With Mother Teresa, Padre Pio, Archbishop Romero and Evelio Javier

(The Death of Jesus)

our hosts: M. Teresa, Archbishop Romero, Evelio Javier and Padre Pio

At last, it is time to let Jesus die.

A Solicitous Query. Let us pause here to note that it took us some time before letting Jesus die. I hope we now see how important his pre-crucifixion mission was. In carrying out our pastoral and spiritual lives, we have to fill in a gap in our official creed. Our official creed, 77 formulated in the 4th century after Christ, which we profess every Sunday, omits the Kingdom-proclamation of Jesus and its consequences.

We believe:

in Jesus Christ,

His only Son, Our Lord,

who was conceived by the Holy spirit,

born of the Virgin Mary,

_______?_______

suffered under Pontius Pilate,

was crucified,

died

and was buried …

Look at the words of the creed again. If you were not familiar with the theological controversies that led to the formulation of the creed, you would wonder about the somewhat morgue-ish concern to see Jesus really dead: he was crucified and died and was buried. Again, no apologies. For far from being a droll remark, my comment is an attempt to probe a bit into our Christian psyche.

Shoes to Wear: Blind Faith or Apologetics? A word in passing about the creed. I was raised to believe in these truths about God. Thus the creed was there to help me grow up to believe in these truths, or even, believe in God, but hardly to experience God. I make this not-too-incidental remark at this juncture because we are entering a terrain—the death, resurrection, Cosmic Christ—where there are better shoes to wear than blind faith or apologetics….

… But now, at last, it is time to let Jesus die.

A Redundant Statement? This Jesus lived dangerously. He would die dangerously. We know from history and our Faith that he died. Aye, and there’s the rub. We know that he died. We do not really know that he was killed. Have I just made a redundant statement? Our hosts—two sets of them—will clarify. Archbishop Romero and Evelio Javier 78, who were killed for justice, will tell us why he was killed. Mother Teresa and Padre Pio, who had a special devotion to the suffering and crucified Jesus, will tell us why Jesus died.

Death Of Jesus: Historical Aspect.

Jesus’ Record in the Book of Life. Archbishop Romero and Evelio Javier will show us Jesus’ record in the book of life:

He put primacy on the human being and human life over and against the accepted tradition and law. He violated the sabbath by healing people. ‘Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to kill?’ – was his defense, delivered with anger and grief (e.g. Mk 3:1-6).

He violated the sabbath by letting the hungry pluck corn (Mk 2:23-28). His defense: the sabbath was made for humankind; not humankind for the sabbath.

To him, tax-collectors, sinners, the poor were human beings (Mk 2:15-17; Lk 16:20-22).

He was a rebel against tradition. In the eyes of the institution he was not only a non-conformist. He was a heretic, an apostate. ‘Tradition of the elders’ (Mk 7:3) is an old wineskin that cannot hold new wine (Mk 2:22). Tradition is an old fabric that cannot be patched with a piece of new cloth (Mk 2:21).

He makes little of the tradition of fasting and the ritual purity laws: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. ‘You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast to the tradition of men…. You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!’ (Mk 7)

He offered a fresh re-reading of the tradition. That is a dangerous thing to do when those in authority are either too entrenched or insecure or both.

He was an uncompromising critic of the value-system or ideology of the establishment. He excoriated the theologians and strict observers for prescribing tithing but neglecting social justice, which for him was the weightier matter of religion (Mt 23:23).

Whereas the institution honored the righteous and despised the sinners, he came not ‘to call the righteous, but sinners.’ (Mk 2:7; Mt 9:13)

‘Beware of the yeast of the pharisees and the yeast of Herod.’ (Mk 8:15) – was his warning.

‘Justice-and-compassion’ would have been the inscription on his phylactery 79 if he had worn one. It was a badge of honor he wore in his heart. ‘I would rather have compassion than sacrifice.’

