Immediate Word

Dear Fellow Preachers,

What does the way of the cross mean for George W. Bush this week? What does it mean for troops in Kuwait, or pilots on carriers in the Persian Gulf? How is a student opposed to war with Iraq to be conformed to the image of Christ crucified? And what is the way of the cross for the average preacher and his or her hearers this Sunday?

This week's installment of The Immediate Word features material by team member George Murphy that will probe these questions while focusing on Jesus' words about taking up the cross (Mark 8:31-38).

Along with the sermon are helpful comments from the rest of the team, meaningful illustrations, creative worship resources, and a children's sermon.

Take Up Whose Cross?
By George Murphy
Mark 8:31-38

George W. Bush's confession of his Christian faith was quite public even before he became president. When asked during the 2000 campaign which philosopher had influenced him most he replied, "Jesus Christ." And now, with the nation that he leads involved in conflict with global terrorism and facing the possibility of war in Iraq, many people see his clear-cut views of good and evil and sense of mission as a major factor in the course the country is taking. (The cover story of Newsweek's 10 March issue, "Bush and God," deals with this theme in detail. The cover story of U.S. News & World Report of the same date, "The Bush Push for War," also touches on it.)

Jesus Christ as teacher -- a "philosopher" if you will -- is a significant part of the Gospels, but by no means the most important part. The main feature of the Gospels is the cross: The Gospel of Mark, in particular, has been described as "a passion narrative with a long introduction."1 The gospel reading (Mark 8:31-38) for this coming Sunday, the second one of Lent, is the pivotal moment when Jesus turns toward Jerusalem. Just a few verses before this, Peter made his personal confession of faith in Jesus: "You are the Messiah." Now Jesus tells his disciples that he is going toward rejection, death, and resurrection, and calls those who want to be his followers to "take up their cross and follow me." This passage is crucial to our understanding of who Jesus is and what it means to be a disciple of his.

And the passage is especially challenging to American Christians today as war looms. Can participation in war or support of it, can any exercise of force, ever be consistent with serious discipleship, if the mark of such discipleship is bearing the cross?

Christians confess that Jesus is the Messiah/Christ, the one who fulfills the promises and hopes expressed in the Hebrew Scriptures. Our text is, after all, part of "the good news of Jesus Christ" (Mark 1:10). But Jesus' response to Peter shows that he didn't want that title to be attached to him during his ministry, and the reason isn't far to seek.2 Popular expectations of the Messiah as one who would overthrow the Roman power and establish a Jewish empire were inconsistent with the path he knew himself to be on, and on which he called people to follow. Peter's own rejection of the idea that Jesus would suffer and die shows that he too had some idea of the worldly success of the Messiah, and his attempt to deflect Jesus from his passion draws Jesus' stern rebuke.

The first question we have to ask then is: What kind of Messiah do we think Jesus is? Of course we know that he was crucified, but it's all too easy to regard that as just a temporary setback or theological tactic rather than as something essential to who he is. The Son of Man, however, must suffer and be rejected and die (v. 31). That is necessary in order for him to be the Son of Man -- or, in the proper sense, the Messiah. And unless we have that clear, our understanding of the call to take up the cross and follow him must be inadequate.

For Peter, for George W. Bush, and for everyone who wants to be a disciple of Jesus, the cross is where the rubber hits the road. We are saved by the cross and the resurrection of the crucified, and are initiated into the Christian community by a baptism that is to be understood as participation in his death and resurrection (Romans 6:3-6).

(In many baptismal liturgies the sign of the cross is made on the one who is baptized.)

And Jesus says that the mark of discipleship is to be taking up one's cross, a willingness to lose one's life rather than cling to it. (Cf. John 12:25-26).

But what does it mean to take up the cross? It may help to connect that question with the popular "What Would Jesus Do?" (WWJD) criterion for Christian action. Of course that shouldn't be understood -- as it sometimes is - in a naïve sense: We're not all called to wear sandals, and there are situations in modern life that Jesus simply wasn't faced with. But while Jesus is not simply an example for us, he is an example. And significantly, his Passion is given as a pattern for the lives of Christians in several places -- Galatians 2:19-20, Philippians 2:4-11, Hebrews 12:1-2, and 1 Peter 2:21-23.

The passage from Philippians is especially important because it makes it clear that there is a purpose for the "emptying" of self (kenosis) -- i.e., "the interests of others" (v. 4). Kenosis is not just an abstract emptying for the sake of emptiness, and the way of the cross is not nihilism.

So to return to our question, what does it mean to take up the cross? What will those who hear a sermon on this text on this second Sunday of Lent think their response to these words is supposed to be. Is "the cross" a general principle, or does it mean something specific for Jane or Joe Pewsitter?

The NRSV reading of verse 34 in our text here can be misleading because of the fact that gender inclusive language was achieved in this case by converting Jesus' words to plural form: "Let them deny themselves and take up their cross." That may give the impression that there's a one-size-fits-all cross. But the statement is actually in the singular -- aparnesastho heauton kai arato ton stauron autou. "He must deny himself and take up his cross" (NIV). (For an inclusive reading it would be better here, though clumsy, to say, "Anyone who wants to come after me must deny him or herself and take up his or her cross.")

