The Cross: A Call to Mastery or Servanthood

The cross represents many things to the Christian community and beyond. Ultimately it signifies the price paid for our atonement and is a symbol of Christ’s victory over sin and death. Moreover, the cross embodies the qualities of service, suffering, and sacrifice while it characterizes unconditional love and a call to reconcile and be reconciled both to God and each other. These we see lived out in the life of Jesus, and resident in the message of the gospel. 

The cross is also an emblem of Christian faith. It is seen on the rooftops of churches and sometimes hung on the walls of places of worship. Some wear it around their necks or even have it tattooed to their bodies. Others gesture its sign as part of their liturgy. 

Decidedly it remains an iconic symbol for the Christian faith, and historically has been painted on canvasses, murals, and even shields taken into battle. Several have looked upon it as a source of inspiration while others use it more superstitiously to ward off evil. 

With that, governments have also used the cross to achieve and maintain political ideals. The cross was a primary method through which Rome kept the people they oppressed under control and in their place. Here the cross was definitely a political tool used to achieve a political agenda. But the question remains. What does the cross symbolize then? A call to subjugate, or something else?

This dominion mentality continues to show up in many ways. In the Church we use language that speaks of conquest when describing our mission to reach all the world with the gospel. We talk of “taking the land”, and assure believers that Israel’s mandate applies also to believers and they must strive to enter into the ‘fullness’ God has for them, our Promised Land apparently, but I’ll resist engaging this so called ‘fullness’ that these teachers speak of except to say this kind of rhetoric quite honestly concerns me given Colossians 2:9, 10 assertion we already have it in Christ – “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness”. That is at least concerning salvation ... but I digress …

We have sung songs full of militaristic terminology, perhaps the most notable being “Onward Christian Soldier”. Even some youth programs of the past have identified themselves with imagery from crusade times, whereas presently a popularized notion circulates with certain religious figures declaring themselves as spiritual Generals and Commanders of God’s army – the church. Then if this is a true depiction of the people of God do we view our churches as the spiritual equivalent of a military base and are our bible institutes to be understood as a type of spiritual West Point? Do we  perhaps imagine ourselves as God’s servants fighting against the forces of evil, enforcing His will, because after all if we don’t won't evil prevail, and then how will God’s will be done? Have we not adopted a warring mindset?

Wasn’t the cross enough to defeat these forces or am I being naïve? Colossians 2:13-15, “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross”.

Well aren't we to battle against evil you ask? Isn't there a war to be fought? Yes, there is a war to be waged but our warfare takes on a different focus and form. We must war against injustice, bigotry, starvation, hatred, and the like. We must fight for human dignity and peace. In this way we shine our light before others that they may see our good deeds and glorify our Father in heaven - Matthew 5:16.   

2 Corinthians 10:3-5, "For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ". These weapons sound more like influence and debate then forced dominance and subjugation.

Even prayer has taken on militaristic form. Nations have been divided into tactical maps depicting territories and regions under various 'spiritual' powers that must be conquered while strategies are developed to overthrow those powers through ‘spiritual warfare’. It sounds like God is on campaign! Does this start to ring any bells?

This prompts the question, are we then to model ourselves after a conqueror and commander, or after that of a servant? Are we to seek positions of power and control, or opportunities for service and influence? The language is important here. At the risk of sounding frivolous, what would Jesus do? And just as important, what would He say … what did He say?

Mark 10: 42-45; “… You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles (ethnos) lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall NOT be so among you”. 

What? Hold the phone! It sounds like no matter how noble the cause we are not to seek to dominate and control others so much as to learn self control; Proverbs 16:32, "Better a patient person than a warrior, one with self-control than one who takes a city". Nor are we to view ourselves as better than others; Philippians 2:3, "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves". Still don’t Commanders command, rulers rule, and conquerors … well don’t they conquer? And if we are not called to exercise authority over others what then are we to do? 

“But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to GIVE his life as a ransom for many”.