Compassion for the hungry, the tax-collectors and the sinners rather than animal offerings in the temple! – was a cardinal principle for Jesus, as it was for Hosea (Mt 9:13;12:7; Hos 6:6).

For Jesus, the weightier matters of the law were justice and mercy and faith. (Mt 23:23)

He was unabashedly for the poor and stern towards the rich. Good news to the poor was the constant refrain in his mission statements (Mt 11:2-5 = Lk 7:18-23; Lk 4:16-21; Lk 6:20 = Mt 5:3). It was matched by performance.

The rich he critiqued (Lk 6:24; 12:16-21), challenged Mk 10:21), warned (Lk 12:16-21; 16:19-31).

His physical assault on the temple was a loud message in behalf of the poor, addressed to its wealthy custodians (Mk 11:15-19).

He aims and fires at the establishment. He said that their scholars love to walk around in long robes, to be greeted in the marketplace, to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets! They devour widows’ houses. For the sake of appearance, they say long prayers (Mk 12:38-40).

More substantial charges were forthcoming. He indicted the religio-political leadership with infidelity to their trust, with unproductiveness and with murder. They killed the prophets and now they were going to do the same to the vineyard’s heir (Mk 12:1-10).

He censured the aristocracy. He did not mince words with the temple aristocracy: ‘You have made the house of prayer a den of thieves.’ (Mk 11:17)

Nor were his accusations against the intellectual-pastoral elite any milder: you shut the Kingdom of heaven against people and make your converts twice as much a child of hell (Mt 23:15).

His words to the king, Herod Antipas, were hardly conciliatory: "Go and say to that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I am perfected’" (Lk 13:31-32).

He staged a double-assault – in speech and feat – against the most massive institution, the temple. Some scholars think that this was what sealed Jesus’ death (Mk 11:15-19; 13:1-2).

He wrested from the experts and the erudite their power and authority. These influential men probably sensed the common folk’s reaction to Jesus: the people were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not like them, the recognized teachers of the community (Mk 1:21-28).

He usurped the status of the priest. Being a lay person, he healed a leper (Mk 1:40-45).

He exposed their hypocrisy and love for externals (Mt 23).

Canonization or Condemnation? With such a record, people like myself would be ready to canonize him. Another Thomas More! Another martyr on the Roman arena, standing head high against the imperial claims. A subversive saint! Just as we are about to canonize him, the aristocratic elite of his time condemn him to death. Understandably, in a way. Would we have done any better ourselves? What with the steady stream of ‘irritants’ to authority, power, establishment, tradition, wealth, law … and, lurking behind all of these, the EGO. How do you solve a problem like Jesus?

Why Was He Killed? Jesus was killed. He did not just die. He was executed. Why? Because during his lifetime he wanted to save souls? A friend of mine once remarked, perplexed: ‘Such a fine chap. All he wanted to do was save souls. And they did him in!’

Again, why? Because his Father wanted him dead—for our sins? Banish the evil thought!

Why? Because he disappointed people’s hopes of a political, military messiah? Hardly, it would seem.

The available data do not permit certainty about the exact cause of Jesus’ execution. But from all appearances, it was his conflictive Kingdom-activity which set his feet moving toward the cross. A rebel’s life courts a rebel’s death.

Activism and Contemplation. In the course of our journey, we paused to note that Jesus’ life was one of action and contemplation. So should be that of the disciple. We can now introduce a refinement: Jesus’ life was one of activism and contemplation. That would be more accurate and true to life, would it not?

Jesus, the First Activist. Jesus is the first activist in our Christian history. He stood squarely for life, for the human being, for the poor, for justice, confronting a tradition, a law, an authority that had become meaningless and destructive for people’s lives. We ought also to rescue the word ‘activism’ from attempts to paint it black and despicable. And what is activism? I prefer not to give a dictionary meaning. Read the second sentence of this paragraph. Or better: Read Jesus. Read Jesus well. You are reading an activist. One of the best, if not the best, of the variety.

