Tag Archives: Empire and Faith

Sacred Signs of Subversion, Part 28: Inverted Cross

Read 1 Corinthians 1:18–19

ALSO IN SCRIPTURE
“‘I tell you the truth, when you were young, you were able to do as you liked; you dressed yourself and went wherever you wanted to go. But when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and others will dress you and take you where you don’t want to go.’ Jesus said this to let him know by what kind of death he would glorify God.” (John 21:18–19, NLT)

Symbols carry memory and meaning far beyond words. The Church has always leaned on them—sometimes hidden in plain sight, sometimes dismissed or distorted. Yet the most powerful symbols are those that subvert the world’s expectations and draw us back to the radical heart of the Gospel. In this series, we’ll look closer at the sacred signs that shock, unsettle, and ultimately call us deeper into Christ.

Image: AI-generated using DALL·E and customized by the author. Used with the devotional “Sacred Signs of Subversion, Part 28: Inverted Cross” at Life-Giving Water Devotions.

Part 28: Inverted Cross. Let’s begin with what we were told. The inverted cross is a sign of evil. A mark of Satan. A deliberate mockery of Christ. A symbol to fear, reject, and condemn.

Long before cable news, social media, or culture wars, symbols were already being distorted through fear, polemic, and power. And few symbols have been so thoroughly misreported as the inverted cross.

The origin of the inverted cross has nothing to do with rebellion or blasphemy. According to early Christian tradition, the Apostle Peter—condemned to death by crucifixion—asked to be crucified upside down, declaring himself unworthy to die in the same manner as Christ. Whether one treats this account as historical fact or sacred tradition, its meaning is unmistakable. The inverted cross began as an act of humility, not defiance. It signaled reversal, not rejection. It proclaimed that Christ alone stands upright at the center of faith.

Over time, the symbol also became associated with the seat of St. Peter, the first bishop of Rome. Again, this is tradition, not Scripture—but it matters. The symbol was never secret. It was never sinister. It was embedded in the Church’s memory as a reminder that leadership in Christ’s name begins not with power, but with surrender.

So how did such a powerful sign against faux spiritual performance become a performance of evil proportions? How did a sign of humility become a harrowing omen of heresy? How did a symbol that once represented humble, servant leadership, become the epitome of of enduring evil?

The first major corruption of the symbol did not come from artists or occultists. It came from theology shaped by fear.

During the Protestant Reformation, the office of the Pope—understood as the successor to Peter—was increasingly demonized. Polemics hardened. Accusations escalated. The Bishop of Rome was labeled the Antichrist, the Beast of Revelation, the embodiment of evil itself. In that climate, anything associated with Peter’s authority was cast in shadow. The inverted cross did not change its meaning; it inherited the suspicion attached to the office it symbolized.

This was bad theology. The term “antichrist” appears not in Revelation, but in the Johannine epistles, where it refers not to a singular figure, but to a persistent spirit that opposes Christ. Likewise, the Beast in Revelation does not represent a church office or a pope. It represents empire—all systems of domination that demand allegiance, participation, and worship. But once fear takes hold, symbols lose their context, and nuance becomes collateral damage. This does not mean church offices are immune from empire; it means they are judged by it, too, whenever power eclipses humility and allegiance shifts from Christ to control.

The second major demonization arrived centuries later, in a very different form. The rise of the Moral Majority, the Evangelical Right, and the Satanic Panic of the 1970s through the 1990s transformed cultural anxiety into political theology. Symbols were no longer studied; they were weaponized. Artists, musicians, creatives, and visionaries who resisted religious political populism were branded dangerous, godless, or demonic. The inverted cross became a convenient prop in a narrative designed to dehumanize dissent.

Here, intentional provocation entered the picture. Figures like Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan did not “discover” the inverted cross—they exploited its misunderstood reputation. The goal was not theological clarity, but cultural disruption. Shock was the point. Fear was the lever. Scaring the puritans was the method. And in many cases, it worked. The symbol’s meaning was further obscured, not because it was powerful, but because it was useful.

Art, media, and rebellion compounded the confusion. Some artists leaned into the inversion as a way of pushing back against the moral purity culture of the 1950s, American Puritanism, and the suffocating marriage of religion and politics. Others adopted the symbol with little interest in its history at all. The result is a cultural echo chamber where almost no one remembers what the symbol actually meant—and almost everyone is certain they know what it stands for.

Scripture offers a corrective.

“The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction,” Paul writes, “but we who are being saved know it is the very power of God.” The cross has always been misunderstood. It has always been scandalous. It has always threatened systems that equate strength with dominance and wisdom with control. The inverted cross simply extends that scandal. It reminds us that the Gospel turns our hierarchies upside down.

In its truest sense, the inverted cross does not mock Christ. It dethrones us. It exposes our obsession with appearing righteous, powerful, and certain. It calls the Church back to humility, reminding us that following Christ often looks like surrender, not spectacle.

