ call to resist oppression could indeed be seen as a form of non-violent resistance that still holds immense power today.
I will confess this one was a bit of a conflict for me.
I have long held a certain cynical disdain for views of Christ and Christianity that argued Jesus would support this or that political policy. The tendency of many to invoke His name in a political context is for me distinctly distasteful.
I am also very concerned that this country is drifting towards actual civil war, and that people on all sides of the political debate are not taking that threat with half the seriousness it deserves.
Yet time and again the political rhetoric on all sides becomes to me morally problematic at best, and occasionally morally repugnant. It is one thing to say religious ideology should not intermingle with secular governance, but it is quite another to pretend that how government policy impacts individual's lives does not contain a moral dimension for the individual.
Life has to be lived in the here and now, not the hereafter. Regardless of our hopes and aspirations for what comes after we have shuffled off this mortal coil, we exist in this time and this place, and we have to make choices and decisions in this time and this place.
What is the good choice? What is the moral choice? How do we ascertain the good and the moral choice?
Writing these sermons (I will be honest and acknowledge that is exactly what they are) is an evolutionary process for me, and it is one that is ongoing. Writing them compels me to think about what it is that I personally believe, and where I stand on matters of belief and faith. While I have no desire to tell people what to think regarding matters of faith, I absolutely want people to think about matters of faith, about what faith means for how each of us lives our lives, and what it is to "do the right thing". I know from my own experience that thinking about such matters is the essence of personal spiritual growth. It is an ongoing process of change, and I believe that is very much a good thing.
Each of these writings is a testament to where I am in that process of change. Ultimately, each one is neither more nor less than that. Still, me publishing them on this platform is an invitation to others to join me in that process, and, spiritually at least, to accompany me on that journey.
And we shall see what fruit comes of this. I like to believe the fruits I bear are good ones, but ultimately that decision is never mine to make.
Wow, this is a profound and deeply introspective reflection. Thank you for opening up and sharing your thoughts so candidly. Your words speak to the complexities of navigating faith and politics, the importance of living life with moral purpose, and the transformative power of personal spiritual growth.
You're absolutely right that invoking Jesus' name in political discourse can feel hollow, even exploitative, if not approached with nuance and sensitivity. It's a tricky balance, trying to reconcile one's faith with one's civic responsibilities. But it's also true that, for many people, their religious beliefs inform their political views, and vice versa.
Interesting. I like the idea of resistance to authority, something I’ve always done by nature, but what about turning the other cheek and going another mile ? Maybe we apply this principle in different ways with individuals versus governments?
We are definitely challenged to be thoughtful about what we do.
However, there are a couple of points to consider:
On turning the other cheek:
First, let's look at the Bible verse itself. "But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; " (Matthew 5:39).
The key here is that it's the RIGHT cheek. A Roman soldier could legally slap a Jew, but the "manly" way to do it would have been to strike on the right cheek with the back of the RIGHT hand (ancient cultures had numerous superstitions and customs about the right and left sides of the body). This was the way a Roman slapped a slave.
A basic problem of physics arises if one then presents the LEFT cheek: it is not possible to strike the left cheek with the back of the right hand. The only two options are to use the palm of the right hand (which is not how you slapped a slave) or to use the left hand (which was wrong all by itself).
With this context, consider what the gesture of turning the other cheek says. It's saying nonverbally "you can't hurt me." The idea of taking an opponent's best shot and then coming back is a staple of fight movies (Sylvester Stallone built a movie franchise around it). It then puts the person strking in a difficult position--walk away or do something that makes him look bad.
It is not nearly the weak-kneed pacifism much modern scholarship apprehends it as being.
On going another mile.
Because Roman soldiers typically carried a lot of gear, common practice was that Roman soldiers could compel a civilian to carry a part of that load for one mile.
One mile is not two miles. The Roman soldier had to find someone ELSE to carry the load for that second mile. He could not compel the same person to carry it again. Particularly in the early days of the Empire, Roman discipline was such that soldiers were not going to make a habit of violating such rules (no doubt some functionary had figured out that if each person in a conquered province were so compelled to carry a load for just one mile, that was within the "sufferable evils" spectrum in which rebellion would not occur).
