Mark 8:27-38. “If any wish to come^[b] after me, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. ³⁵ For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel,^[c] will save it.³⁶ For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life?

Just because we might get the correct answer to a question doesn't mean we truly understand. We don't understand something until we try to live what we say. For example, Jesus asks his disciples, "Who do you say that I am?" It sounds like a simple question, but one look at my bookshelf will tell you it's not easy. Here are some of the titles from the Jesus section:

·     The Meaning of Jesus

·     The Jesus I Never Knew

·     Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time

·     Freeing Jesus

·     Stealing Jesus

·     Jesus, A Revolutionary Biography

·     Jesus, CEO

·     Zealot, The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth

·     Jesus the King

I still have my first New Testament theology book from college, "Jesus Through Many Eyes," which made a point that has never left me. Early Christians had enough diverse opinions about Jesus to authorize four official biographies within the first century (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and we later discovered the lost Gospel of Thomas). 

Peter is in good company, struggling to understand who Jesus is, when he says, "You are the Messiah." This answer is just the beginning of Peter's problems. Wait till he goes to seminary. Saying Jesus is the Messiah is such an explosive issue Jesus immediately orders them sternly to tell no one. (Two weeks ago, Barclay asked in church why Jesus asked the disciples to keep silent about who he was. We can guess at an answer from verse 31. Jesus is going to go through great suffering and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, probably the Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, and Catholics too. They all will shout "Crucify him" in the end. No one wants the hullaballoo to overshadow the message. Being a pastor involves controversy, but being a Messiah is nothing but dispute. 

Peter should not be surprised that Jesus is controversial. By the second chapter of Mark, Jesus has four controversies as soon as he has gathered disciples. 

1.     Mark 2:1-12: Jesus forgives and heals a paralyzed man, which prompts opposition from the scribes who question Jesus' authority to forgive sins.

2.     Mark 2:13-17: Jesus calls Matthew the tax collector to be one of His disciples and eats with tax collectors and sinners. The Pharisees challenge Jesus about associating with sinners.

3.     Mark 2:18-22: Jesus faces opposition when questioned about fasting.

4.     Mark 2:23-28: Jesus' disciples harvest grain to eat on the Sabbath, leading to a confrontation with the Pharisees regarding Sabbath observance.

These examples are just from Mark 2. By Mark 8, Jesus has been in 13 controversies. I can see why Jesus became a supply preacher rather than a settled pastor. He can't stay out of trouble. After reading the 13 controversies, the common element is Jesus acting with love for someone suffering or an outsider. The conflict was with religious leaders who wanted to maintain their power and control and have their dogma and rules followed.

Peter must have understood that Jesus would provoke conflict with other religious leaders. What Peter did not accept was that Jesus might lose the power struggle on the cross. That isn't what Messiahs do. The Messiah wins and takes back the nation for God. Peter wants Jesus to conform to his idea of the Messiah. We understand the pressure to toe the ideological line.  If Jesus said, pick up your sword and follow me, Peter would likely do it. Jesus later tells Peter to put down his sword after Peter chopped the ear off the High Priest's slave at Jesus' arrest. We could say that Jesus and Peter were at "cross" purposes. 

Peter is savvy enough to rebuke Jesus on the side. I would love to have the transcript of that conversation. What is the proper etiquette for correcting the Messiah? Today, Peter might tell Jesus, "This is terrible branding. We need to be confident and seen as winning the battle. We are making peoples' lives better. A good rule of thumb is never to let your brand be associated with a means of public execution. Instead, we could unfurl a banner at the coliseum in Rome between gladiatorial battles. We could say, "He Gets Us." For a moment, Peter thinks Jesus will go for it, but then it's "Get behind me, Satan. Take up your cross and follow me. Lose your life to save it." I've seen dozens of Christian billboards; none of these phrases make the cut.