The danger is not the symbol. The danger is how easily we allow fear to rewrite meaning, and how quick we are to “other” what we fear in those we don’t like or understand. Now THAT is truly Satanic.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY
When fear distorts a symbol, it often reveals more about our power structures than about the symbol itself.

PRAYER
God of wisdom and truth, free us from the fear that clouds our discernment. Teach us to look deeper than appearances and to resist the stories that power tells us to keep us afraid. Turn our hearts away from false certainty and back toward the humility of Christ. May we learn again what it means to follow the cross—not as a weapon, but as a way. Amen.


Devotion written by Rev. Todd R. Lattig with the assistance of ChatGPT (OpenAI).

Sacred Signs of Subversion, Part 27: 666

Read Revelation 13:1–18

ALSO IN SCRIPTURE
“But Peter and the apostles replied, ‘We must obey God rather than any human authority.’” (Acts 5:29, NLT)

Symbols carry memory and meaning far beyond words. The Church has always leaned on them—sometimes hidden in plain sight, sometimes dismissed or distorted. Yet the most powerful symbols are those that subvert the world’s expectations and draw us back to the radical heart of the Gospel. In this series, we’ll look closer at the sacred signs that shock, unsettle, and ultimately call us deeper into Christ.

Image: AI-generated using DALL·E and customized by the author. Used with the devotional “Sacred Signs of Subversion, Part 27: 666” at Life-Giving Water Devotions.

Part 27: 666. When Colin Kaepernick first protested during the national anthem, he didn’t kneel. He sat. And when he was told—by a former Green Beret—that sitting could be interpreted as disrespectful, Kaepernick listened. The soldier explained that kneeling is how service members honor those who have fallen; it is a posture of mourning and respect. So Kaepernick changed his posture. He knelt during the national anthem. But that distinction didn’t matter. What followed was not really a debate about patriotism, the flag, or even the military. It was something older and far more revealing. The outrage was about participation—about whether a public ritual of loyalty could be interrupted without consequence.

That tension is not new. Rome lived by it. In the Roman Empire, belief was flexible. You could worship many gods. You could even worship Jesus. What mattered was that you showed allegiance to Caesar. You paid tribute. You honored the empire. You participated in the system that promised peace, security, and survival. Refuse that participation, and you weren’t just religious—you were dangerous. This is the world Revelation speaks into.

When John writes about “the beast” and its mark, he is not predicting a future monster. He is naming a power his readers already know. Using Hebrew numerology, the number 666 corresponds to Neron Kaesar—Nero Caesar. By the time Revelation is written, Nero is long dead. But rumors persist that he will return, that the empire’s violence will resurrect itself, that the same kind of power will rise again, feared by some and hoped for by others who remembered Nero as hero and god. John is not interested in Nero’s biography; he is naming an archetype.

Nero becomes shorthand for empire itself—a system that demands loyalty, rewards compliance, and punishes conscience. A system that does not care what you believe, so long as you behave, so long as you participate. That is why Revelation says no one could buy or sell without the mark. The mark of the beast was not about belief; it was about participation. Rome did not persecute Christians because they worshiped Jesus privately. It persecuted them because they refused to say, “Caesar is lord,” because they would not perform allegiance when allegiance was required.

The mark is not something forced onto the body. It is something accepted for the sake of access—the cost of doing business, of staying safe, of being considered a “good citizen.” That is why Revelation remains dangerous. The beast does not demand that you abandon Christ; it demands that you rank Christ lower—lower than order, lower than stability, lower than belonging, lower than the system that makes life easier. And often, that loyalty is given in Christ’s name, sanctified by familiar language and stamped onto the very currency we are told to trust.

The beast does not oppose Jesus outright; it rebrands Him. It dresses power in religious language, calls domination “values,” labels refusal as disloyalty, and even presumes to invoke God while regulating who may buy and sell. It praises faith, as long as that faith never interrupts the rituals that keep the system intact. This is why Peter’s words matter: “We must obey God rather than any human authority.” Not because obedience is dramatic, but because it is costly. The question Revelation presses is not whether you believe. It is whether you will participate.

Revelation does not leave us with monsters to fear, but with mirrors to face. It asks where our loyalties truly lie when allegiance is demanded and comfort is on the line. Do we give our first loyalty to Caesar reborn in new forms—to a president, a flag, a nation, or any empire that promises order and protection? Do we confuse faith with patriotism, or obedience with belonging? Or does our loyalty remain with Christ alone, even when that allegiance costs us access, approval, or security? Revelation does not ask these questions to condemn, but to clarify—because in the end, neutrality is not an option, and participation always reveals who, or what, we serve.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY
The mark of the beast is not what you believe, but what you are willing to go along with so life stays comfortable.

PRAYER
God of truth, give us courage to obey You when obedience costs us belonging, security, or approval. Expose the loyalties we perform without thinking, and free us from the fear that keeps us silent. Teach us to follow the Lamb wherever He leads, even when the world demands we fall in line. Amen.


Devotion written by Rev. Todd R. Lattig with the assistance of ChatGPT (OpenAI).