Other Reasons for Jesus’ Execution. The gospel accounts also mention other possible causes or motives. However, it is difficult to tell the real motives and the false charges. These include: (1) Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of God (Mt 26:63-4); (2) Jesus uttered blasphemy (Mt 26:65); (3) Jesus was delivered by the Jewish authorities out of envy (Mt 27:18); (4) Jesus performed many signs. ‘If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.’ (Jn 11:47-48); (5) Jesus was perverting the nation and forbidding people to give taxes to the emperor, and claiming to be king (Lk 23:2); (6) Jesus was stirring up the people throughout the land (Lk 23:5). These last two charges would make Jesus anti-Roman, a not unlikely fact at all.

We have just reviewed some of the historical situations, people and reasons connected with Jesus’ death. Our guides have been Archbishop Romero and Evelio Javier. The signposts were provided mostly by Mark, Matthew and Luke.

Jesus in the Face of Death. How was Jesus in the face of oncoming death? We sometimes harbor a certain ill-considered view. He was God, we say. He foresaw everything. We have an unstated suspicion that he did not go through a real human struggle. He took his death as matter of course, pre-programmed for him from all eternity.

Human Struggle. The fact, however, is he did go through a real human struggle. No matter how painful to him or to us, we cannot permit our pious intentions to steal away from him this fragment of life. He avoided places of danger at night. He went around only with his close and trusted friends. He took refuge in safe (hiding?) places like Bethany and Ephraim. Gethsemane, too, might have been a place of hiding, for only Judas, not the arresting soldiers, knew where it was.

He fought; he resisted as long as he could hold out.

Let us follow him during the last days, as Mark tells the story in Chapter 11:8 and following:

He No Longer Went About Openly. Amid hosannas and leafy branches Jesus enters Jerusalem. Danger ahead! He is entering the heart of enemy zone. The sanhedrin is there. The Jewish military is there. The unique Jesus Rally of Palm Sunday probably puts his enemies somewhat on the alert.

Jesus enters the temple. It is here that on the morrow, he is going to stage a raid. So what does he do? ‘He looks around at everything.’ Is this a preliminary survey of the lay of the temple in preparation for the assault?

As it was getting to be late in the day, he leaves. Is he avoiding the city? It is enemy territory; it is not safe even during the day, less so at night. In addition to the Jewish police, there is the Roman garrison overlooking the temple. He slips away from the city.

To where? Watch where he goes. To Bethany. Perhaps because it is a safer place, being a couple of miles away from Jerusalem.

John’s gospel even says that Jesus goes underground! ‘Jesus therefore no longer went about openly among the Jews.’ He then hides in a town called Ephraim far out in the country near the desert.

And with whom? His trusted friends, the twelve.

Thus should we read the following roadsigns:

Did Jesus go to his death like a lamb being led to the slaughter? No, not until after the anguished semicolon in his life. In Gethsemane, his whole being was shaken. In distress, agitation, grief, he resisted and warded off his mortal fate. ‘Remove this cup from me;’ [This is the pivotal semicolon. This is the great divide. Before this he was fighting, resisting, refusing.] ‘yet, not what I want, but what you want.’

At any rate, I would rather talk in terms of a life-flow. It is like a river. There are parts that are still and pleasant like placid lagoons. There are the turbulent parts where the river crashes against crags and boulders, flaring up into smithereens of pain. Here, crises. There, questionings. Here, abandonment. There, despair. These turbulent parts may not, will not, cannot have the answers. But the whole river does. The river as a whole knows that the entire adventure makes sense, that there is only one place to go, the great ocean, and the river knows with absolute certainty that it will get there.

Let us go back now to Jesus and his dying …

Pause Here. And so they killed him on the hill of the skull (Mt 27:33). It is one of the most cruel and most painful deaths invented by men. We can pause here. Say nothing. Do nothing. Just be in touch with the flow that exudes from the core of the Crucified. That energy , shared with us by this unusual Jesus, could eventually become life-giving rivulets for ourselves and others.

