(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . The Passion Narrative and How We Use Scripture [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.'] Date: 2026-04-03 Listening to military leadership talk about End Times with the Iran war and the blocking of qualified promotions in the military by those leading prayer services at the Pentagon, I have been trying to figure out how to speak to these issues in light of Christ’s Passion. I get the Daily Signal news letter. I read sections to understand how people think and are influenced. What is not allowed are comments to their articles nor have any of my letters been published. Their Senior Editor makes the case not to blame Jews but… The problem is not simply what is being said—but how narratives are formed, reinforced, and used. We tend to believe that the errors of the past were unique to those who lived then. But the same patterns repeat: power makes decisions, the crowd is given a constrained choice, and responsibility is later assigned to those with the least control. Whether in scripture or modern politics, we continue to ask the same question: Who is responsible—and why do we so often choose the simplest answer? We like to believe we are different from the crowd in the Passion narrative. Yet in our own time, we are often presented with constrained choices—political, cultural, and informational—and asked to assign moral clarity to systems that are anything but clear. In a bifurcated media environment, most of us are not persuading others—we are reinforcing what is already believed. So the question becomes not how to win an argument, but how to recognize when we are participating in the same patterns we claim to reject. Growing up, I was labeled “Christ killer” more than once. That experience stayed with me—not as a personal grievance, but as a reminder of how interpretations of scripture can move from text into lived consequence. Recent reporting shows unprecedented intervention in military promotions, including the blocking of multiple highly qualified officers—among them Black and female candidates—alongside broader efforts to reshape leadership based on ideological alignment. Whether described as restoring “merit” or removing “DEI,” these actions raise serious questions about how leadership is being defined, and who is being excluded. When power seeks to expand beyond its limits under the law of the land, it does not present itself as power. It presents itself as protection, as morality, as necessity wrapped in the symbols people already trust. We see this dynamic when political authority is framed not simply as governance, but as moral obligation, when disagreement is cast not as difference of opinion, but as failure of values; when policies are justified through appeals to faith or identity while accountability is reduced. When decisions that reshape institutions are framed in moral or ideological terms—while disproportionately affecting certain groups—it raises the same question we see in the Passion narrative: who holds authority, who makes the decision, and who ultimately bears the consequence? Regardless of country or party we see this playing out today and its negative effects on the world just as it did during the life of Christ and under the power of Rome. My response: Your article rightly rejects the idea that the Jewish people as a whole are responsible for Jesus’ death, and that is an important and necessary point—one affirmed by both historical scholarship and major Christian traditions. However, your subsequent framing reintroduces a hierarchy of blame that the Gospel texts themselves do not clearly support. Yes, Judas betrays Jesus (Matthew 26:14–16). Yes, certain religious leaders seek his death (Matthew 26:59–66, John 11:53). But the text is equally clear about other actors and does not isolate responsibility in the way you suggest. The crowd, for example, is not acting independently: “Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus.” — Matthew 27:20 So even within the Gospel narrative, the crowd is influenced and stirred, not a clear or unified moral agent. More importantly, the authority to execute—and the final decision—rests with Rome. Pilate repeatedly declares Jesus innocent: “I find no guilt in him.” — John 18:38 (see also John 19:4, 19:6) Yet despite this, he proceeds: “So Pilate… handed him over to be crucified.” — John 19:16 “Wishing to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas… and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.” — Mark 15:15 Crucifixion itself is a Roman method, carried out by Roman soldiers: “When they had crucified him…” — Mark 15:24 “The soldiers… crucified him.” — John 19:23 So in the plain reading of the text: Rome holds legal authority, Rome performs the execution, and Pilate makes the final decision. At the same time, the Gospels resist isolating blame to any one group. At the crucifixion, Jesus says: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” — Luke 23:34 That “them” includes everyone involved—betrayer, leaders, crowd, and Roman authorities alike. The broader New Testament reinforces this shift away from blame toward shared responsibility: “Christ died for our sins.” — 1 Corinthians 15:3 “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” — Romans 5:8 The emphasis is not on identifying a single guilty party, but on recognizing the condition of humanity as a whole. If the Passion narrative is meant to lead us to repentance, then using it—explicitly or implicitly—to assign enduring blame to a particular people contradicts both the text and the spirit of the Gospel. That is why your many articles regarding the transgender population, diversity, inclusion, and education raise concern. They appear, at least to me, to stand in tension with the very call you end with—repentance rather than judgment, humility rather than division. I will pray that you reflect more deeply on Christ’s command: “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you… By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” — John 13:34–35 And I hope that The Daily Signal likewise considers whether its broader tone on these subjects aligns with that teaching, or risks working against it. Finally, I cannot help but notice that this article is paired with promotion for a book describing a “cabal” with “tentacles in every aspect of government.” That language—whatever its intent—echoes a long and painful history of portraying groups as hidden, manipulative forces working behind the scenes, narratives that have often been used to justify suspicion and hostility toward Jews and others. That kind of framing, like the selective assignment of blame in your reading of the Passion, risks reinforcing division rather than reflecting the command to love one another. If the goal is truly repentance and unity under Christ’s teaching, then both the message and the surrounding rhetoric should be examined with equal care. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/4/3/2376300/-The-Passion-Narrative-and-How-We-Use-Scripture?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=latest_community&pm_medium=web Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/