There is a fundamental aspect of the way of the cross which is the same for all.

Every day, in some form or other, sin and the temptation to sin confront us, and every day we are to struggle against it and to repent when we fail. This is a pattern of death and resurrection, of dying to sin and rising to the new life of forgiveness and reconciliation. That is, for example, the way in which Luther -- with Romans 6 in mind -- speaks about the significance of baptism for daily life:

It signifies that the old person in us with all sins and evil desires is to be drowned through daily sorrow for sin and repentance, and that daily a new person is to come forth and rise up to live before God in righteousness and purity forever.3

But while in this way we are all without exception called to take up the cross, there is an important sense in which we are presented with the cross in different forms. Some Christians, the martyrs, have been killed for their witness to Christ -- have even (as tradition has it of Peter) been crucified. Others are scorned and suffer for their faith. But the sufferings of the cross are not limited to distinctively "religious" pains, and it is not only martyrs who bear it.4 Jesus' solidarity with the oppressed, the despised, and the "unclean" means that their sufferings are taken up in his cross and, in turn, are to be seen as part of the cross they must bear.

Then there are faithful Christians who encounter trials and difficulties in life but are able to overcome them and achieve success in the eyes of the world. And others seem to go through life quite happily, with little suffering, and die a peaceful death. Not all are called to be martyrs. (And in the early centuries the church finally had to condemn those who went out of their way to be martyred -- cf. Matthew 10:26.) We are not all given precisely the same cross to bear.

So what does the way of the cross mean for George W. Bush this week? What does it mean for troops in Kuwait, or pilots on carriers in the Persian Gulf? How is a student opposed to war with Iraq to be conformed to the image of Christ crucified? And what is the way of the cross for the average preacher and his or her hearers this Sunday?

At the present time we can't avoid thinking about this question in connection with the possibility of war with Iraq, and it would be a cop-out to avoid that issue. On the other hand, the President probably won't be in your congregation this Sunday, and preaching to the absent usually isn't very fruitful. There are, however, others who have to ask the same type of question that the leader of a nation does -- not only those in the military but police officers and judges and all who exercise civil authority and who may be called to use force, or the threat of force -- "the sword" in biblical terms. The question that we asked earlier, one that could confront any Christian, persists: Is the exercise of force ever consistent with the way of the cross, the pattern of Jesus Christ?5

Put the question in a pointed way: Would Jesus pilot a bomber over Baghdad? The question has been posed rhetorically in that way recently in order to argue that Christians should oppose the war with Iraq. But ask a similar question: Would Jesus have gone ashore at Normandy? Now the answer is perhaps not quite so obvious.

If we are confronted with a situation in which one person or group is clearly an aggressor and threatens another, relatively innocent, person or group with harm or death, what are we called to do? A nonviolent response may be protect the innocent, but it may not. If it doesn't, a refusal to use force may succeed only in preserving our sense of moral purity at the expense of the victims. It may be not emptying of self but precisely a matter of holding on to what we value. We can think, for example, of the "peacekeepers" in Bosnia who stood by while people were being murdered.

We are to be conformed to the pattern of Christ, but there is a big difference between Christ and us! The first answer to WWJD? Is: "He would die for us" -- that is, for his enemies (Romans 5:10). His self-giving love to the point of death was unique because it was for the salvation of all people without qualification. We are not called to save the world. If I am threatened with death by some person, conformation to the pattern of Christ may mean that I don't resist. But if a third person is so threatened and I have the means to keep that from happening by using force against the aggressor, there is nothing salvific about my refusal to act. That is not self-giving love but the maintenance of a principle at the expense of an innocent person. On the other hand, it would not be an obvious contradiction to Christ's example if I were to risk my life to disarm the aggressor even if that meant killing him. And in no case, whether my reaction is violent or nonviolent, should I have the illusion that I am providing ultimate salvation for anyone.

But people who think that they're saving the world have more often been those who think that violence is justified! A clear-cut sense of mission has its drawbacks. An appeal to the example of Christ doesn't tell us when the use of force may be legitimate, but the Christian tradition has developed fairly strict criteria to answer that question. Whether or not one's cause is just -- let alone whether one's opponent is "evil" -- is by no means the only question. War also has to be the last resort, and the good that might be accomplished must outweigh the certain evils of conflict. Innocent people must be spared (and not merely classified as "collateral damage"). It's probably fair to say that few of the wars that have been fought by Christians over the past centuries have actually been justified in terms of the classic "justifiable war conditions."6

Furthermore, many of us need to ponder Jesus' question in the gospel about gaining the whole world and forfeiting life. War in defense of the oppressed or to protect the freedom of our country is one thing. War to maintain the standard of living to which we have become accustomed in the world's most powerful nation is another. Motivations in the political realm are seldom entirely pure, but we need to ask hard questions about what is moving us to war.

And if force is a necessity, "the best of bad choices," then a Christian who is called to use it should not try to rationalize that in itself as a bearing of the cross. (It is, however, likely to have emotional and psychological consequences for one who makes a decision that injures or kills others.) The state acts in accord with law, not gospel.