Towards a Meaning. We have a high regard for meaningful deaths. That of Jesus’ is without doubt one of the most, if not the most, meaningful deaths in human history. The stakes he played for the sake of human life, the poor, justice would have conferred enough meaning to his death. However, another, more mystical meaning, was given to his death …

Jesus’ Death: Theological Aspect

Archbishop Romero and Evelio have just told us why Jesus was killed. Mother Teresa and Padre Pio will now take over and tell us why he died.

A mystical meaning was given to his death. His death was a sacrificial offering in atonement for sin. He died for the sin(s) of the world.

But can we be more accurate and also more fair to Paul and other New Testament testimonies about Jesus’ atoning death? Yes. Here we are in touch, not with a theological doctrine, but with a faith experience, the fruit of mystical seeing and experiencing. Our pathway to it is likewise mystical insight and experience, not cerebral analysis. Here ‘mystical’ need not be spelled with capital letters. It is everyone’s birthright. For how can touching or drinking directly from the Source be a privilege or monopoly of the few? Padre Pio, whose flesh was an engraving of the Crucified, could give us a hand.

A while ago, we paused in silence to drink in the spirit of a rebel. This time, and any other time, we can pause once again, to drink in the Spirit that flows from the altar of the cross. It is a Spirit that cleanses, transforms and animates.

Cultural Background. The view that someone’s death could have an atoning value was not strange in a Jewish cultural environment. It was believed that an innocent man or martyr could offer his death for the sins of others. Secondly, in the Jewish religious system, sacrificial blood, usually of animals, was the vehicle for sin-atonement. Thirdly, Isaiah 53 spoke of a servant-figure, originally referring to the people Israel, that suffered for the transgressions of others.

Jesus Himself. The insight into the sacrificial meaning of Jesus’ death was discerned by the early Christians who eventually understood his death in the light of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah (52:13-53:12). It is not unlikely, however, that it originated with Jesus himself at a time when the forces of mortal opposition were closing in on him during the latter part of his life. (See Mk 10:45 and Mk 14:24)

Two Aspects of Jesus’ Death.

Historical and Theological. Our hosts, Archbishop Romero and Evelio Javier, Mother Teresa and Padre Pio will have clarified for us that there should be at least two ways of talking about the death of Jesus:

Why did Jesus die? To which the answer is: in atonement for sin. Death-for-sin is the faith-meaning and theological significance of Jesus’ death.

Why was Jesus killed, executed or murdered? The various historical reasons that led to his execution: this is the historical aspect of Jesus death.

We would do well to take both aspects seriously and not let the faith-meaning cancel out the historical aspect—under pain of trivializing Jesus’ death.

Recover the Historical Aspect. In a very general way of speaking, Second Look consciousness is focused only on the theological significance. ‘Why did he die?’ to which the correct answer is:‘to redeem us from sin.’ The historical aspect—‘Why was he killed?’—is nearly overlooked. But it is important to recover it – and for several reasons. Because it belongs to the total story, and without it Jesus’ death cannot be explained. Because it is particularly meaningful in the Third World today. In our day there are already modern martyrs—whether Jesus-followers or not—whose blood has witnessed to values and ‘issues’ similar to those of our first martyr, Jesus. 80 Jesus offers the Jesus-followers among them a profile for inspiration and imitation: in his commitment to human life, the human being, and human rights above law and tradition (Mk 3:1-6); in his choice of tsedaqah, mishpat, checed as the heart of life and religion (Mt 23:23); in his critique of the establishment, theology, canon law, life-style and practice of his own ‘Church’ and temple-state; in his clear stance regarding the ‘anawim and outcasts; in his equally clear stance regarding the wealthy and powerful elite. Three of our hosts, Romero, Evelio and Mother Teresa, each in their own way, are imitators of this Jesus in our time—Romero and Evelio in socio-political life, Mother Teresa in her uncommon compassion for the sick and the dying.