I've been thinking about the Super Bowl foot-washing commercial because it illustrates some challenges we face trying to understand and communicate who Jesus is. If you have not seen the commercial, take a moment and watch below. It's based on John's Gospel (John 13:1-11), where there is no Last Supper, but Jesus washes the disciples' feet. While watching, notice who is washing and who is receiving. 

You might think that a simple message would not be controversial. "Jesus does not hate. He washes feet. He gets us." The website for "He Gets Us" says, "How did the story of a man who taught and practiced unconditional love become associated with hatred and oppression for so many people?" The constant theme of the group's ads is that Jesus knows and loves you.

The criticism was fierce across the theological and ideological spectrum. The fact that it is getting hit so hard from all sides makes me want to keep an open mind. Here's a sampling of opinion. A self-identified Fundamentalist said the ad was heretical:

"Putting out an ad that invites narcissistic, prideful, unrepentant sinners to come and get their feet washed is bad."

Another said the ad is woke and leftist, noting that it almost always has a traditionally conservative figure washing the feet of a figure associated with liberalism. The blonde woman washes the immigrant's feet, the oil worker washes the climate activist's feet, and the priest appears to be washing a gay man's feet.   

Criticism has been just as negative from liberal Christians. One major criticism was the ad cost, at $7 million for 30 seconds, and $100 million for the overall campaign. I agree partly with that critique, but for perspective, Coca-Cola spends $4 billion a year on advertising, and big oil companies spend $3.6 billion just to promote their climate change agenda. If we are concerned about children going to bed hungry, there are bigger targets than a Christian group trying to create a message about Jesus for the Superbowl. 

The more complicated issue is where the money comes from and what is "He Gets Us" true agenda is.  The only known donor, the founder of Hobby Lobby, has contributed millions to anti-abortion and anti-gay groups. Hobby Lobby recently lost a case in Illinois for not allowing a trans woman employee to use the women's bathroom at work. Americans United for Separation of Church and State goes so far as to call the ads "a front for Christian nationalism." 

I don't think that is a fair criticism, even though I would like the group to be more transparent about who they are and their financing.  I spent far too much time searching the "He Gets Us" website, which says "probably the most common questions" received are about our stance on the LGBTQ+ community. "So let us be clear in our opinion. Jesus loves gay people, and Jesus loves trans people … No matter who you are, YOU are invited to explore the story of Jesus and consider what it means for your life." 

Back to the question Jesus asked his disciples, "Who do you say that I am?" The "He Gets Us" group chose, out of all the possible symbols, episodes, and parables of Jesus' life, washing the disciples' feet at the Last Supper. It fascinates me how much outrage this created. Imagine being labeled as both woke liberal heretics and a cover for right-wing extremism in only 60 seconds. The commercial provokes almost as much controversy as Jesus himself. What is it about foot-washing?

Remember that Peter did not want Jesus to wash his feet. He resisted the radical role of servanthood in Jesus's message right to the cock's crow before the cross. Peter didn't want Jesus washing his feet because he wanted a Christ on a pedestal, not a cross. He also knew that if Jesus did something, he would be called to follow. He didn't want to wash Bartholomew's feet or Judas' feet. But Jesus did it. Peter would later wash in the waters of baptism Roman soldiers, Gentiles, and a wide variety of "unacceptable" people. Maybe he did get the foot-washing message.

What would happen if we assembled all the critics of the Super Bowl ad into a room for a debate, and the rules were that they had to wash each other's feet first, then they could debate? Would this humble, vulnerable contact change anything? I imagine some people would rather pick up their cross than wash the feet of someone they despise and disagree with. Maybe we do have to lose our lives, and some of our opinions and prejudices, to save it. 

I welcome your thoughts.

Here are some of my sources for the sermon:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/15/opinion/he-gets-us-super-bowl-christianity.html

https://hegetsus.com/en

https://www.queerty.com/one-millions-moms-is-furious-over-those-super-bowl-ads-celebrating-jesus-says-they-werent-anti-gay-enough-20240214