Many of us are not faced with the question of war and peace with the same immediacy that the leaders of our country and our military are, but the decisions should be in our thoughts and be seen as part of the cross that each of us has to bear in our particular situation. Those with relatives or friends in the armed forces bear the burden of concern for those they love. Americans who think that war is necessary must avoid the temptation to rejoice at the death of enemies. (I recall a bumper sticker that I saw after the First Gulf War, "America Kicks Ass!") Those who believe that war with Iraq is not justified will be torn, wanting the best for the country and those who serve but believing that the course they've embarked on is wrong. And all of us are told -- not just invited, but told -- to pray for peace, and pray for our enemies.

The possibility of war with Iraq gives special meaning to Jesus' words about taking up the cross at the present time. But even if the world were at peace, we would hear those words at this time, and would be invited to see the trials, temptations, and sufferings that confront us in our station in life as part of the cross that Jesus bears, and as the cross which we are to bear. Each Christian is to be reminded that everyday he or she is to die to sin (the particular sins that may beset that individual as well as our common guilt) and receive the new life that God offers in Christ. The season of Lent is a time when that theme should be given special attention: We follow Jesus on his way to Jerusalem as he leads us through the dangers of the world.

Today's gospel is about taking up the cross of Christ that takes a particular form for each disciple. It is also about resurrection. The Son of Man must be killed -- and rise again. Those who lose their life for Christ's sake -- will save it. But resurrection comes only after the cross.

Notes

1 Paul J. Achtemeier, Mark (Fortress, Philadelphia, 1975), p. 82, attributes the phrase to Martin Kähler.

2 Some have concluded that Jesus simply rejected the title "Messiah" but Mark 8:30 does not say this. It indicates rather a tacit acceptance of the title but an insistence that nothing be said about it. Cf, D.E. Nineham, Saint Mark (Penguin, 1963), pp. 224-225.

3 A Contemporary Translation of Luther's Small Catechism (AugsburgFortress, 1997), p. 37. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (Macmillan, 1963), pp. 342-343 is also helpful here.

4 The traditional definition of a Christian martyr is one who is killed "because of hatred of the faith."

5 Another way of getting at this would be to ask if it's appropriate for Christians to serve as soldiers, judges, police, or in any other office which might require the exercise of force. The traditional answer of some Christians, such as the Anabaptists and Quakers, is "No." There is not room here to discuss the matter adequately, and the Christian's relationship with the state could easily be a topic for another entire sermon. But we might simply ask who is going to maintain order in society and protect the innocent if Christians don't? Are we simply to let non-Christians do the dirty work so that we can enjoy the benefits with clean hands? Karl Barth says somewhere that he thought even a Quaker must be glad to see a policeman on the street corner.

6 John Howard Yoder, When War is Unjust (Augsburg, 1984), p.18, states the criteria as follows. (This book critiques the just war tradition from a Mennonite standpoint.)
1) The authority waging the war must be legitimate.
2) The cause being fought for must be just.
3) The ultimate goal ("intention") must be peace.
4) The subjective motivation ("intention") must not be hatred or vengefulness.
5) War must be the last resort.
6) Success must be probable.
7) The means used must be indispensable to achieve the aim.
8) The means used must be discriminating, both
(a) quantitatively, in order not to do more harm than the harm they prevent ("proportionality"), and
b) qualitatively, to avoid use against the innocent ("immunity").
9) The means used must respect the provisions of international law.


Team Comments

Carlos Wilton responds: I've read your piece, "Take Up Whose Cross?" and I have to say I find it difficult to apply the concept of cross-bearing to the leader of the world's most powerful nation as he prepares for war.

Who was it who imposed the cross on Jesus? Caesar. And who is the one person in the world today who can best be compared to Caesar, with respect to the number of legions at his command? It is the President of the United States.

I'm not speaking of George W. Bush personally here, nor of his faith. It has to do with the office. To me, the image of a commander-in-chief bearing a cross is something of an oxymoron.

One can look at cross-bearing, I suppose, as a purely individual matter: into each life some sufferings must come, and the faithful endurance of that suffering we call cross-bearing. Presidents know pain and heartache, just as peasants do. Yet, in the case of Jesus, there is also the dimension that his suffering was brought on by the juggernaut of Roman justice, as it slowly and deliberately rolled over him and his little religious-reform movement.

Certain Christians, especially those in places of abject poverty and injustice like Latin America, look to the story of Jesus' death and resurrection and see God's promised vindication of the oppressed. To turn around and ask the question, "What cross does the commander of stealth bombers and aircraft carriers have to bear?" would be, for them, at best unintelligible and at worst a negation of their struggle. How can the power that constructs crosses, they would ask, also be involved in bearing them?

I'm not saying that the dispatching of a Tomahawk missile to destroy an Iraqi military target is the moral equivalent of banging a nail into the hand of our Savior. It is not. But both are an exercise of human political power, and both cause suffering.