Yes To the Open Side. The atoning death of Jesus is a sure constituent of our faith. And today we rightly make the faith-assertion: ‘Jesus died for me and my sins.’ Paul says, ‘I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me’ (Gal 2:20). It is a precious possession, especially to those for whom it is not just a doctrine to be believed but an open side from whose juices we slake our thirst. That open side of Jesus is also the living spring which flows into the Church’s sacraments. But, we must say more, particularly for the information of Christians whose political outlook is progressive but who, theologically, have remained static in a Second Look catechism. And what is this more …

The More: He Did Not Set Out to Die. In the human history of Jesus, he did not set out on a mission to die (!) He was definitely not a dead man walking, as sometimes he is made out to be—unconsciously and unwittingly. Rather he set out first on a mission ‘to proclaim the Kingdom and its justice.’ 81 It was this proclamation in word and action which then drew Jesus into mortal conflict with the social, economic, political and religious elite of his time and brought him to his cross. His death was then given a particular meaning—an atoning death for sin.

Playing It Fair. In so expanding our awareness—appreciative of both the faith-meaning/theological significance and the historical aspect of Jesus’ death—we also play it fair with the biblical data.

Paul and John. ‘Death in atonement for sin’ is the theology which has one-sidedly dominated our faith-understanding for centuries. This can happen when one makes Paul, John and the Letter to the Hebrews the total framework for the Jesus-story. For many centuries our Christian theology has been heavily Pauline and Johannine. Paul, in his letters, says next to nothing about the pre-crucifixion life of Jesus, much less about the historical causes for Jesus’ death. Paul focuses almost entirely on the atoning significance of Jesus’ death.

And John? Even though he does talk about the ministry of Jesus, his gospel is so heavily overlaid with later theological reflection that we no longer meet the Jesus of Galilee. Rather, for John, Jesus is the Eternal Word who, from the first moment of his public ministry, is at once the ‘Lamb of God’ who takes away the sin of the world (Jn 1:29). Jesus is not presented as the proclaimer of the Kingdom. Already in the very first chapter of the gospel, on his first public appearance, Jesus is introduced by John the Baptist as he who will die on the cross for our sins!

Thus today, although it is true that in our liturgy we read about Jesus’ ministry in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, too many of us subconsciously and inaccurately treat Jesus’ life as merely a preparation or prelude to his death.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke. We have to find a balance. We have to supplement Paul and John by giving full value to the story found in the evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke. It is the life-story of one who ‘died, was executed, for the Kingdom and its justice.’ It is a story which calls into question our own life-story. Is mine a life-story where a death-bed at the end of the road is taken for granted? Or, toning down the melodrama: is it a story of being comfortable with the way things are, rather than devoutly wishing and perilously working for the demise, for example, of the World Trade Organization?

Postscript One: the Mission of Jesus Revisited.

We can now return to a question we asked in the beginning: ‘What was the mission of Jesus?’ and give a fuller answer.

Mission to Die for Sin. Once again, is the statement, ‘Jesus’ mission was to die for the atonement of sin’ correct and biblical? Yes, it is correct. It is biblical, as Mother Teresa and Padre Pio have just guided us to see. There are numerous biblical references to this. Together with Jesus’ resurrection, Jesus’ death is the centerpiece of Paul’s gospel (1 Cor 15:3 ff). But Archbishop Romero and Evelio Javier tell us we cannot put a full stop here.

Mission Before the Cross. The mission of Jesus before the cross was to proclaim and to actualize final-and-definitive salvation: the Reign-Kingdom of God, healings, exorcisms, liberation and justice to the poor and oppressed (Mk 1:14-15; Mt 11:2-6; Lk 6:20).