Am I pulling scriptures out of their context just to support my argument? I don't think so. The gospel demonstrates Jesus was the King, and yet He girded Himself and washed the feet of the disciples. He was son of David, but endured injustice at the hands of governing authorities (John 18:28-19:16). He was the spotless Lamb of God, and yet He did not counter with force through angelic intervention (Matthew 26:53, 54). Finally, He was Lord of all, yet He resisted a human crown, and surrendered Himself to the cross. 

John 6:15, “When Jesus saw that they were ready to force him to be their king, he slipped away into the hills by himself”

Wait a minute! Wouldn’t a position of power give Jesus more opportunity to make a difference? Apparently He didn’t agree. Was Jesus looking to change world systems and implement better and more just laws? Well not primarily, not externally, that wasn’t His strategy. Well how would one expect to bring the world around to Jesus’ way of thinking? Well from within! 

“The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst” Luke 17:20, 21.

I can just hear the disciple’s jaws drop in response, ‘Huh? That's not how its suppose to go. What about zeal for YHWH and keeping Torah? What about Phinehas and Elijah? What about YHWH's covenant? Israel is still in exile, laying under the feet of its enemies. You're the Messiah, the seed of David. You must lead us to throw off these oppressors as God promised. Then the Temple can be completed and the Gentiles turned from following pagan gods. How else can one change our world if not through instituting a new kind of government or some kind of earthly authority that submits to YHWH even if that means military intervention? What’s wrong with a little ‘holy war’ if its done for a good cause? I mean come on Jesus, we must be practical. The Romans aren’t just going to leave because we ask nicely’.

Even the church picked up on this mantra. It wasn’t that long ago in early church history that Christianity gained political power and started a campaign to make the landscape more conducive to Christian ideals. The church was a major player here. However, when change is forced it quickly slides into tyranny and oppression. It quickly becomes mixed with political agendas or have we forgotten about the 'inquisition'! Believe me whenever we try to legislate behaviour, particularly by mandating beliefs, somewhere down the line these external laws always end up conflicting with people’s points of view; good or bad, as a rule it leads to revolt at some level!

However concerning social transformation Jesus didn't emphasize conformity via external controls, but rather through internal conversion; a paradigm shift in our worldview that relocates us. Colossians 1:13, "He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son …” Furthermore wasn’t this emigration, this spiritual exodus of sorts, experienced with our personal approval? Yet historically that hasn't always been the case. Forced conversions always end badly for the subjugated.

Under the Rules of Colonization the occupationist eradicates, displaces, or converts (absorbs) the indigenous population. We don’t have to search that far back in history to find examples of this. It’s standard protocol. Though some in the early Church reached out in a manner more reflective of Christ’s example on earth, others were more militant, forcing conversion through threat of violence. They justified their actions by pronouncing these campaigns as sacred duty, sanctioned by God presumably.

Nevertheless, some maintained that Christ’s kingdom doesn’t come with visible signs, nor will people be able to say, ‘Look! Here it is!’ or, ‘Over there!’ (Luke 17:20, 21). Nevertheless the mannerisms of others were more pronounced and took a more aggressive, even notorious approach. During those times it didn’t go so well for those who held contrary beliefs. Even those within the church were kept under scrutiny, and many suffered the fanaticisms of unscrupulous leaders.

Laws were introduced to favour Christian beliefs. The tables seemed to have turned. Many thought, ‘surely the kingdom of God had come’. After all, no one could perceive the Church in a ‘low’ position. Surely the toppling of worldly governments, and exaltation of the Church was part of God’s agenda. 

This ‘conquerors’ mindset wasn’t new of course; many followers of Jesus struggled as well with the concept of a crucified Messiah. Even Peter’s rebuke of Jesus demonstrates the offense taken to the idea of a suffering Messiah. Interestingly Jesus' response seemed to identify Peter's thinking as from satan. Nevertheless the fledgling church could not envision that kind of Lord. It doesn’t like that kind of message really and I am not sure we have changed that much. I submit even with the benefit of hindsight, aware of a resurrected Christ, we still want to return to a conquest theology all the more. Now that Christ has risen, now that the devil lost, it’s our turn! Taking back the planet for Jesus! But the life of Jesus, and ultimately the cross, doesn't seem to portray that same spirit. It seems taking the low position of subservience rubs us the wrong way. After all wasn’t dying to self just a spiritual metaphor? 