I would not describe myself as a proponent of Liberation Theology, but I do find it humbling, from time to time, to assess my homiletic strategies by asking the question, "What would a Guatemalan peasant think of this?" I'm afraid this homiletic approach would flunk that test.

And what about the Iraqi Christians (yes, there are some, particularly in the northern part of that country), who may soon see their homes and churches flattened by not-so-smart American bombs? What would they think of the American President's being compared to Christ bearing the cross down the Via Dolorosa?

Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon write that "the cross is not a sign of the church's quiet, suffering submission to the powers-that-be, but rather the church's revolutionary participation in the victory of Christ over these powers. The cross is not a symbol for general human suffering and oppression. Rather, the cross is a sign of what happens when one takes God's account of reality more seriously than Caesar's. The cross stands as God's (and our) eternal no to the power of death, as well as God's eternal yes to humanity, God's remarkable determination not to leave us to our own devices" (Resident Aliens, p. 47).

I'm not taking a pacifist stance, as I say this. I believe there are some circumstances -- a rather narrow range of circumstances, having to do with preventing evil forces from causing innocents to suffer - when war can be justified from a Christian point of view. (I'm not sure, myself, that this war is one of those cases.) Even when morally justified, war is never a positive option, ethically speaking -- only one that is less negative than other available choices. I would hesitate to describe that kind of choice as cross-bearing.

Chuck Cammarata responds: I must say that I very much disagree with Carlos' comments on this week's sermon. If the idea of taking up one's cross does not apply to President Bush because he is a man of power, I wonder to whom it applies. How much or little power must one have at one's command in order to have Christ's call apply? Would it then follow that someone like Tommy Franks -- the general commanding our forces in Kuwait -- would not be called to take up his cross either? Would it follow that the CEO of a Fortune 500 company who controls thousands of lives and billions of dollars would fall outside the scope of Christ's word? At what level of power does one become too powerful to have the words of Christ apply here? The idea that men and women of power cannot take up their crosses, die to themselves, and follow Christ, just seems to me to be short-sighted. The gospel applies to all people. The call of Christ to follow him is for everyone. It may be true that it is harder for people of power to surrender themselves to the radical claims of the gospel. (As Jesus said -- it is harder for the rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. I think these words of Christ make the point that those of us who have lots of security -- in the form of wealth -- may find it harder to fully trust ourselves to Christ. The same would apply to those of us who have lots of power.) But that doesn't preclude the possibility that people of power might surrender themselves to him. After all Jesus went on to say, "All things are possible with God."

As for the idea that George Bush wields the very power that put Christ on the cross -- I would suggest that the power that put Christ on the cross was not Roman Imperialism or Jewish religiosity -- although those were the two political powers that did the deed -- rather -- the force that nailed Christ to the cross was the power of sin: a power that each one of us wields day in and day out. In this regard the President bears no more responsibility for the death of Christ than I do. Christ went to the cross -- not because the nations rage against each other -- that raging is just a symptom of the real problem -- Christ went to the cross because "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." He went to the cross because all of us -- as is revealed by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden -- all of us have chosen to usurp the authority of The King and Creator to rule our lives.

While it may certainly be more difficult for those who possess great wealth or power to humble themselves, surrender all they have and all they are, and follow Jesus Christ, it is surely not impossible. Our politics may be different than George Bush's, but we cannot deny that when it comes right down to it he is a Christian like the rest of us trying to understand the will of God, and apply it to the life he has been called to live. And, in my mind, this means that George Murphy is right that the cross George Bush bears is much heavier than the one I bear because my decisions affect only a few people for ill or good, whereas Mr. Bush is making decisions that impact everyone on the planet. What a cross that must be to bear.

Carlos Wilton responds to Chuck Cammarata: Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I never said President Bush or any other person of power could never be described as taking up a cross: just that one particular Presidential act -- that of launching a massive war machine which will by definition bring suffering to others -- seems to me an unlikely example of cross-bearing. The nature of cross-bearing is to relinquish power in order to be victimized, not to exercise power in order to victimize others.

Does it sound shocking to hear me say that our nation is about to victimize others? It shouldn't. The nature of war is to create victims. That's what war is. Prosecuting a just war may in some cases be morally necessary, but that doesn't make it any less horrifying. A Christian ruler leading his nation to war ought to do so with eyes wide open, grieving for the bitter, lesser-of-two-evils choice that must be made -- and with the utmost regret for the suffering (some of it to innocents) that will be caused.

I think we need to be careful of using the term "cross-bearing" interchangeably with words like "discipleship" or "faithfulness." The term needs to be defined precisely. All cross-bearing is discipleship, but not all discipleship is cross-bearing. To question whether a president's actions as commander-in-chief are examples of cross-bearing is not to declare that those actions are unethical, or even un-Christian -- just whether or not they're cross-bearing.

You wrote: At what level of power does one become too powerful to have the words of Christ apply here? The idea that men and women of power cannot take up their crosses, die to themselves, and follow Christ, just seems to me to be short-sighted.

I agree. But that's not what I said. Again, you seem to be using the terms "cross-bearing" and "discipleship" synonymously. I'm not.

