Our pastor has been challenging us to consider “what we signed up for” when we became Jesus followers. Recently he made a very practical application from the often misunderstood verse about “hate” in Luke 14. Consider it in The Passion Translation with its footnote:

When you follow me as my disciple, you must put aside your father, your mother, your wife, your sisters, your brothers—yes, you will even seem as though you hate your own life. This is the price you’ll pay to be considered one of my followers.

Or “hate.” This is an Aramaic and Hebraic metaphor for putting Jesus above every other relationship. The Aramaic word sna has several meanings and can mean “hate” or “put aside.” In this case, Jesus, the King of love is not saying to hate but to put aside every other relationship into second place… (Luke 14.26, Passion Translation with footnote)

What was our pastor’s explanation/application? Politics. He cited Dr. Tim Keller, who in turn referred to author Larry Hutardo. I can’t improve on this section of the article How to Reach the West Again, March 12, 2020:

In Destroyer of the gods, Larry Hurtado seeks to explain why an increasing number of people converted to Christianity in the Roman world, even though it was the most persecuted of all religions and carried significant social cost. Hurtado speaks of the unique Christian social project—a unique kind of human community that defied categories then and will still do so today. It has at least five elements that could be broken down and expounded at greater length, but which also need to be seen together, as they constitute a whole. The early church’s social project was:

• Multi-racial and multi-ethnic
• Highly committed to caring for the poor and marginalized
• Non-retaliatory, marked by a commitment to forgiveness
• Strongly and practically against abortion and infanticide
• Revolutionary regarding the ethics of sex

The early Christian community was both offensive and also attractive. Believers did not construct their social project in some strategic way to reach Roman culture. Each of the five elements was there because Christians sought to submit to biblical authority. They are all commanded. They are just as category-defying—both offensive and attractive—today. The first two views (ethnic diversity and caring for the poor) sound “liberal,” and the last two (abortion and sexual ethics) sound “conservative.” But the third element, of course, sounds like no particular party. Churches today are under enormous pressure to jettison the first two or the last two but to not keep them all. Yet to give up any of them would make Christianity the handmaid of a particular political program and undermine a missionary encounter. (Tim Keller, emphasis mine and our pastor’s)

As the article says, all sides seem to have a problem with non-retaliation, while each of us seems to favor the “liberal” or “conservative” approach as defined above. Jesus might ask us, “To whom are you loyal? Your political leaning or me?”

Then he said to the crowd, “If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross daily, and follow me. If you try to hang on to your life, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for my sake, you will save it. (Luke 9.23, 24, NLT)

So be happy when you are insulted for being a Christian, for then the glorious Spirit of God rests upon you. (1 Peter 4.14, NLT)