Vantage Point: Post-Easter or Eternity. It is true that certain biblical statements present Jesus’ mission in terms of his death (and resurrection): He came to die for our sins (1 Jn 4:10). Here and in similar instances, the narrator has taken either a post-Easter vantage point or a vantage point of eternity (Mk 10:45; Mt 1:21; Rom 5:6-10; Jn. 3:16; 1 Tim 1:15). Thus we have such expressions as: ‘God’s plan from all eternity is that Jesus should die for our sins.’ Of course, from the same vantage point, one may as validly say anything, including: ‘God’s plan from eternity is that Jesus should proclaim the Kingdom.’ At any rate, speaking from the vantage point of eternity one may, of course, validly say: ‘Jesus came to die for our sins.’

A Look Inside History. But a ‘look inside history’ will contribute to a fuller and differentiated view. Before the moment of awareness that his Kingdom-work and conflictive activity would involve an expiating death, Jesus’ life-purpose was the proclamation of the Kingdom of God. We can and should speak, therefore, of the mission of the pre-crucifixion Jesus.

When Did Jesus Know? At what precise moment did Jesus become aware that his Kingdom proclamation would entail his atoning death? Right at the start when he first took up his Kingdom task? Much later on in his career when the forces of destruction were catching up with him? It does not matter. What is important is that within history there is, primarily, Jesus’ awareness of a mission to proclaim the Kingdom of God in word and deed. Subsequently (or concomitantly), soon or late, he becomes aware of his consequent death and its atoning significance.

Various Perspectives. We need a key for understanding biblical texts about the mission of Jesus. Here is the key: there are various biblical statements about Jesus’ mission and they were written from various vantage points or perspectives.

Perspective A: On the cross, or at some point before the cross—when Jesus became aware of impending death and accepted it as an atoning death for sin—Jesus can speak of his mission in terms of an atoning death:

Kingdom Not Heaven. The mission statements of the pre-crucifixion Jesus (e.g., Mk 1:14-15; Mt 11:2-6; Lk 6:20-21) concern themselves not so much with heaven as with Kingdom. Jesus spoke not so much about ‘going to heaven after death’ as about ‘entering the Kingdom of God.’

Human Being, Not Soul. The mission statements of the pre-crucifixion Jesus concern themselves not so much with the disembodied soul as with the total human person: the blind, the lame, the leprous, the poor, the sinner.

Life Includes Grace. The mission statements of the pre-crucifixion Jesus concern themselves not so much with grace-for-the-soul as with life (sight, health, life, joy, justice, liberation) for the human being.

My Catholic tradition tends to automatically associate Jesus with ‘(sanctifying) grace.’ This is true, of course, of the crucified-and-risen Christ, assuming for the while that ‘(sanctifying) grace’ is good theological language. It is salutary, however, to heed the appeal of the pre-crucifixion Jesus whose deeds were more ‘life giving’ than they were ‘grace giving.’ Jesus was concerned with total well-being for humans.

The Jesus before and after the cross would certainly be for ‘life.’ It is more comprehensive and more inclusive than ‘grace.’ ‘Life’ comprehends all human blessings, including the gift of the Spirit, which sometimes goes by the less fecund expression, ‘grace.’

Postscript Two: the Principal Gospels in the New Testament.

We are very accustomed to the word ‘gospel.’ Usually our gospel today is centered only around the saving death (and resurrection) of Jesus. Let us take a look at the principal gospels which the New Testament proclaims.

On the one hand:

On the other hand: the gospel which Jesus proclaims is, first, the gospel of the Reign-Kingdom of God (Mk 1:14-15), and second, the gospel—of justice and liberation—to the poor. This gospel to the poor is one of the principal blessings of the Kingdom (Mt 11:5; Lk 7:22).

The principal gospel(s) in the New Testament:

The Gospel to be Proclaimed Today. Normally today, we, particularly the Second Look generation, are familiar almost exclusively with Paul’s gospel. A highly popularized version of it is what portable loud-speakers proclaim on the street-corners of Cubao and in many buses.

The First and Third Looks challenge us to also proclaim Jesus’ gospels.

