Why do we call it Good Friday? I know it is good news for us in retrospect, but it certainly was not a good day for Jesus. And how did the cross, Rome’s symbol of the most ignominious defeat, get turned into the symbol of a victorious Christendom that ruled the western world for two millenia? There seems to be some odd reversal going on here, a paradigm shift of stupendous proportions.
Paul said as much when he told us that Jesus cancelled the written code by nailing it to the cross, and he made a spectacle of powers and authorities, triumphing over them by the cross (Col 2:14,15). What looked to be happening was the polar opposite of what actually transpired.
However, it is precisely this radical reversal of the obvious that is one of the primary reasons for keeping the cross front and center in all Christian theology and practice. (Please understand I am here addressing the place of the cross in our thought, not the place of the cross (and all it represents) in itself. I hope to make clear that the significance of the cross as an expression of the God who relentlessly pursues his children exceeds our grasp.) It is the cross that proscribes our becoming complacent in our theology and practice. It is the profound depth of meaning in the cross that remains a constant challenge to thought and life.
When Mary and I were returning from the obligatory Good Friday morning service we were talking about Jesus’ statement on the cross “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” There has been extensive discussion about the precise meaning of this phrase, and I do not propose to answer the question here, I simply wish to attempt a response that takes note of some of the issues which must be considered in any proposed answer, if any such thing as an answer is even possible.
Interpreting this phrase to indicate that the Father turns his back on his Son, as is often done, is illegitimate on two counts. In the first place, the word Jesus uses means God, not Father. Secondly, Christian theology devoutly holds that Jesus was fully divine and fully human, and that he is so eternally from the Incarnation. Hence this heart-rending lament means neither that the Father turned his back on his Son, and it cannot mean that Jesus’ divinity was diminished in this experience.
I read this statement as an expression of the profound cataclysmic and catastrophic experience of the Author of Life tasting death; of the Holy One becoming sin; and –thanks be to God– of final defeat becoming an eternal victory. We can grasp neither the holiness of God, nor the onerous repugnance of sin, how can we hope understand their intersection? We know not the meaning of life and cannot understand the significance of death, how can we hope to make sense of the earth-shattering magnitude of the clash that transpires when Life meets death face to face?
I cannot hope to adequately understand the significance of the cross for my thought and life, but I am beginning to understand the exigence of keeping the cross front and center in all my reflections about life and relationships. The cross reminds me of who I am, and it reminds me that I need a God who loves me immeasurably more than my paltry awareness of my need for love. The cross reminds me that the way to life is through death, and that things are seldom as they appear. The cross reminds me that I and every one of my fellow human beings stands radically equal before God, and that failure to extend prodigal grace to others is the greatest obstacle to my own experience of the grace I so desperately need for my own salvation. The cross tells me that even as I do not begin to understand the enormity of my sin and the terrifying specter of death as separation from God, so I catch but the faintest glimmerings of the promise contained in the hope of salvation and life with God here and now, as well as forever, because of the cross.
Thanks be to God!!
10 comments:
We can grasp neither the holiness of God, nor the onerous repugnance of sin
the exigence of keeping the cross front and center in all my reflections about life and relationships
Some great thoughts, Henry! Welcome to the blogging world!
Thanks, Matt. And I might add that in my view the quotes you highlight reflect emergent thinking, and are consistent with the best in evangelical theology.
But holiness sounds like judgmentalism, and the cross is divine child abuse, isn't it?
This evangelical believes strongly in the incomprehensibility of God, but that there are some truths that God has infallibly revealed to us that we can know with certainty, neverhteless.
As to the cross of Christ, I believe it is the way, it doesn't merely show the way.
Would you say that my clarifications would reflect the typical emerging author? Would Bell or McLaren or Pagitt endorse my comments without a litany of qualifiers, in your view?
Hi Matt,
Holiness is not judgmental, and the cross is not divine child abuse, unless you insist on caricaturing them in that way. Even then, it is not the cross that is divine child abuse, nor is holiness judgmental, it is merely the way we talk about them that is so. I do not believe that the cross is the way, I believe that Jesus is the way. We are not saved by the theories we believe. We are saved by Jesus Christ.
Your 'clarifications' in my view reflect neither emergent thinking, nor the best in evangelical theology. I would not expect Bell, McLaren, or Pagitt to endorse your 'clarifications' without a litany of qualifications. I would be severely disappointed if they did not reject the clarifications outright as monumental obfuscations.
That is what I value in emergent thinking. It allows profound truths to stand on their own strengths, rather than burying them under a thousand qualifications and modifications that very soon become the new requirements that facilitate easy discernment of the sheep and the goats. Seems to me Jesus had some troubling things to say about that.
I am still perplexed at how infallible revelation keeps implying infallible reception of revelation facilitating an all but divine certainty. I do not think you really subscribe to that notion, but it seems to me it keeps insinuating itself into your thinking and writing. I see that as a reminder that our most seductive temptation is to be gods unto ourselves, to know as God knows.
I stand by the quotes you cited in your first posting. We are broken people living in a broken world, and we are in a fix such that "only a God can save us now". That is a quote from German philosopher Martin Heidegger from about the middle of the last century. Interesting how the philosophers sometimes get things so right.
We are not saved by the theories we believe.
You mean, like the belief that Jesus was the God-man, and is Lord and Saviour of the world? Some theories and beliefs are more than peripheral, intramural conversation pieces among Christians. Some are central to the gospel.