Again you wrote, And, in my mind, this means that George Murphy is right that the cross George Bush bears is much heavier than the one I bear because my decisions affect only a few people for ill or good, whereas Mr. Bush is making decisions that impact everyone on the planet. What a cross that must be to bear.

I would agree that the responsibility our President bears is much greater than the responsibility you or I bear. Yet is bearing responsibility the same as bearing a cross? I wouldn't say so, myself. Cross-bearing implies relinquishing power, and voluntarily submitting oneself to suffering for the sake of others.

All I'm saying is that it's important that we be precise about our language. Otherwise, we'll risk slipping into the kind of triumphalism the Crusaders demonstrated, as they went to war displaying the cross of Christ on their breastplates ("Crusaders," it's no coincidence, is the label of choice for the Islamic militants as they describe us).

A subscriber responds: Peter's confession of Jesus as the Messiah had the words right, but his understanding was wrong. For him it meant one to lead a military victory over the Romans, not one who was to undergo suffering, death, and resurrection. According to Jesus, Peter's understanding was Satanic. What is our President's understanding of the Messiah today?

Further, to take up the cross really means finally to choose one's own death, if not physically, then spiritually. Paul wrote, "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2:19-20). And we know that some who deny themselves for the sake of witness to the gospel may end up even in physical death too, as did Jesus (e.g. Archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador).

Given the overwhelming economic and military power of our country, I wonder about whether we may not need to hear, "For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life?"
--Paul Hammer

Carter Shelley responds: I think the notion of kenosis, the "emptying of self in the interest of others" offers a wonderful focus that a lot of proactive type-A Christian Americans such as myself find incredibly difficult to attempt. The idea of kenosis deserves a sermon all its own. It is such a uniquely Christian concept and so contrary to our self-help, capitalistic, anybody can make it here, American mythology. Just as "One nation under God" printed on our currency refutes the separation of church and state in the United States, American independence and Christian dependence remain our national paradox.


An Alternate Approach
By Carter Shelley
I've always had an uneasy relationship with this text in Matthew. Taking up my cross and following Christ conjures up for me the most uncomfortable and difficult aspects of Christianity. Where one may be able to split hairs and publish papers on the nuances of meaning in various parables and miracles of Jesus, it's never been a mystery to me what Jesus' words mean. Though the cross one carries may vary according to the context and time in which one lives, I've never had any doubts how exacting and clear a call it actually is. For many first and second century Christians it meant bravery and steadfastness despite certain death in the Roman Coliseum. For both Catholic and Protestant zealots of the Reformation, there were enormous political and theological risks in going against 1500 years of Christian tradition and the sometimes whimsical preferences of English, French, and Spanish monarchs. For 20th century Christians, such as a Polish priest, who helped more than 25,000 Jews find safe passage out of Europe via Turkey during World War II, there were significant dangers and snares to overcome unsupported by the Vatican. (This modest Catholic priest would become Pope John Paul II in 1978.)

I know what it means to take up our cross and follow Jesus through the season of Lent and on into the unwelcoming and unfriendly world of unending hunger, poverty, disease, racism, nationalism, and triumphalism. Jesus' words are plain. So is my desire to get as far away from them as I possibly can, because I don't want to take up my cross and follow. I don't want to die prematurely. I don't want to sacrifice my middle class American comforts and go out into the world to spread the gospel by words and actions that truly imitate Christ. Surely, we can leave such noble servanthood to the saints: Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Albert Schweitzer. Oscar Romero, Desmond Tutu, and Teresa of Calcutta. All of these individuals possessed numerous talents and could have lived their entire lives in comfortable, safe situations, but when they took the gospel to heart, they also took it and its heavy burden on the road: back to Germany from the safe haven of Union Theological Seminary; into Africa to provide medical care for those who had none rather than continuing both a brilliant and academic career as author of The Quest for the Historical Jesus and as a concert organist; against the political and ecclesiastical powers in El Salvador in order to represent the economically oppressed peasants; speaking out as a black man in Apartheid South Africa despite constant death threats; and, leaving the comforts and camaraderie of a culturally familiar convent to live and minister among the diseased of Calcutta.

We have models of what it means to take up our cross and follow, but it's easy to see why few of us take Jesus up on it. With our country on the verge of war, what cross do we as a nation bear? What cross would Jesus expect us to bear? I hate the thought of picking it up. How about you? Alone the burden remains unbearable. Maybe together we could manage it. Maybe together we could find a third way, a better way than those being posed by our President and his advisors, a way better than that posed by our European allies, a way better than that Saddam Hussein might like us to choose. Change never comes easily, and innovation never comes without a measure of both change and pain. Pray with me today that we as Christians first, and Americans second, may follow the way of Christ rather than our way, our government's way or the ways of the world!
In The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness: A Vindication of Democracy and a Critique of its Traditional Defense, American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr takes a clear-eyed look at the motivations and world view provided by liberal democratic societies as compared to the motivations and world view of countries run by dictators and despots. Niebuhr's insights were inspired by the dynamics that led to World War II, but they remain relevant today. "The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light," from Luke 16:8 appears on the book's cover page.