One is the gospel of the Reign-Kingdom of God. And here, first, I remind you of an old insight: the proclaimer (Jesus) is not the proclaimed (Kingdom of God). Second, that in general we priests and pastors have been good at proclaiming the proclaimed, but not as good in proclaiming what the Proclaimer proclaimed. Much of our proclamation of Christianity has been a proclamation of Jesus rather than a proclamation of the Kingdom. This observation takes on a sharper bite if we realize that, strictly speaking, the main focus of Jesus’ own proclamation was not himself, but the Kingdom of God! Jesus did not proclaim himself; he proclaimed the Kingdom of God.

The other gospel of Jesus is liberation and justice for the poor. The First Look summons us to proclaim this gospel. PCP II has taken the lead in this.

But more.

Then there is also the gospel for our time. I refer to the good news that we must announce in our time. I propose that the content of such a gospel is the following: the dialogical interaction of Jesus’ and Paul’s gospels on the one hand, and our historical situation today, on the other hand. Thank God, the Church has begun to proclaim this gospel today. We can use more of it, much more.

Evangelization. Another household word in Christian vocabulary is ‘evangelization.’ ‘Evangelization’ means ‘proclamation of the gospel.’ What gospel do we proclaim in the Church today? How do we ‘evangelize’? How close is our evangelizing to that of Jesus? In certain parishes I know, evangelization has truly taken on the shapes and colors of integral evangelization. The sacraments, the eucharist, the homilies are vibrant and are linked with the life-concerns of the community and the world. The seminars, organizations, movements have a wide range of interests—from personal sanctification, folk religiosity to inter-religious dialogue, human rights advocacy and protest rallies. Clearly these parishes are concerned for life and life-before-death. Sadly, however, there are parishes where evangelization is confined to the teaching of prayers and songs, of old-style doctrine and morals—primarily in preparation for death and life-after-death.

Take Up Your Cross.

The cross of Jesus provides a good opening to talk about suffering. There seems to be an ambivalence about how a Christian should view human suffering. On the one hand, the beatitudes clearly show that Jesus wanted liberation from poverty and hunger. On the other hand, we follow a suffering and crucified Jesus. The following ‘catechism’ might help:

To put it plainly, is human suffering—hunger, poverty, sickness—a good or an evil?

It is an evil.

But is it not part of the human condition?

Yes. But it remains an evil. Being a part of the human condition does not make it a good.

But did not Jesus embrace suffering?

No, not right away. Remember the anguished semicolon.

But eventually he did embrace it.

Yes, when it became clear that such was to be his life-flow … or the will of his Father. Remember again the ‘thy will be done’ after the anguished semicolon.

Therefore, we are to embrace suffering when it is the will of God, or better, the Father’s will? 84

Yes, of course, when and if it is—clearly and after due discernment, I repeat, clearly and with due discernment—perceived to be the Father’s will.

The ‘will of God’ does not, of course, mean that a sadist God takes pleasure in seeing us suffer. Rather, we dimly intuit that the table of life, as it is set before us, includes the bitter cup and bitter herbs—the design of which only God can fathom.

Or to use another metaphor: the flow of life may rest in placid, blue lagoons but it may and will also be dashed against ugly crags and boulders—for reasons kept in the heart of God and the universe. Tragedies, death of loved ones, excruciatingly painful sicknesses, malformed babies….

We must, however, be slow to assign certain calamities and disasters to the will of God, when they are rather the result of human folly and greed. Floods that destroy lives and precious belongings in our day are to be charged to human rather than divine agency.

Further, suffering as part of the table of life is there not as an invitation to passive surrender, but as unique summons to creativity.

May we not embrace suffering in imitation of the crucified Savior?

Yes, if it is clearly discerned to be our life-flow. But if it is a suffering that we invent for ourselves, proceed with caution.

Does not the Church teach that suffering is a ticket to heaven?

A Second Look Church may. Jesus never did.

