Curb Your Enthusiasm – Luke 9:51-56; John 18:10-11

Luke 9:51-56: And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

John 18:10-11: Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

In organizations and hierarchical structures, irrespective of the undertaking, leaders have the ability to influence those over whom they hold sway. Their reach can include those who have direct access to the leaders as well as those further removed, or even only tangentially connected. CEOs count on talented and trustworthy CFOs and COOs to ensure their organization’s aims and visions are enacted and trickled down throughout the business or industry. Political and religious leaders can possess what amounts to the king’s men and close confidants, respectively, upon whom they rely to carry out their vision and secure the support and well-being of the ranks. Even among criminal enterprises, bosses and kingpins lean on underbosses and lieutenants to eliminate competition and remove problematic situations. Countless other examples, in myriad contexts, demonstrate the influential power that leadership holds.

In each case, those in the most elevated positions of leadership, (i.e., power), wield great influence and, therefore, bear great responsibility. The possession of power necessitates that one stewards their influence in a responsible manner. This can be a difficult act to balance without mitigating degrees of wisdom, insight, situational awareness and, oft-times, restraint.

During episode four of the recent Netflix docuseries “Who Killed Malcolm X?” the show’s investigator, Abdur Rahman Muhammad, pursued the role of Nation of Islam leadership in the death of Malcolm X. Some eyewitnesses shared that the Nation’s leader, the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, was clear that the Nation was not to do any harm to X, who by that point had been censured and estranged from the group. Others, though, noted examples of how coded language could have, if uttered, belied the hands-off approach to Minister X. A statement like, “Man, this situation is really causing me a problem,” if given by Muhammad in a particular context and tone, would have provided clear indication that the leader’s problem (Malcolm X, in this scenario) required termination. According to a source close to the situation, explicit instruction would not have been required. For some rank and file members, according to the documentary, it would have been a “badge of honor” to do the deed that satisfied the leader’s bidding if Elijah Muhammad had so wished.

Similarly, in any number of contexts, such non-explicitly stated words or subtle gestures can denote meaning. It could be a nod; perhaps a wink; a voice inflection; a knowing look that either green lights or halts the desired action of the primary influencer/power wielder. In current political parlance, a dog whistle.

This is not to imply that those who follow a respective leader are always mere “yes men” and “yes women,” unquestioning loyalists willing to placate any and all demands of those to whom they are allied without a qualm. Sometimes the follower just passionately and vigorously believes in the “rightness” of a cause to a degree that even outpaces their leader. And they are willing to demonstrate it without much provocation. As such, they are prepared to go to extreme lengths to promote their cause, right or wrong. Perhaps, it is to succor favor. Maybe, they are naturally or developmentally constituted in a manner that values intense demonstrations of loyalty, duty, or “ride-or-die” ethos. Such allegiance may not require a request, in all instances. They are "down for the cause," just because.

To pretend to know the exact motivation of each and every spectator/protestor/miscreant and/or actual stormer of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 would be an exercise in futility. Perhaps, some legitimately were convinced the 2020 Presidential election was rigged and sought to voice their dismay as Congress met to confirm the election results in favor of then President-Elect Joe Biden and Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris. (Most credible sources, including ones in former President Trump’s own party, argue to the contrary concerning the election's illegality.) Maybe some did not have ill intent, only desiring a vocal protest, but were vulnerable to be swept up in the emotions of the moment if things escalated. The type and extent of motivations are seldom easy to disaggregate, in such scenarios.

But then, there were the clear and present danger posers among them. As more information continues to be revealed regarding the types of plans intended, weaponry found, and necessary inside complicity for success, it is abundantly clear that many had far more sinister and violent intent. Semi-automatic weapons and ammunition, crossbows, Molotov cocktails, stun guns, pocket knives, and brass knuckles do not a peaceful protest make. Like a linebacker with direct sights on a defenseless quarterback, many of the participants came with bad intentions.

To date, it remains to be seen whether President Trump will be found guilty of criminal charges of inciting the riot with his reckless words and passion-fueling rhetoric on, and before, January 6th. At worst, the words and actions of the former President and others will meet the standard of inciting the riot. At best, it was a convenient and inexcusable lack of situational awareness of the potential for violent insurrection given the ire he had been able to stoke in numerous crowds from 2016 to that point. The persistent claims against the 2020 election’s validity—hedged before the election itself in the instance he did not win—were just added wood to the fire. The speech given on January 6th, only added further fuel to the fire, rather than discouraging it. Regardless of the criminal outcome, the Senate trial looms and, if found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, Trump would never be eligible to hold office again.

Jesus, whom the Hebrews writer refers to as the Author and Finisher of the faith, writes the book on curtailing the actions of one’s zealous followers if the leader’s true aim is to stand them down versus rile them up. James and John, the “Sons of Thunder,” desired to rain down fire on a group of Samaritans unresponsive to the Lord’s coming as He began the trek towards Jerusalem and His appointed end. Jesus’ message to them was clear and direct in His rebuke: “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them” (Luke 9:55-56). And guess what happened at the end of verse 56? “And they went to another village.” No heavenly fireworks show.

Mind you, the Samaritans and Jews did not get along, at all. Yet the Lord was gracious to prevent them from being destroyed, against the desires of James and John, as Jesus began the journey toward Jerusalem and His ultimate fate. Later on, arriving at the climactic moment of betrayal and arrest preceding the trial and crucifixion, He again chastens the visceral response of one of His followers to the perceived unjust treatment of his leader. Peter, the third member of Jesus’ inner circle, along with the aforementioned James and John, had impulsively cut off the right ear of a high priest’s servant after Judas betrayed Christ to the officials. Jesus is clear once again. “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me” (Luke 18:10-11)? Jesus had accepted what was willed to be and expected Peter, likewise, to fall in line.

In both scriptures, we witness clear indications of Jesus essentially telling his disciples to “pump your brakes.” In so many words, He was saying: This is not what we’re here for. I appreciate your loyalty and enthusiasm and willingness to go the distance. But your energy is wrongly placed. That’s not what this is about. He levied power and influence, in those moments, to steer the outcomes away from the prerogatives of His followers towards a righteous end.

Without a doubt, it is a really good and secure feeling to know that one’s people have their back covered to the end. But more important than that feeling is the realization that responsibility calls on us to do what’s right even when it is not momentarily advantageous to do so. At certain levels of power and leadership, stewarding influence means leading those who follow in ways higher than they are even prepared to embrace at the time. In this regard, Christ models that to which we should strive. As the gospel writer Mark stated in another context, "...He hath done all things well" (Mark 7:37).

Reflect: Given your various spheres of influence, recall times where you had to make a choice on how to wield the power you had. How would you assess it?