A reading of pages 10-21 offers excellent insights into the idea of "the will to power" which exists in both children of light and children of darkness, but tends to be acknowledged and exploited by the children of darkness, such as by a Hitler or a Saddam Hussein. Significant points Niebuhr illustrates in The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness include the following:
1) Christian liberals and humanists are naïve about human nature and therefore, can be defeated by those who understand that self-interest, ambition, and power are driving forces in human nature
2) People in groups and institutions can act without conscience. Remember the young children who beat and almost murdered a man on his own doorstep several months ago? Think gangs, religious fanatics, cults, and exclusive clubs.
3) The "good" must acknowledge the power of the "bad" and be prepared to deal with it. Whether the current "axis of evil" terminology of the Bush administration fits this designation has caused much debate. The implication that only our enemies are evil requires clear-eyed Christian confession and analysis.
4) It is not possible for the children of light to control evil in others or in ourselves unless we acknowledge its reality and power. All of us come with the will to power, the will to self-interest, and the potential to do evil as well as good. The story of the Garden of Eden and of the death and sacrifice of Jesus both witness to this human propensity in all of God's children.

Finally, pages 188-190 of The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness reiterate the importance of savvy Christians remaining clear-eyed about our own will to power while holding on to and proclaiming our faith in Jesus Christ as the true hope of the world.


Related Illustrations

It really boils down to this: that all life is interrelated. We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. We are made to live together because of the interrelated structure of reality. Did you ever stop to think that you can't leave for your job in the morning without being dependent on most of the world? You get up in the morning and go to the bathroom and reach over for the sponge, and that's handed to you by a Pacific islander. You reach for a bar of soap, and that's given to you at the hands of a Frenchman. And then you go into the kitchen to drink your coffee for the morning, and that's poured into your cup by a South American. And maybe you want tea: that's poured into your cup by a Chinese. Or maybe you're desirous of having cocoa for breakfast, and that's poured into your cup by a West African. And then you reach over for your toast, and that's given to you at the hands of an English-speaking farmer, not to mention the baker. And before you finish eating breakfast in the morning, you've depended on more than half the world. This is the way our universe is structured; this is its interrelated quality. We aren't going to have peace on Earth until we recognize this basic fact of the interrelated structure of all reality.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr., from A Christmas Sermon on Peace, 1967

----------

If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we would find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.
-- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

----------

In a scene from John Drinkwater's play Abraham Lincoln, the President is speaking with a woman who's an enthusiastic advocate of the Union cause. He mentions to her that he's just received news of a Union victory: 2700 Southerners died in the battle, and 800 Northerners.
"How splendid!" the woman replies.
"How can you be so thrilled at the loss of 3500 lives?" Lincoln asks.
"Oh, you must not think like that, Mr. President," she says. "There were only 800 that mattered."
"Madam," says Lincoln in a voice filled with emotion, "the world is larger than your heart."

----------

"When I pray for peace, I pray not only that the enemies of my own country may cease to want war, but above all that my own country will cease to do the things that make war inevitable."
-- Thomas Merton

----------

Instead of hating people you think are warmakers, hate the appetites and disorder in your own soul, which are the causes of war. If you love peace, then hate injustice, hate tyranny, hate greed -- but hate these things in yourself, not in another.
-- Thomas Merton

----------

I don't believe that the big men, the politicians, and the capitalists alone are guilty of the war. Oh, no, the little man is just as keen, otherwise the people of the world would have risen in revolt long ago! There is an urge and rage in people to destroy, to kill, to murder, and until all mankind, without exception, undergoes a great change, wars will be waged, everything that has been built up, cultivated and grown, will be destroyed and disfigured, after which mankind will have to begin all over again.
-- Anne Frank (1929-45)

----------

How many of you have seen the white marble statue of a British nurse standing just above Trafalgar Square and beneath Leicester Square in London? It is the statue of Nurse Edith Cavell. One of her claims to fame is that in the early morning hours of October 12, 1915, she was tied to a stake in German-occupied Belgium and shot as a traitor for the 'crime' of assisting soldiers in their flight to neutral Holland. Her last moments were described by an eyewitness: After receiving the sacrament, and within minutes of being led out to her death, she said, "Standing as I do in view of God and eternity, I realize that patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness toward anyone."

On the base of her London statue are carved the words, "Patriotism is not enough." This is an impressive message from one who lost her life in the name of somebody else's patriotism.

Edith Cavell, an English vicar's daughter, lived and died a Christian, but her last words are almost too enigmatic and too simple, and they compel us to ask now, in a time of war and of rumors of war, what ought to be the proper relationship between love of God and love of country. If mere patriotism is not enough, what is it that will help us to be both conscientious citizens and faithful Christians? Are the two mutually exclusive, or is it possible, somehow, to live responsibly in the tension between those two claims? That is always the business of any Christian who takes seriously his allegiance to Jesus Christ and his responsibility to his country and his society.
--Peter J. Gomes, Patriotism is Not Enough: Christian Conscience In A Time Of War
http://www.memorialchurch.harvard.edu/sermons/Patriotismnotenough.shtml

----------

The following poem was written by Nicholas Peters just after the outbreak of World War II in 1939. Peters, who lived for some years at Grande Pointe, Manitoba, Canada, had emigrated from Russia in 1925 as a boy of 10 and had seen firsthand the horrors of revolution and war in his native country. He joined the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1942 and trained as a flying officer. He died on the night of March 7-8, 1945, after his aircraft was hit by enemy fire. The poem is from a collection of Peters' work titled Another Morn.