The 20^th and 21^st century have had their share of struggles as well. In fact here in the West there seems to be a movement today to find and employ political solutions for spiritual problems. Christian coalitions have wielded a mighty brush in the America’s political canvas. Fundamental right-wing politics remains hard at work trying to impose far-right Christian ideas into the nation’s legal system, a type of control on people from without. And then we have N.A.R., the Apostolic movement a.k.a. the I.N.C. movement, which believes in gaining control of the "Seven Cultural Mountains"; spheres of society: economy, government, family, education, arts, media and religion and spirituality. They believe in a  pre-millennial reign of God where the kingdom can come to earth before Christ returns. These organizations are an attempt to control the church from within with a view towards changing the national, no global landscape in preparation for Jesus’ return. In either case it would seem that even those within the church are often subject to political manoeuvring and no small amount of pandering in the guise of religious affirmation. We’ve seen it before. Is this really how we are to expect the Kingdom of God to be realized on earth? By political / religious hegemony?

I like the lyrics from the album “Won’t Get Fooled Again” by the Who. The song states, "Meet the old boss, same as the new boss". Do politically motivated Christian coalitionists / activists really believe we would be any different than those who have tried before and failed? Do they imagine evolving into a world without evil? … Beds made, clothes folded, ready for Christ’s return. Or are these Christian lobbyists just offering another form of utopian thinking mandated by law? Does the CCA and ‘Pat Robertson’ types propose they have the answer for the stereotypical ‘Miss America’ questions addressing ‘world peace’ and 'world hunger'? If not, what is the goal of the far Christian right? Christianity cannot be forced, and the kingdom of God cannot be established on earth while its King is still in heaven. These have been tried before, but it would seem we are slow to learn from our history.

Moreover I must ask, would the bible become the national constitution? Which part? The gospels or the book of Leviticus? Are we prepared to reinitiate stoning?? Will there be laws put in place to incarcerate or even execute homosexuals, abortionists, people of other religions, and anyone else that doesn't fit our mould? Will the church become both judge and advocate, executioner and an agent of grace ... warrior and peacemaker? 

We engage in changing the laws of the land to suit our convictions even though these have little effect on changing the hearts of those subjected to them; case in point the "Blue Laws" or "Lord's Day Act of 1906" where people of no faith were restricted from shopping. This law did nothing to promote church attendance. 

Don't get me wrong I am not an anarchist. I believe that until Christ returns we must have the rule of law. But the laws we must protect are those that benefit, safeguard, respect and dignify all humanity no matter their ethnicity, social status, or humane beliefs. That's what I see Jesus doing, and without concession. No deferential treatment, no forced conversion, just a message of unconditional love to those who have ears to hear, to those who are willing to listen. Or is the goal of mandating others submission to our ideals just a device to make us feel more comfortable in this world and less responsible in regards to sharing His message personally? To this I would ask are we fighting for the 'poor' or our own convenience?

I submit then that while the kingdom of God will not come with observation neither will the defeat of evil prior to Christ's return. No politico-militant church will ever bring about the kingdom's righteousness nor the end of actual evil. No a militant church will never displace the darkness, but it is very likely to become it. A militant church is not what Jesus was proposing. 

I remember the dystopian political thriller “V for Vendetta” in its depiction of a government run state religion. Perhaps this depiction was reminiscent of Hitler’s Protestant Reich Church where by the Gleichschaltung Act, the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs under Hanns Kerrl was established, and the church became an advocate for a political agenda. The State run church (Evangelische Kirche) interestingly had the effect of driving the true church (Confessing Church) underground ... it ostracizred people. Whether the politics runs the church or the church runs the politics, I fear the injustice and abuse that would come from these. We have to demonstrate forethought and ponder where things will lead us. Is there a slippery slope to consider?