Did not Jesus challenge us to ‘take up your cross and come follow me’? (Mk 8:34; Mt 10:38; 16:24; Lk 9:23; 14:27)

Yes, but that statement must be understood in context. That statement was made before Jesus died on the cross. The cross did not as yet have a religious meaning. If anything, it had a political meaning. Crucifixion was a punishment meted out by the Romans on rebels and slaves.

In the case of Jesus, the cross was a consequence of – a punishment for—his proclamation of the Kingdom. When we spell out his Kingdom practice, it reads: He was to be a defender of human life, the poor, justice. He was an enemy of tradition and law. He was a non-conformist, a heretic, an apostate. He was a critic of the establishment and the aristocracy. He attacked the cathedral of his time. He threatened authority and the power-holders. Jesus’ cross was the ‘reward’ for that kind of Kingdom practice.

For the Jesus-follower, taking up one’s cross means at least to take up that Kingdom proclamation which led Jesus to his cross, whether or not it leads to one’s own cross. Further, it means doing the Kingdom practice which could lead to one’s own cross – arrest, torture, death?—at the hands of a threatened establishment. In his time, Jesus’ challenge had these (over)tones: ‘Risk the cross and come follow me.’ That is a cross which we do not invent. Here is an ancient formulation of it:

Yes, indeed. In fact, we do not have to think big and heroic. A prosaic example would be a person who devises an abundance of mortifications (like giving up ice cream during Lent) and is indifferent to the abuse of women and children; or a person who can marshal various forms of self-punishment (like giving up a movie) and be blind to structural economic punishments to countries and peoples imposed by the World Bank and transnational corporations.

After Jesus died on the cross, should not we Christians, in imitation of Christ, value and accept bitter cups that come our way? Did not Paul say that he fills out what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ (Col 1:24)? And did not 1 Peter (1 Pet 2:21) say that we follow a crucified Savior?

Yes, we should value and want to carry our cross – but again, as in the case of Paul, we value the kind that is truly what God asks of us. Moreover, remember that Paul’s sufferings—imprisonments, floggings, stoning, shipwrecks, bandits, danger from brothers and sisters, etc.—were all for the sake of the gospel (2 Cor 11:21-33).

Further, while we appreciate the reflections of Jesus-followers like Paul and 2 Peter, we should also give importance to what Jesus himself said and did before he died on the cross.

What did Jesus say and do before he died on the cross?

Well, briefly, suffering was a condition to be liberated from rather than a cross to bear or a necessary ticket to heaven. The beatitudes, for example, were resounding proclamations of liberation from poverty, hunger, and misery. And his practice? When he encountered the sick and the hungry, he did not say that sickness and hunger were their certificate for heaven. No. He healed. He gave to eat.

Meaning of the Statement: ‘Take Up Your Cross’ – Before and After Jesus’ Death. To return to the statement ‘take up your cross,’ what is the proper way to understand it?

People who live after Jesus’ crucifixion may and do accept their portion of the bitter cup ‘because they follow a crucified Savior.’ In this instance, we may legitimately enough use the language ‘taking up one’s cross.’ But it is good to know that this is a transferred and secondary meaning.

The original meaning, as Jesus spoke it before his own death on the cross, would seem to be: ‘Risk the cross! Proclaim the blessings of the Kingdom. Announce and defend life. Promote justice. Stand with the oppressed. Prophesy against the powers. Denounce. Be an irritant! Risk the cross!’ To dodge this cross while setting up dummy crosses, substitutes, is a way to miss the good fight that 2 Tim 4:7 speaks about.

Listen now to Jesus himself say it simply:

There is another paradox in this saying of Jesus which we may briefly advert to. We have seen that ‘life’ is a high priority for Jesus. In fact ‘saving life’ could very well summarize Jesus’ whole life. Yet here he says that the attempt to save life is to lose it! Of course, there is a particular use of language here: ‘saving life’ has the connotation of promoting self-interest. The statement is striking nonetheless.

Be Still and Know …