By carrying the load a SECOND mile, you convert the soldier's command into your choice. You're reminding the soldier of the defined limits of his power, and your own capacity to exist beyond those limits.
In both instances, the actions prescribed by Jesus are not merely rejections of violence, but are legal, nonviolent ways of showcasing the limitations of Roman rule. For all their might, there were things Roman soldiers simply could not do, and these actions put those limits in sharp relief.
I haven't done a deep dive into Gandhi's life and times, but from what I understand of his activism in the 1920s, Jesus' preachings in the Sermon on the Mount presaged his satyagraha movement.
How does this play out against individuals vs organized authority? I suspect in much the same way. The basic principle is to apprehend the limits of the other person's power/authority and find outwardly non-confrontational means of exposing them.
One example of this comes from labor activism in the form of "working the contract." If you want to make a manager's life a living hell, be at the job site EXACTLY when your shift starts (meaning you have to stand in line while everyone clocks in), and only do EXACTLY what the job entails. Do not do anything extra, and if asked, simply say "I'm not allowed to do that, it's not in the contract."
Whether we are contemplating the Sermon on the Mount, Gandhi's Satyagraha movement, or modern day labor activism, one reality is always going to shine through: control is an illusion, and, ultimately, so is authority. Volition is an essential element of every human action, even simple walking. Every person retains the ultimate freedom, that of choice.
This was something the Levellers argued for most strenuously in the aftermath of the English Civil War in 1647, it was something John Locke wrote about explicitly in his Second Treatise on Government (published in 1690), and it was something around which Thomas Jefferson and the Second Continental Congress framed the Declaration of Independence.
And I say again, never underestimate the magnificence of your mind, Peter! Your analytical capabilities are magnitudes of order above the ordinary man. Truly!
Bravo, Peter! This should be read aloud at the ‘Rescue the Republic’ rally in Washington DC on September 29.
“...that we should stand against men who seek power for themselves, and that we can find ways to peaceably live together in harmony without one man seeking to rule over another.”
That is the problem - to find ways to peaceably live together. Since the injustice of J6, half of our population does not dare to even exercise their Constitutional right to protest against our government, for fear of wrongful imprisonment. The only way we could avoid the crucification by our government is if there would be so many of us standing up for our rights that it would be impossible for the Authorities to prosecute all of the hundreds of millions. And we would all have to stand up at the exact same time.
The other night I watched the movie, “Ghandi” (1982). You maybe saw the movie in a theater when you were a teenager, Peter. I watched it with you specifically in mind. What mindset, tactic, or resolve from that movie, from Ghandi’s life, could be extrapolated to the message of your book?
For Ghandi’s goal of an independent India to be achieved, millions of Indians needed to be willing to embrace the ‘nonviolent noncompliance’ espoused by Ghandi. There is a scene in the movie where row upon row of Indians step up to receive painful, even crippling blows from the British soldiers. Each ordinary Indian citizen had to willingly, unflinchingly endure this ‘crucification’, and not back down or run away.
Well, there’s our problem. Modern-day Americans are too comfortable and soft to willingly take such a brave action. No one wants to go to prison or to die - and who can blame them? So there lies coiled and waiting, today in our nation, the energy of tens of millions of citizens waiting for a VIABLE pathway to the restoration of our Constitutional Republic. Waiting so see the results of the Election, waiting for a leader - like Ghandi, like Jesus - who is ABLE to blaze a trail that we can follow without bloodshed or self-destruction. Does such a viable pathway exist? I have not been able to think of one. Thus far, I’ve been hoping that the sane rulings of the Judicial system would save our nation. Going forward, we will probably need more than just the Judiciary. What a dangerous and precarious time for our nation! We need that pathway! I believe it will be minds such as yours, Peter, who will be able to find solutions. As I’ve said to you before, “stay alive, no matter what”, because you may matter to an extent that will astonish you!
You’ve done an excellent job of connecting the deeper meaning of Jesus’ metaphor of taking up the cross to the systemic injustices of both ancient and modern times.
