by Steve | Jul 19, 1994 | Archive - 1994
Archive: Pannenberg: “Re-Imagining” shows churches “surrendering faith”
by Patricia Lefevere.
The now-notorious “Re-Imagining” Conference that ignited so much controversy in the Presbyterian and United Methodist churches in the past six months is an example of “neo-paganism” and of ecumenical liturgy and theology run amok, says a leading ecumenical theologian. Professor Wolfhart Pannenberg of Munich, Germany, has called the women’s theological conference held in Minneapolis last November a sign that Protestant churches are “surrendering the substance of the Christian faith.”
So profound is this surrender to secularism, predicted Dr. Pannenberg, that the only surviving ecclesial communities in the third millennium will be Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant evangelical churches. Furthermore, unless main-line Protestant churches stop “wavering” in their faith and their Christian identity, they will not present a suitable alternative to “the spiritual emptiness of modem life,” said the Lutheran theologian who teaches ecumenical and systematic theology at the University of Munich.
Dr. Pannenberg didn’t specify the “Re-Imagining” Conference in his speech, but amplified his remarks in a subsequent interview. He said he wasn’t present in Minneapolis, but said he read the speeches and liturgy text.
He characterized the worship ceremony as having “enthroned” Sophia as a female goddess, which “is not in line with Christian teaching and is flagrantly opposed to biblical understanding, especially in the Old Testament.”
The professor noted that it wasn’t inevitable that Anglican and Reform churches would succumb to “the attractions of secularism.” He added, however, that “to the degree that they do, they lose their Christian authenticity and become less attractive ecumenical partners for Roman Catholics.”
Dr. Pannenberg added that “the greatest obstacle to ecumenism anywhere” is women’s ordination. The issue has grown in magnitude, he said, because the Vatican sees it as being linked to radical feminism. Women pastors in Germany as well as Protestant clergywomen in North America have become “spokeswomen for radical feminists, especially for lesbians.”
Such a linkage can only discredit women’s ordination and do disservice to the future of feminist theology, he said. Radical feminism is “counterproductive to women’s best interests in the church,” he added.
Reprinted with permission of The United Methodist Reporter.
by Steve | Jul 18, 1994 | Archive - 1994
Archive: Praise the Lord and Raise the Taxes
The Rise of the Religious Left
By Steve Beard
“I’ve been so criticized by the religious right community, its good to have religious people who understand what I’m trying to do.” —President Bill Clinton to a group of liberal religious leaders
Just as there is a Religious Right, so there is a Religious Left—and President Clinton could not be more pleased. As a movement, the Religious Left has attracted very little media attention. Consequently, the phrase is rarely heard. That may be explainable in that high-profile religious liberals such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Gov. Mario Cuomo, and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton are more well-known for their secular accomplishments than for their spiritual underpinnings.
Nevertheless, the Religious Left is led by a sophisticated network of “peace and justice” advocates from within “mainline” Protestantism. In his critically-acclaimed book, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America, sociologist James Davidson Hunter describes members of the Religious Left as the “progressives” whose “moral authority tends to be defined by the spirit of the modem age, a spirit of rationalism and subjectivism.” This group translates historic beliefs “according to the prevailing assumptions of contemporary life,” he says. Hunter describes their counterparts on the right as the “orthodox” who are committed to “external, definable, and transcendent authority.”
By whatever definition, the Religious Left is alive and well. After spending 12 long years wandering in the political desert, they have finally stumbled upon the promised land: The Clinton White House. The 1992 election resurrected and rescued a movement that had arguably been relegated to obscurity during the Reagan-Bush era.
It was remarked not long ago that “mainline” Protestantism had simply become “oldline” and was quickly becoming a “sideline” religious movement because of its staggering drop in membership and waning cultural influence. No longer sidelined, the Religious Left’s domestic agenda is now shared by the political establishment: tax-and-spend economics, abortion rights, homosexual rights, sex education and condom distribution in the public schools.