Historically wherever hierarchal ecclesiological systems of authority are employed as a means of governance, the church has seen exploitation, and injustice. Such appetites for control, no matter how noble in their beginnings, must always be viewed cautiously, and with respect towards man’s capacity for corruption. One cannot ignore the words of William Pitt; “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.” Will control through governance lead us to ecclesiological amelioration or ecclesiological fascism? One must ask.

Modern evangelicalism continues to see its share of factions demonstrating an unorthodox approach to ecclesiological leader / followership. Many concerning aspects resident in both past and present movements tend to advocate a resurgence of some variation of apostolic and prophetic authority to rule the masses. Typically, these are presented as ‘moves’ of the Holy Spirit to better facilitate the ‘Great Commission’, and/or for ushering in of Kingdom rule. These endorse the dissolution of all denominational structures, instituting governance of a global church worldwide by a few at the top. Sound familiar? Isn't N.A.R., or I.N.C. for that matter, really only offering another form of domination by controlling the masses? Furthermore, does this not constitute the notion that God only directs through a few "chosen ones"; i.e. an apostle and a prophet? And how does this top-down model sit with Mark 10:42-45? Presently there are a few pseudo-christian religious groups that work this way - Jehovah's Witness and Latter Day Saints to name a couple.

There has always been the David Koreshs who have thought they were appointed by God; set apart and above others, given 'special' revelation and called to prepare the church ... called to lead the church. Unfortunately their model flies in the face of what Jesus said in Mark 10, as well as the model of servant leadership Jesus and the disciples presented in the New Testament. Church history is full of these types and their hierarchical systems. Whether employed to accomplish a more thorough discipleship through a system of accountability that obligates believers to those in power positions i.e. the “Shepherding Movement”, or to exercise a hierarchical structure of governance for the purposes of consolidating and organizing church efforts to influence worldly systems with kingdom principles; each have overplayed the role of the apostle and prophet while ignoring or distorting scriptural precedent and context. This strategy generates invasive and oppressive protocols, and conversely, yet not not surprisingly, a lot of zealous approval. This ‘Third Wave’ ideology of ‘apostolic’ reformation fails to appreciate the 'slippery slope' analogy; the dubious foundation and cruel history that this model possesses. While most are excited about this concept I must ponder, under this type of church governance how long will it be before you are required to sign a document that places you contractually in submission to an apostle, whether it be through or for church membership or in order to partake in ministry work? How long before they demand that your money and your possessions belong to the work? How long will it be before challenging one of these self-proclaimed apostles will be considered sin ... an affront to God Himself? It would seem that Christian authoritarianism continues to be ‘all the rave’ with many blind to the obvious.  

"They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity ..." - 2 Peter 2:19a.

Perhaps, the most alarming feature is the seemingly naïve, and ambitious way many are throwing themselves into this, proclaiming themselves to be something, affirming themselves among themselves … all the while enslaving themselves to the leadership of a few ‘chosen’ men? And FYI, no women allowed in this men’s only club. 

Maybe its the way they are packaging it as the "key" to ushering in the kingdom. After all, we all want our stake in the kingdom so we rush in to claim our slot. Perhaps it’s the seduction of being selected as the ‘elite’ in the body of Christ. Is that the attraction? Maybe. Or perhaps it’s really not that complicated – it’s about the power and the prestige. It seems everybody wants to rule the world.

The disciples James and John were no less influenced by these kinds of ideas when it came to bringing people into line with God’s plans. After all Israel had succumb to worldly political ideologies a long time before Rome (1 Samuel 8 – 15). They were far from a theocracy. A prominent 1^st century traditional Jewish expectation in respect to Messiah was that a descendant of David would come on the scene, declare themselves king, gather an army of followers, and overthrow the Romans making Israel the primary player on the world’s landscape. They would then rebuild the Temple and convert the Gentiles. So to think that James and John might have been motivated by political ideology isn’t a stretch. But what was Jesus’ response to such thinking and strategy? Well, He rebuked them.

Luke 9:52-54, “And he (Jesus) sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them? But Jesus turned and rebuked them.”