THE WARS WE MAKE

I gaze into the world with sorrowing eyes
And see the wide-abounding fruits of hate.
We fight, we say, for peace, and find
The wars we make
To be a spring of hate and source of future wars.

Is there no peace for man?
No hope that this accursed flow
Of blood may cease?
Is this our destiny: to kill and maim
For peace?
Or is this "peace" we strive to gain
A thin unholy masquerade
Which, when our pride, our greed, our gain is
touched too far,
Is shed, and stands uncovered what we are?

Show me your light, O God
That I may fight for peace with peace
And not with war;
To prove my love with love,
And hate no more!

Published by permission of the Peters family in the Sojomail e-newsletter, 9/25/02
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=092502

----------

At a time when the world is arguing about what the United States should do in Iraq, while even his own advisers are still debating options, Mr. Bush's aides say that he has come to realize that making the decision to go to war is the loneliest moment that presidents face.

Whether war is a last resort that has been thrust upon him, as he sometimes says, or whether it is his choice to wage it, no one can fill the space that he alone occupies -- not his closest aides, not the great array of expert advisers, not his wife or even his father, who made a similar decision when he was president.

Presidents handle pressure differently -- Richard M. Nixon retreated, Bill Clinton got on the phone in the middle of the night -- but historians say that almost all display certitude in public and more uncertainty in private. Friends and advisers of Mr. Bush insist that this president, in contrast, is much the same in private as he is in public.

While Iraq weighs on him heavily, they say, a president who sees the world as a biblical struggle of good versus evil has never expressed any misgivings, or personal vulnerabilities, about going to war against Saddam Hussein.

"He's very determined, I would say," said Cardinal Pio Laghi, a Vatican peace emissary and longtime Bush family friend who last week hand-delivered a letter to Mr. Bush from Pope John Paul II asking the president to avoid an invasion of Iraq. "He was very friendly, he was very nice, he was very appreciative, but he didn't give me the idea that he was shaky."
-- Elisabeth Bumiller writing in the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/politics/09BUSH.html?th

----------

Former President Jimmy Carter weighs in on Just War Theory from a theological point of view: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09CART.html?th

----------

The American Ambassador to Greece who resigned on Friday due to his objections to the war policy of the United States government, his employer, took a difficult and courageous stand. Whether you agree with him or not, his words deserve attention and can be found on the Friday, March 7 evening National Public Radio website or on Diane Reems' Monday, March 10 interview on her radio show, also listed on the NPR website.

----------

Children have been known to misunderstand Jesus' words, not because they share their elders' reluctance to understand, but because they cannot visualize what it is the words mean. Thus, one child's interpretation of bearing one's cross for Christ, actually was heard as "Jesus, the cross-eyed bear."
--Carter Shelley


Worship Resources
By Church Cammarata

CALL TO WORSHIP
(Based on the hymn "Immortal, Invisible")
Leader: Immortal, invisible,
PEOPLE: GOD ONLY WISE,
Leader: In light inaccessible,
PEOPLE: HID FROM OUR EYES,
Leader: Most blessed,
PEOPLE: MOST GLORIOUS,
Leader: The ancient of days,
PEOPLE: ALMIGHTY,
Leader: Victorious,
PEOPLE: THY GREAT NAME WE PRAISE.
Leader: Unresting, unhasting, and silent as light,
PEOPLE: NOR WANTING, NOR WASTING,
Leader: Thou rulest in might,
PEOPLE: THY JUSTICE LIKE MOUNTAINS
Leader: High soaring above
PEOPLE: THY CLOUDS
Leader: Which are fountains,
PEOPLE: OF GOODNESS AND LOVE.
Leader: O what a great God we have!
PEOPLE: PRAISE BE TO GOD!

The hymn could be sung here or a simple chorus could be sung in response to the opening celebration and naming of these attributes of God. A good chorus to go here would be, "I Exult Thee" available in The Tune Book by Yo Anderson. Also the well known, "Humble Thyself in the Sight of the Lord," would work well.

PRAYER OF CONFESSION
LEADER: Surrender, what a disturbing word. We are told, "Never surrender. Never give up." Surrender is humiliating. It is a sign of ultimate defeat. And yet it is precisely what our Lord asks of us. To die to ourselves is to give up our will for the will of God. It is to surrender our agendas and embrace our creator's. And though we know God's will is nothing but good for us, though we be sure and certain that peace that passes understanding awaits if only we humble ourselves before him, still ... still it is so hard to relinquish control.
PEOPLE: GOD WHO MADE US,
LEADER: God who loves us,
PEOPLE: GOD WHO WILLS GLORY FOR US,
LEADER: Forgive us when we rail against your control like a child who kicks and screams even as the loving hands of mother save him from certain destruction.
PEOPLE: FORGIVE US AND FILL US,
LEADER: With the deep knowledge,
PEOPLE: THAT SURRENDER TO YOU
LEADER: Is not defeat, but total victory.
PEOPLE: AMEN.


