If so, I’d agree. I don’t think that cruciformity is rightly understood if it’s regarded as lacking boldness, refusing to take initiative, being strongly assertive in certain situations.

But I do think that a fuller description is needed to capture the larger vision of what genuine cruciformity is all about. I’ll have to chew on that a bit and write more later.

In the meantime, Italian food awaits . . .

But the question I raise in my last paragraph still stands: while Jesus resists temptations to coercive power (among other sorts of power – perhaps his “messianic secret” was in part a refusal to use the religious power inherent in taking up that title), I don’t see this as a dominant theme in the gospels. What I do see is a strong prophetic voice – as you note – coupled with the use of a “power” that heals and delivers. I might rephrase my overstatement with: Jesus constantly speaks and acts with authority and power in service to the world – to the powerful he speaks prophetically (revealing their compromises/loyalties/idolatries/hypocrisy), to the people he speaks truthfully (authoritatively revealing God’s person and will to them), he powerfully heals the sick, and authoritatively delivers the possessed. He does this all in service and with love – so it is cruciform – but I don’t see this as weakness. It doesn’t even look much like humility to our eyes – although I think it is done in humility as per Phil 2 – but it is the humble confidence of a servant who is completely obedience to the one who sent him and has given him power and authority to accomplish his mission.

It is quite in vogue to emphasize cruciformity without power (obviously only in certain more academic circles – I realize on the popular level not so much – I’m thinking more of Gorman/Brueggeman/etc), but I’m worried that we’re not only leaving behind how Jesus actually carried out his ministry, but we’re setting ourselves up for ineffective ministry in the world (ie. let’s be honest, in contrast to the “greater works than these” that Jesus promised we would engage in, we find ourselves able to do little more than comfort the sick and encourage the oppressed – good things in themselves, but that hardly characterizes the extent of Jesus’ ministry!).

Is that more clear? I’m not pushing back against the cruciform shape of Jesus’ life, nor denying that Jesus rejected “worldly” (shorthand) power.

My question is where power and authority come into play in your description of both Jesus’ life then and our own extension of his life now (through his body)? What does it look like for us to live cruciform lives in the power of the Spirit?

You’re right to point out that Jesus’ life had a greater range of meaning and significance, too. But we could also say that Jesus’ ministry had to do with prophetically confronting his people (not necessarily “the world,” but Israel in the form of the Jewish people) for failing to be a people that embodied God’s love for the world. There was confrontation, for sure, but this was a prophetic posture toward his own people, not toward the world.

I think this sets the agenda for the church’s prophetic ministry toward governments, calling out against injustices and imperial arrogance. But that’s always a tricky business. Just like Israel, it’s always tempting to advocate for our own agenda rather than God’s.

I don’t think I can agree that Jesus’ life and ministry are known for their power rather than weakness. Jesus constantly resists temptations to power during his life, preferring a course that will take him to the cross, confident of God’s vindication of him. And Revelation depicts a slaughtered lamb on the throne. Cruciformity shapes Jesus’ life completely.

Now, the ranges of behavior that cruciformity may take may be surprising, but I don’t think it’s possible to dissociate Jesus from the cross.

My initial response to your ending on the church’s practices as a distinctly “holy” community under the kingship of Jesus is: Lord’s Supper – yes, care for poor – yes (marginalized always makes me nervous – such a large catch-all phrase these days that it sometimes confuses more than helps), and cruciform service – yes.

But this last point makes me wonder if a posture of cruciformity is what accurately characterizes Jesus’ own public ministry. It obviously does in one sense – his whole “career” as Messiah was heading steadily towards self-giving love through his death – but his interactions with the world through his ministry are wise but often provocative teaching, quite vigorous debate, and acts of healing & deliverance. As I often point out to folks who want us to “love like Jesus loved” — they should read the Gospels more before they decide to be more like Jesus! His love is of a sterner and bolder quality than what we usually mean by the word. And he is mainly known not for weakness, but for power. He does serve, but what’s attractive about Jesus is the effectiveness of his service, not the cruciformity of it.

In other words – shouldn’t the public ministry/live political/corporate holiness of the church not only manifest itself in “humility, weakness and self-giving love”, but also in the type of public ministry that was patterned for us by our Lord himself?

This is not a critique, but a question. Thanks again!