What! Well in the next chapter Jesus lays it out. “I am sending you out like lambs among wolves.” Hey lambs aren’t considered very intimidating, they’re not leaders, they don’t even often appear very smart. N.T. Wright says in his book titled “Evil and the Justice of God”, “The call of the gospel is for the church to implement the victory of God in the world through suffering love. The cross is not just an example to be followed; it is an achievement to be worked out, put into practice … It is the start of the process of redemption, in which suffering and martyrdom are the paradoxical means by which victory is won”. Furthermore, “it is a problem if and when a “Christian” empire seeks to impose its will dualistically on the world by labelling other parts of the world “evil” while seeing itself as the avenging army of God". That is what Jesus found in the Israel of His day. Wright admonishes, "The cross was and remains a call to a different vocation, a new way of dealing with evil and ultimately a new vision of God.” God was going to keep His promise His way.

So how do we envision the kingdom coming? In a “pillar of cloud and fire, surrounded by legions of angels?” It is interesting that Jesus says in Matthew 26:52-54, “Put your sword back in its place,” … “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” The sword can be a very political tool. Just consider Caesar’s politico-military maneuverings. 

In summation, if the kingdom of God is not to exemplify a politico-militaristic approach then what does the cross leave us with as a means of addressing evil and promoting His will on earth?

Let’s start with 1 Corinthians 1:20-25, “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength”. 

So should Christians become politically informed and engaged? Yes, however even though we are called to advocate for the poor and against injustice, social activism has a limit. Jeremiah 29:7 directs us to make our petition to God for societal health, “Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper."” A sentiment that I think is relevant to us today.

In “Thriving in Babylon: Why Hope, Humility, and Wisdom Matter in a Godless Culture“ Larry Osborne writes “Daniel’s humble respect was tied to his firm belief that God is in control of who is in control. It wasn’t merely a theological axiom. It was a reality he lived by. He saw Nebuchadnezzar as God’s servant, a wicked king allowed to reign for a period of time in order to fulfill God’s sovereign purpose—in this case, the discipline and judgment of Jerusalem for the sins of its people … No matter how bad things get, the path of humble service and respect toward those God has placed in temporary authority has always been the path God calls us to take … Daniel did the right thing despite being kidnapped, castrated, forced to study the occult, having his name changed to honor a demon, and then thrust into the service of a wicked king … He didn’t humbly serve his Babylonian captors because he expected a quick reward. He did it because it was the right thing to do. It’s the same for us today”. 

Well what’s the purpose of this little article you might be wondering? Well I want people to think about what they are hearing before they "buy in". I want them to think about the gospel message as Jesus told it … modeled it. I want them to think about the cross and the lifestyle it depicts and calls us to. I want them to think about what this means in relation to how we engage this world. I guess the key word here is ‘think’. Thinking and faith are not competing processes. Remember Israel's morning and evening prayer found in Deuteronomy 6:5, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength”. The recital of the "Shema" is considered to be one of their most sacred duties. Jesus in Matthew 22:36–37 declared it to be the “greatest commandment in the Law”. 1 Corinthians 14:15 also bids us to pray with my spirit and my understanding. To sing with my spirit and with understanding. Thinking is very much a Christian's duty, and we must not be afraid to ask questions, even of our leaders.

So, though I am not sure what all will transpire here prior to Christ’s return, and what part the Church will play here on earth, I do know that the scriptures say that His kingdom will be forever and complete, and that every knee shall bow and every mouth will confess. Still, these confessions and acts of homage seem to be uncoerced, a kind of free-will response. The scripture doesn't indicate those who oppose Christ will ever be forced to bow and speak these words. It sounds concessional, even revelatory, like they came to their senses. Furthermore, the message of the gospel doesn’t tell us to control people through externally legislating Christian ideals, as if that would defeat evil. It simply asks us to tell and model it. As difficult as that is to accept we are directed to make our appeal to God to bring about the internal change needed in persons. Its a transformation that occurs from the inside out. The prayer our Lord taught us seems to reflect this ideal.

Our Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, The power, and the glory, For ever and ever.
Amen.

Christus Victor!