ASSURANCE OF PARDON
LEADER: I have gone astray many times in my life. Journeyed to a far land and left God behind. And each time I have sooner or later felt the emptiness of life outside the Kingdom of the one who made me. But always when I returned there was the whisper of God in my ear saying, "Welcome home, my beloved, welcome home."
PEOPLE: THIS IS THE GOOD NEWS! PRAISE TO THE LORD!

PASTORAL PRAYER
This might be a Sunday to address people's fears with this prayer. There is a good chance that war will begin in the week following this service since the President has set March 17, 2003, as a deadline for Iraq's compliance to his demands.

A marvelous song that might be used as a solo during this prayer time is Rich Mullins' song entitled "Hold Me, Jesus." It includes the line, "Surrender don't come natural to me. I'd rather fight you for what I don't really want, than take what you give that I need." It addresses the theme of surrender, but also is a song that calls for the comfort of the Christ to be with us. It can be found on accompaniment tapes and in music books at Christian book and music stores.


HYMNS AND SONGS
There are dozens of great hymns for a service on the theme of surrender to God's will, these are just a few.
Immortal, Invisible
Trust and Obey
He Leadeth Me
Tis So Sweet to Trust in Jesus
More Love to Thee
I Surrender All
Just a Closer Walk with Thee
I Have Decided to Follow Jesus
Be Thou My Vision

Third Day also has a good song out for congregational singing entitled "Refiner's Fire."
Lastly there is a very popular and beautiful song published in one of the early Vineyard collections entitled simply "Holiness." This is an excellent piece for congregational singing.


Children's Sermon
By Wesley Runk
Mark 8:31-38

Text: "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" (v. 34).

Object: Pictures of several flags including the American flag and a Christian flag

Good morning, boys and girls. Today we are going to talk about what it means to be a Christian. I brought with me some pictures of flags that belong to different countries. I would like for you to take a look at these flags and tell me what country they represent.

(Go through the list of as many as you have pictures of to show the children.) Each one of these flags represents the country and the people that live in that country. If this is a Spanish flag, then the people that live in Spain are called Spanish. If it is a Mexican flag, then the people are Mexicans. If it is a Canadian flag, then the people are called Canadians. Every country has a flag and if you live in that country you probably love your flag and your people. We live in the United States of America and we love our American flag. We call ourselves Americans.

But there is another flag that we have and it is called a Christian flag. Let's take a look at the flag. What do you see on this flag? (let them answer) That's right, it is a cross. Is it the cross Jesus carried? (let them answer) You will find this flag in many countries. You could be a German and have a Christian flag. You could be a Russian and have a Christian flag. You could be a Norwegian and have a Christian flag. Wherever Christians live, they could have a Christian flag and it doesn't make any difference what country you live in.

I asked you if the cross on the Christian flag was Jesus' cross. You said yes, it was. But Jesus said that anyone who was his follower should pick up their cross and follow him. Are you a follower of Jesus? (let them answer) Do you believe that Jesus died for you and was raised from the dead? (let them answer) If you believe this and all that Jesus teaches you, then you are a follower of Jesus. That means that the cross you see on the flag is your cross.

Today we are living in a time when some people want to go to war because they believe our country needs to defend our freedom. Other people in our country do not want to go to war because they don't think our freedom is being challenged. Every one of us must make our own decision. It is a hard decision. No one likes war. The bravest soldier does not like war. But sometimes we fight wars because we do not think there is a better way. It is always a very hard decision.

Jesus says it is not easy to be a Christian. We are asked to pray to God and ask him to help us make our choices. We are to follow Jesus and be ready to take up our own cross. Jesus already died for every man and woman and child in the whole world. Jesus chose his cross even though it was painful but he knew he must die to save all of us who lived or are living on this earth.

Now we say we want to be his followers. We must also have a cross to be like Jesus. We must pray and ask God just like Jesus did to have courage and do what we are told. I don't think we are all going to receive the same answers but we are all going to pray and ask Jesus to bless us and our parents and all of the people in the world as we ask for God's wisdom and strength at this time in our life.

There are a lot of flags, but only one Christian flag. There are a lot of things to think about, but only one Lord to follow and that is Jesus Christ. May God bless you as you pray to God and ask him for courage and wisdom and for a peace that only God can give you. Amen


The Immediate Word, March 16, 2003, issue.

Copyright 2003 by CSS Publishing Company, Inc., Lima, Ohio.

All rights reserved. Subscribers to The Immediate Word service may print and use this material as it was intended in sermons and in worship and classroom settings only. No additional permission is required from the publisher for such use by subscribers only. Inquiries should be addressed to permissions@csspub.com or to Permissions, CSS Publishing Company, Inc., P.O. Box 4503, Lima, Ohio 45802-4503.