Where do I affirm that my reception of revelation is infallible? While we're on that topic, where does infallibility end: between God and the authors of Scripture, or between Scripture and me? It is precisely because I am fallible that I need spiritual truth to be revealed to me. I can't be trusted to reason, dialogue, converse, or create my way to the truth. I can't depend on myself, but I can depend on God. I am limited in my understanding, but that doesn't mean that I need to hold all spiritual truths lightly. Do you affirm that there are degrees of clarity to biblical teachings? Is my belief in the deity of Jesus more justified than, say, my belief in baptism by pouring? Or do I need to hold all of my beliefs lightly (including the belief that all beliefs need to be held lightly)?
Lastly, it is tiring to continually hear that those of us with a high view of Scripture desire to be gods unto ourselves. We realize our falleness, and therefore find our locus of authority in God's self-revelation rather than in ourselves or our communities. A postmodern can no better deny the charge of being an autonomous God than a conservative. In fact, a postmodern actually practices more autonomy than the evangelicals they criticize. Postmoderns create and "purify" truth. Even if done in community, the community itself is comprised of individual truth seekers/inventors.
Hi Matt,
Do you really mean to suggest that we are saved by believing the right theories in the right way? Would that not obviate the cross? Does the cross not stand as an unequivocal statement that we can never do what it takes (eg., believe enough right theology) to save ourselves? Or do we need the cross plus? This is what I mean when I say the cross must remain front and center.
Where do I affirm that my reception of revelation is infallible? While we're on that topic, where does infallibility end: between God and the authors of Scripture, or between Scripture and me?
You never explicitly say so but the implications keep cropping up in what you do say. I tried to be quite careful about how I said that.
Infallibility starts and ends with God, but you seem to want a space reserved for an infallible understanding of God's word, though you won't give room for that in others. Whether you are looking for an infallible understanding of a written word or an extra-biblical word makes little difference, because every understanding of scripture is by definition not itself scripture. Therefore your understanding of biblical revelation is on par with some one else's extra-biblical revelation. Both are subject to validation, and neither can claim the advantage/authority of a pipeline to the mind of God. You can depend on God, but you cannot depend on your understanding of God.
Or do I need to hold all of my beliefs lightly (including the belief that all beliefs need to be held lightly)?
Yes, and let God hold you securely.
Lastly, it is tiring to continually hear that those of us with a high view of Scripture desire to be gods unto ourselves.
It is not the high view of scripture that is the problem. It is the high view of one's mastery of scripture that is problematic.
We realize our falleness, and therefore find our locus of authority in God's self-revelation rather than in ourselves or our communities.
And you and your community are the authorities on what that self-revelation means.
Postmoderns create and "purify" truth.
I am confused. I thought post-moderns always denied and denigrated truth. Now they create and purify it. Why would they bother if truth is inconsequential?
God bless you, Matt.
Do you really mean to suggest that we are saved by believing the right theories in the right way?
You know I'm Reformed, so you'll also know I don't believe in the cross plus anything. The cross is a finished work. I believe in all 5 solas, so that's pretty much closed. The question isn't "is the cross enough", but rather "will the work of the cross be applied to me in the absence of my belief in Jesus Christ? If that's what you're asking then my answer is a resounding "no". If belief isn't necessary for my salvation, how would you explain (away) John 3:16, for one less than obscure example?
>>Or do I need to hold all of my >>beliefs lightly (including the >>belief that all beliefs need to >>be held lightly)?
Yes, and let God hold you securely.
Aside from the obvious contradiction that you just seemingly affirmed, you have me curious.
Are you suggesting that my belief in the existence of a theistic God, or the resurrection of Jesus is on the same level of assurance as my belief in baptism by pouring or my belief that there are seven dispensations?
And you and your community are the authorities on what that self-revelation means.
Without rebutting that assertion for the 1,457th time, let's assume for arguments sake, you are correct.
The problem is, so are you and your community.
The best you can do is play that one to a tie, Henry.
Peace in Jesus,
Matt
Hi Matt,
...I don't believe in the cross plus anything. The cross is a finished work.... The question isn't "is the cross enough", but rather "will the work of the cross be applied to me in the absence of my belief in Jesus Christ? If that's what you're asking then my answer is a resounding "no".
I am confused. On the one hand you seem to say that the cross is certainly enough, and you would never compromise that conviction in any way. Then I hear you say that of course our belief is also required. I do not know how to understand that as anything other than salvation by works. Cross plus works (believing the right theories in the right way) equals salvation.
Aside from the obvious contradiction that you just seemingly affirmed
Please explain the contradiction. There is nothing in the holding beliefs lightly that requires all beliefs be held equally. I am not sure what contradiction you see.
The problem is, so are you and your community.
The best you can do is play that one to a tie
Not really. There is a difference between trying to open space for a larger truth, and trying to ratchet truth down to what I believe.
But no matter. I am not interested in playing win, lose, or draw. I want to make space in my life for God and Truth.
God bless you, Matt.
I am with your comment on your blog on enjoying controversy. It is one of the ways we pursue truth, and truth is most certainly worth pursuing vigorously. Thanks for the help.
As to the cross, I've made a comment on "The Shack" thread.
The contradiction you affirmed was that you said all beliefs need to be held lightly, including the belief that all beliefs need to be held lightly. You seem fairly dogmatic about that belief.
As to debate, yes, I enjoy it and benefit from it too. Thanks!
Post a Comment