The idea that ‘take up your cross’ is more than just about personal sacrifice, but about challenging oppressive structures is a powerful one. Jesus’ call to resist oppression could indeed be seen as a form of non-violent resistance that still holds immense power today.
thank you. I appreciate your kind words.
I will confess this one was a bit of a conflict for me.
I have long held a certain cynical disdain for views of Christ and Christianity that argued Jesus would support this or that political policy. The tendency of many to invoke His name in a political context is for me distinctly distasteful.
I am also very concerned that this country is drifting towards actual civil war, and that people on all sides of the political debate are not taking that threat with half the seriousness it deserves.
Yet time and again the political rhetoric on all sides becomes to me morally problematic at best, and occasionally morally repugnant. It is one thing to say religious ideology should not intermingle with secular governance, but it is quite another to pretend that how government policy impacts individual's lives does not contain a moral dimension for the individual.
Life has to be lived in the here and now, not the hereafter. Regardless of our hopes and aspirations for what comes after we have shuffled off this mortal coil, we exist in this time and this place, and we have to make choices and decisions in this time and this place.
What is the good choice? What is the moral choice? How do we ascertain the good and the moral choice?
Writing these sermons (I will be honest and acknowledge that is exactly what they are) is an evolutionary process for me, and it is one that is ongoing. Writing them compels me to think about what it is that I personally believe, and where I stand on matters of belief and faith. While I have no desire to tell people what to think regarding matters of faith, I absolutely want people to think about matters of faith, about what faith means for how each of us lives our lives, and what it is to "do the right thing". I know from my own experience that thinking about such matters is the essence of personal spiritual growth. It is an ongoing process of change, and I believe that is very much a good thing.
Each of these writings is a testament to where I am in that process of change. Ultimately, each one is neither more nor less than that. Still, me publishing them on this platform is an invitation to others to join me in that process, and, spiritually at least, to accompany me on that journey.
And we shall see what fruit comes of this. I like to believe the fruits I bear are good ones, but ultimately that decision is never mine to make.
Wow, this is a profound and deeply introspective reflection. Thank you for opening up and sharing your thoughts so candidly. Your words speak to the complexities of navigating faith and politics, the importance of living life with moral purpose, and the transformative power of personal spiritual growth.
You're absolutely right that invoking Jesus' name in political discourse can feel hollow, even exploitative, if not approached with nuance and sensitivity. It's a tricky balance, trying to reconcile one's faith with one's civic responsibilities. But it's also true that, for many people, their religious beliefs inform their political views, and vice versa.
Interesting. I like the idea of resistance to authority, something I’ve always done by nature, but what about turning the other cheek and going another mile ? Maybe we apply this principle in different ways with individuals versus governments?
We are definitely challenged to be thoughtful about what we do.
However, there are a couple of points to consider:
On turning the other cheek:
First, let's look at the Bible verse itself. "But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; " (Matthew 5:39).
The key here is that it's the RIGHT cheek. A Roman soldier could legally slap a Jew, but the "manly" way to do it would have been to strike on the right cheek with the back of the RIGHT hand (ancient cultures had numerous superstitions and customs about the right and left sides of the body). This was the way a Roman slapped a slave.
A basic problem of physics arises if one then presents the LEFT cheek: it is not possible to strike the left cheek with the back of the right hand. The only two options are to use the palm of the right hand (which is not how you slapped a slave) or to use the left hand (which was wrong all by itself).
With this context, consider what the gesture of turning the other cheek says. It's saying nonverbally "you can't hurt me." The idea of taking an opponent's best shot and then coming back is a staple of fight movies (Sylvester Stallone built a movie franchise around it). It then puts the person strking in a difficult position--walk away or do something that makes him look bad.
It is not nearly the weak-kneed pacifism much modern scholarship apprehends it as being.
On going another mile.
Because Roman soldiers typically carried a lot of gear, common practice was that Roman soldiers could compel a civilian to carry a part of that load for one mile.