In the public policy arena, United Methodism is solely represented by the Religious Left. With regard to controversial social issues, there is virtually never an occasion when comments made by UM leaders reflect the feelings of moderates or conservatives. The scandal within our church is not that the liberal social and political witness is espoused. Our crisis is that liberalism is the only vision espoused in the name of United Methodism. In a denomination of political diversity, why is it that only the Left has a tithe-subsidized voice?
A 1990 survey conducted by the General Council on Ministries (GCOM) confirmed that the people in the pews are far more conservative than the denominational executives who speak on their behalf. According to the official results, a whopping 69 percent of United Methodist laity described themselves as conservative. The results showed conclusively that we are a conservative denomination led by liberals.
Only the General Conference speaks for United Methodism. With seeming regularity, however, it appears as if the Rev. Thom White Wolf Fassett, chief executive of the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS), is the only one behind the microphone. Unfortunately, those outside our church are under the mistaken impression that all United Methodists share his enthusiasm for liberal politics.
In recent comments, the Rev. Fassett claimed that the board’s “credibility is questioned when we speak on society’s issues out of the depths of the policy positions of the United Methodist Church.” He went on to say, “We have been told that we have no right to engage in the criticism of decisions enacted through the political process when, in fact, we are enjoined so to do by the very mandates of our church and the New Testament.”
No responsible critic has questioned the board’s “right” to “engage in the criticism of decisions enacted through the political process.” Many have questioned, however, whether or not the board accurately represents the United Methodist Church. Let’s be very clear about what is being said. No one is asking to silence the Rev. Fassett or the liberals at our Board of Church and Society. Instead, it seems only reasonable that our bishops, agencies, and media outlets recognize and utilize United Methodism’s rich tapestry of opinion rather than one predictably liberal voice.
Let’s look at a few specifics.
Economics
After analyzing President Clinton’s 1993 budget plan of “progressive taxes and program cuts,” the Rev. Fassett said that it “would move the country toward the long-stated public-policy goals of the United Methodist Church.” He even went so far to say that “most United Methodists will rally to the opportunity to give more so that local communities and the nation will benefit.”
“We have long expected our members to tithe to the church,” he said, “and this budget represents a tiny down payment toward the tithe of justice and love” (Luke 11:42). There is a deeply significant difference between the tithe and the tax. Unfortunately, the Rev. Fassett fails to make the distinction.
UM executives were also universally opposed to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and joined with other U.S. religious leaders by placing an advertisement in the Nov. 8 edition of Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, that read: “Reject This NAFTA.” Among the signers were the Rev. Fassett; the Rev. Randolph Nugent, general secretary of the General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM); Joyce Sohl, deputy general secretary of the GBGM’s Women’s Division; and Bishop Joseph Yeakel, GBCS’s president.
Recognizing the diversity within the UM Church, who speaks for those who did not support the Clinton economic plan? What about those who supported NAFTA?
Abortion
The Rev. Fassett recently claimed that the board’s “position on maintaining full reproductive health care in any new national health-care policy has been used to falsely accuse the church of supporting abortion.”
Most concerned United Methodists are now aware that the Board of Church and Society and the Women’s Division of the GBGM are members of what was formerly known as the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR). Its new name is the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) but their philosophy is the same: “We oppose any laws and regulations that, by dictating one position, force women to conform to other Americans’ religious belief.” This position effectively undercuts religiously motivated argumentation for anything. Would that be defensible when speaking of the civil rights movement, abolition, or the peace movement?
RCRC is also a firm supporter of federally-funded abortions and the radical Freedom of Choice Act. Likewise, it rejects even the modest laws for parental involvement, waiting periods, and informed consent. These are some of the reasons why many United Methodists believe that the Board of Church and Society supports abortion. Injudicious entanglements with fringe organizations are most certainly a contributing factor in the declining credibility of the UM Church’s social witness.
In a full-page May 18 New York Times advertisement, the Women’s Division was listed as a participating organization in a national call-in campaign to Congress demanding that abortion coverage be included in health care legislation.
Who speaks for the vast UM constituency who do not support abortion on demand, let alone having it federally-funded?
Homosexuality
Shortly after the 1992 election, Bishop Melvin G. Talbert, secretary of the UM Council of Bishops, cosigned a letter to then President-elect Clinton commending him for his “courageous commitment to end injustice” by lifting the military ban on homosexuals which was called “intolerable.”
