As we approach Easter, there is a compelling argument that mission should be the focus of positive news about the church, rather than the internal disputes that give us such a bad name. “Lets stop talking about sex, and rather talk about Jesus! Lets stop criticising the culture, and instead be good news for the culture!” On the other hand, Palm Sunday reminds us that talking about Jesus is not the same as a chaplaincy role that accepts the status quo and steers away from the controversial issues of the day.

As our Lord prepared to enter Jerusalem from Jericho, perhaps he had had the same thoughts about the message and tone of his mission, and maybe even discussed them with his disciples. How are we going to play this? Be affirming of the ruling powers and prevailing philosophies, and leverage them to our advantage? Work within the religious systems and with the current leaders towards a renewed faith?

Jesus could have come in to Jerusalem and preached about the way of God (not “kingdom” – that would have been considered too political). He could have quickly made good relationships with the Roman authorities to secure funding for poverty relief and community development projects, and at the same time attended all the right meetings to ensure election on to the Sanhedrin. That might have been the best place to influence the Jewish religious system from within. “For goodness sake, teacher”, one group of his disciples might have said, “don’t criticise Roman power! And the temple system – yes we know there’s a bit of corruption there, but it’s the only game in town – if we can get in there and change it, we can really make a difference – replacing the nominal religion with real Spirit-inspired worship”. Other voices may have urged Jesus to take a more radical political stance, to become a focal point for the zealots waiting for an opportunity for armed revolution.

For some reason though, Jesus did not follow this advice. He did not lead an armed revolution, but, non-violent to the end, gave himself up to death with no resistance. But on the other hand he did not reinforce the idea that the Romans were the ones really in charge, and that their goodwill and support was vital for doing good works. Rather, by riding into Jerusalem on a donkey and echoing so visibly the prophecy of Zechariah, Jesus made a claim to be the real King of Israel, a dangerous political statement and a direct challenge to the human power of the time. He could have taught the crowds and healed the sick without seeking confrontation with the authorities, but instead he publicly announced God’s authority, his judgement on human pride, and his salvation for those who repent and believe.

And then, Jesus did not attempt to reform or renew the corrupt and legalistic aspects of the religious system from within. He symbolically “cleansed” the temple and cursed the fig tree, preaching that financial greed and fruitless outward show had taken the place of authentic Old Testament Jewish spirituality: worship, prayer, humble leadership, sacrificial service and mission to the Gentiles. Also, Jesus did not try to win over the different religious parties, perhaps by facilitating reconciliation of their divisions through a first century ‘indaba’ process. A brief unity, and unholy alliance did occur between Pharisees and Sadducees as they joined to do away with the Messiah God had sent, but the real people of God emerged from those faithful Israelites who put their trust in Jesus for forgiveness of their sins and entry into God’s life.

So as the church talks about the Jesus our Saviour who died and rose, and follows Jesus our example who demonstrated God’s love, it’s tempting to gloss over the more uncomfortable aspects of Christ. The prophet who maintained a critical distance from human power, reminding it of who is really in charge, and refusing to compromise with its godless philosophies. The teacher who explained clearly that there is a right way and a wrong way to do organised religion. The Saviour who came to forgive sin and set free from addiction.

What might happen if the church today really talked about Jesus in his fullness, the radical, challenging man of sorrows? And the ministry of the real Jesus in and through the contemporary church – what might it look like? Certainly there would be worship, evangelism, healing, care and advocacy for the disadvantaged. But the message and actions which were considered so ‘toxic’ that they resulted in persecution and death for Jesus and the apostles – what would the equivalent be today? Are they really necessary? Or could it be that, as the prosperity teachers claim, Jesus suffered so we don’t have to?

The passion of Christ is the means for our forgiveness and salvation, and also a model for our life. We receive the benefits of his atoning death, and we live a life of love and joy in community, but also in sometimes lonely opposition to evil as he did. As those who want to talk about Jesus we need grace to take up our cross, and lay aside the fear and love of comfort that makes us want to avoid it.

END