One mile is not two miles. The Roman soldier had to find someone ELSE to carry the load for that second mile. He could not compel the same person to carry it again. Particularly in the early days of the Empire, Roman discipline was such that soldiers were not going to make a habit of violating such rules (no doubt some functionary had figured out that if each person in a conquered province were so compelled to carry a load for just one mile, that was within the "sufferable evils" spectrum in which rebellion would not occur).
By carrying the load a SECOND mile, you convert the soldier's command into your choice. You're reminding the soldier of the defined limits of his power, and your own capacity to exist beyond those limits.
In both instances, the actions prescribed by Jesus are not merely rejections of violence, but are legal, nonviolent ways of showcasing the limitations of Roman rule. For all their might, there were things Roman soldiers simply could not do, and these actions put those limits in sharp relief.
I haven't done a deep dive into Gandhi's life and times, but from what I understand of his activism in the 1920s, Jesus' preachings in the Sermon on the Mount presaged his satyagraha movement.
How does this play out against individuals vs organized authority? I suspect in much the same way. The basic principle is to apprehend the limits of the other person's power/authority and find outwardly non-confrontational means of exposing them.
One example of this comes from labor activism in the form of "working the contract." If you want to make a manager's life a living hell, be at the job site EXACTLY when your shift starts (meaning you have to stand in line while everyone clocks in), and only do EXACTLY what the job entails. Do not do anything extra, and if asked, simply say "I'm not allowed to do that, it's not in the contract."
Whether we are contemplating the Sermon on the Mount, Gandhi's Satyagraha movement, or modern day labor activism, one reality is always going to shine through: control is an illusion, and, ultimately, so is authority. Volition is an essential element of every human action, even simple walking. Every person retains the ultimate freedom, that of choice.
This was something the Levellers argued for most strenuously in the aftermath of the English Civil War in 1647, it was something John Locke wrote about explicitly in his Second Treatise on Government (published in 1690), and it was something around which Thomas Jefferson and the Second Continental Congress framed the Declaration of Independence.
And I say again, never underestimate the magnificence of your mind, Peter! Your analytical capabilities are magnitudes of order above the ordinary man. Truly!
Bravo, Peter! This should be read aloud at the ‘Rescue the Republic’ rally in Washington DC on September 29.
“...that we should stand against men who seek power for themselves, and that we can find ways to peaceably live together in harmony without one man seeking to rule over another.”
That is the problem - to find ways to peaceably live together. Since the injustice of J6, half of our population does not dare to even exercise their Constitutional right to protest against our government, for fear of wrongful imprisonment. The only way we could avoid the crucification by our government is if there would be so many of us standing up for our rights that it would be impossible for the Authorities to prosecute all of the hundreds of millions. And we would all have to stand up at the exact same time.
The other night I watched the movie, “Ghandi” (1982). You maybe saw the movie in a theater when you were a teenager, Peter. I watched it with you specifically in mind. What mindset, tactic, or resolve from that movie, from Ghandi’s life, could be extrapolated to the message of your book?
For Ghandi’s goal of an independent India to be achieved, millions of Indians needed to be willing to embrace the ‘nonviolent noncompliance’ espoused by Ghandi. There is a scene in the movie where row upon row of Indians step up to receive painful, even crippling blows from the British soldiers. Each ordinary Indian citizen had to willingly, unflinchingly endure this ‘crucification’, and not back down or run away.
Well, there’s our problem. Modern-day Americans are too comfortable and soft to willingly take such a brave action. No one wants to go to prison or to die - and who can blame them? So there lies coiled and waiting, today in our nation, the energy of tens of millions of citizens waiting for a VIABLE pathway to the restoration of our Constitutional Republic. Waiting so see the results of the Election, waiting for a leader - like Ghandi, like Jesus - who is ABLE to blaze a trail that we can follow without bloodshed or self-destruction. Does such a viable pathway exist? I have not been able to think of one. Thus far, I’ve been hoping that the sane rulings of the Judicial system would save our nation. Going forward, we will probably need more than just the Judiciary. What a dangerous and precarious time for our nation! We need that pathway! I believe it will be minds such as yours, Peter, who will be able to find solutions. As I’ve said to you before, “stay alive, no matter what”, because you may matter to an extent that will astonish you!