The Rev. Fassett voiced his disapproval of the compromise policy by saying that President Clinton’s plan “continues the practice of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation” and that it “disappointed those who believe in the protection of human and civil rights for all.”
Who speaks for United Methodists who do support the military ban on practicing homosexuals?
Sex education and condoms
The Rev. Fassett supported the controversial proposal of federally-funded condom advertisements on television. “I urge United Methodists to view the announcements as an opportunity for families to discuss the important issues of HIV/AIDS in the context of religious values,” he said.
One of the rising stars in the ranks of the Religious Left is Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders, a prominent United Methodist. Her bravado is legendary. “If I could be the ‘condom queen’ and get every young person who is engaged in sex to use a condom in the United States, I would wear a crown on my head with a condom on it,” she said recently. Elders is also a sex education zealot who wishes to have training begin in kindergarten. “We taught them what to do in the front seat [of a car],” she says, “Now it’s time to teach them what to do in the back seat.”
Recognizing the diversity within the UM Church, who speaks for United Methodists who do not support government-sponsored condom ads, let alone allowing Dr. Elders to teach our children what to do in the back seat of a car?
Christian Social Action
The voice of the Religious Left within United Methodism is Christian Social Action—a publication of the UM Board of Church and Society. Only the most liberal politicians are highlighted in their pages: Rep. Don Edwards (D-CA), Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (D-CA), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-CO). Are we to believe that not one moderate is worthy of our attention? Why not call upon UM legislators such as Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA), Sen. Robert Dole (R-KS), Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), or Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN)?
With paranoid regularity, Christian Social Action publishes major articles devoted to such topics as: “Religious Right Rediscovered: Coalitions of right-wing groups are still working hard to impose a narrow orthodoxy on American life.” (The phrase “left-wing groups” is non-existent.) John M. Swomley, professor emeritus of social ethics at St. Paul School of Theology, is unsurpassed in his uncharitable venom. His attacks are directed toward Roman Catholics and fundamentalists whom he believes are to be found under every bed engaged in a “theocratic” conspiracy. He claims that conservative Christians are “opposed to separation of church and state, including the free exercise of religion as it applies to groups other than their own. They oppose equal rights for women, resist the right of personal and marital privacy, advocate censorship, and in general foster an atmosphere of hostility to various economic and civil rights.” This kind of dime-store characterization is commonplace.
The “U.N. Report” is supposed to serve as a insider’s look into the United Nations. Instead, it is a convenient place to bash diplomats from the Reagan Administration such as Ambassadors Richard Schifter and Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Caricatures in a recent issue include: “Ms. Kirkpatrick is a neoconservative political scientist who sees the United Nations as a place where the United States can beat up the rest of the world.”
Unfortunately, Christian Social Action does not appear to be the ethical voice of United Methodists working toward a more just society through the power of the Holy Spirit. Instead, it often ridicules and maligns traditional Christian social ethics. None of this would be much of concern if the magazine were simply a journal of opinion. However, it is supposed to represent all United Methodists.
It goes without saying that United Methodism is not monolithic in its social agenda, neither is it particularly partisan. There are, however, roughly 70 percent of the people of our church whose conservative worldview is never articulated by our intoxicatingly politically correct bureaucracy. These members remain voiceless and alienated within their own church. They feel utterly disenfranchised.
In a denomination that brags about pluralism, diversity, and inclusion, United Methodism’s leadership speaks with a unified liberal voice while the people in the pews are left to blush with embarrassment and roll their eyes in disbelief.
Steve Beard is the executive editor of Good News magazine and a member of the steering committee of United Methodists for Faith and Freedom, a committee of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.
by Steve | Jul 15, 1994 | Archive - 1994
Archive: Why did Jesus think he had to die?
By Michael Green
At first sight this is a foolish question. If Jesus was human, then of course he had to die. But there is something very odd about the emphasis on his death in the Gospels. In any ordinary biography of a great man, the account of his last days and death would normally form only a short chapter in a longish book.
