"The cross is the school of love." - St. Maximilian Kolbe
There are seven theories, proffered by theologians, of what happened when Jesus was crucified. Unfortunately, most of those theories are based on the idea that atonement needs to be made for our sins. They mostly deal with some sort of substitution scenario where Jesus took our place and our judgement on the cross. Here is a synopsis that I found from a web search:
Major theories include Penal Substitution, where Jesus takes on the punishment for sin; Christus Victor, which frames the cross as a victory over sin, death, and evil; Moral Influence, where Jesus's example inspires believers; and Ransom, where Jesus's death pays a debt to free humanity. Other theories include the Satisfaction theory, which holds that Jesus's death honors God's justice, and the Governmental theory, which suggests the cross upholds God's moral governance.
My own view mostly resembles the moral influence theory. Here is a blurb from another web search:
The moral influence of the cross is the idea that Christ's crucifixion is a powerful example of God's love, which inspires people to live more moral and selfless lives. This theory proposes that witnessing the extent of God's love through Jesus's sacrifice motivates individuals to repent, reject sin, and live a life that reflects that love by sacrificing their own interests for others. It is a transformative event that acts as a catalyst for moral change by inspiring discipleship and commitment to a new way of life.
I like the idea that Jesus' death was not just an act of the murder of an innocent man. Of course it was a brutal act of torture and murder. But reframing it as an act of sacrificial love makes sense to me. It speaks to me of redemption, and how God is always at work bringing beauty from ashes.
Even so, I am concerned that even this view might paint a picture where somehow the religious and civil authorities were working with God in some sort of strange plan. I reject that out of hand. The actions of the religious leaders were evil and the civil leaders acted with great cowardice.
Back to the cross. It concerns me greatly that so many consider the cross as God's plan to save humanity. In doing this, I think that we overlook the fact that, for this to be true, God collaborated with murderers and cowards. Consider this parable from Matthew 21, that Jesus used to teach about this.
A certain landowner planted a vineyard with a hedge around it, and built a platform for the watchman, then leased the vineyard to some farmers on a sharecrop basis, and went away to live in another country. At the time of the grape harvest he sent his agents to the farmers to collect his share. But the farmers attacked his men, beat one, killed one, and stoned another. Then he sent a larger group of his men to collect for him, but the results were the same. Finally the owner sent his son, thinking they would surely respect him. But when these farmers saw the son coming, they said among themselves, ‘Here comes the heir to this estate; come on, let’s kill him and get it for ourselves!’ So they dragged him out of the vineyard and killed him. When the owner returns, what do you think he will do to those farmers?
A bit of explanation. In this parable the religious leaders are the farmers. Each agent is a prophet. The son is Jesus. Nowhere in this parable does God work with the farmers. In reality he gives them many opportunities to do the right thing. And each time they murder. It was no different with Jesus.
Sadly the religious leaders were not friends with God. They came to hate Jesus and they plotted his murder. Hard to see God involved with this sort of heinous malice. It reminds me a bit of my own experiences with religious leaders. They are great to be around unless you challenge them.
Netting it out, I think that it is simply inconsistent with the character of God to think that he would act in this fashion. More reasonable to see that humans searching for a meaning to the murder of an innocent man came up with theories that downplayed Jesus' murder and made it part of God's plan.
This rationalization is something that we humans always do. We try to take something really bad and find some good in it. And like I said, I am okay the moral influence theory. Yet I am not okay with theories that make God complicit in the murder of Jesus.
In my reality, the Resurrection of Christ is the beauty that came from the ashes of Jesus' murder. And it truly proclaims that God needed to redeem the cross. Instead of the cross redeeming humanity this paints an image of where Christ's death was in need of redemption.
You can see from this why I see that the resurrection redeemed the cross. By that I mean that the raising of Christ from the grave showed us how God works. He is not the one who micromanages our lives but when bad things he is with us and causes even bad things (like the cross) to work for us.
Yet you might ask about the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus seemed to be asking the Father to remove the cup of his death. He then prayed asking for God's will. Many assume from that prayer that his murder on the cross was God's will. For me I think that God does not work that way.
Yet you might ask about the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus seemed to be asking the Father to remove the cup of his death. He then prayed asking for God's will. Many assume from that prayer that his murder on the cross was God's will. For me I think that God does not work that way.
I think that Jesus was terrified by the thought of what lay before him. There would be no rescue. He would cry out to God from the cross feeling forsaken by God. He would be treated as a human and God would not intervene. He, like every human, would have to trust God to bring something good from it.
In the end, I can deal with this sort of reality. Knowing that the Father did not rescue his son gives me comfort when my prayers are not answered and I have to embrace with my heart and soul a trust of God that helps me look beyond. I mean, who has not felt forsaken by God.
This pragmatic approach to the cross is the answer that humanity longs for. Not the one where a magical God answers our prayers but one where we experience heavenly silence but sense that he is with us and will work all things to good, conforming us into the image of Jesus.
This pragmatic approach to the cross is the answer that humanity longs for. Not the one where a magical God answers our prayers but one where we experience heavenly silence but sense that he is with us and will work all things to good, conforming us into the image of Jesus.
I pray that the visceral understanding of the cross might help you process your pain and your suffering. I think that knowing that Jesus showed us a better way as he suffered on the cross might help us to do the same when we take up our own crosses.
... this devotion is part of a series on my spiritual deconstruction. Click here to read more.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I love to get comments and usually respond. So come back to see my reply.
You can click here to see my comment policy.