But with Jesus it is very different. The account of his last few days, his death and resurrection occupies very nearly half of the Gospels. What accounts for this remarkable imbalance? There are twelve biblical reasons.
1. We find Jesus teaching that his death is inevitable. It must be so. Early in Mark’s Gospel he says that he, the Bridegroom, will be taken away from the party (Mark 2:19-20). In the next chapter we find him seeing to the heart of the Pharisees, who were complaining at his healing on the Sabbath.
He asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” And immediately a plot was hatched to kill him (3:6).
He knew he had to die. And the theme is repeated time and again in the central portion of the oldest Gospel. He gives the prediction of his fate in almost the same words in Mark 9:31 and 10:33, culminating in the ransom saying of 10:45 to which we will return.
2. His death was necessary in order to fulfill the Scriptures. Jesus clearly believed that the Scriptures had much to say about himself, and that they predicted his death. All the evangelists mention this. Luke represents Jesus after the resurrection as saying: “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” (Luke 24:25).
3. Jesus sees his death as totally voluntary. He said “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again” (John 10:18).
In St. John’s Gospel Jesus repeatedly taught that nobody could touch him because his hour was not yet come. But when it did come, he was to be found making his way to Jerusalem and to his death. It would be hard to make the point more strongly that his death was voluntary.
4. Jesus made it plain that this voluntary death of his was the Father’s will. “The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again” (John 10:17). The most sublime words in the whole Gospel make this plain: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son …” (John 3:16). And when the sunshine of those words changes to the night of Jesus’ agony in Gethsemane, it is the same message that comes through. “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will” (Mark 14:36). As ever, he and the Father were in perfect harmony: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).
5. In his death, Jesus identified with sinners. This was totally unlike any rabbi, who despised the people of the land as “sinners” who could never attain to the law of God. But Jesus received such; he ate with them.
6. His death was God’s judgment on the world. Jesus made this plain in direct statements like the following: “Now is the time of judgment on this world. … But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself” (John 12:31).
The theme recurs many times in St. John. But it also comes in more pictorial ways in other Gospels. One of the starkest is the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Mark 12:1-9). The Jews saw the point, were furious, and tried ineffectually to arrest him. His time had not yet come, but he had made very plain that one purpose of his death was to demonstrate God’s judgment on the sinfulness of a rebel world.
7. Jesus saw his death as a sacrifice. This is very plain from the Last Supper, a meal laden with Passover imagery. Instead of referring to the lamb or the “bread of affliction” eaten by their forefathers in the Exodus, Jesus says, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood of the covenant.”
And lest they should ever misunderstand, lest they should ever forget this supreme purpose of his death, he instituted a meal, the Communion, to be celebrated often in remembrance of him.
8. Jesus’ death was a ransom. “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). What can he mean? It can only be that our lives are forfeit, but that they can be liberated by the surrender of his own.
The word “ransom” was widely used in the ancient world. It applied to the release of prisoners of war and the liberation of slaves. It is as if man is a prisoner of war; Jesus has released him. Or as if he is a slave; Jesus has given him his freedom. Or as if his life is forfeit; Jesus delivers man from that terrible predicament, but only by surrendering his own.
9. His death was representative. Lest “ransom” should seem like cheap grace, Jesus also told his disciples that they must take up their cross and follow him (Mark 8:34).
The principle of costly self-giving must mark the disciples as it does the master. When asked by the sons of Zebedee about the position of honor in the kingdom of God, Jesus asked them if they were able to drink the cup he was to drink, or be baptized with the baptism which was to overwhelm him (10:38ff).
10. His death was a victory. St. Mark’s Gospel lays particular stress on his overcoming demonic forces which so assailed his ministry. As early as Mark 1:21-27, we read of the power of Jesus over an unclean spirit. “Have you come to destroy us?” it asked. That is precisely what he had come to do. The culmination of this victory of Jesus is to be found at the cross. During the Last Supper he said he would no more drink of the fruit of the vine until he drank it new in the kingdom of God (Mark 14:25). As he faced the cross he said, “the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me” (John 14:30). Jesus went on to say, “the prince of this world now stands condemned” (John 14:30; 16:11). This stress on Jesus the victor is drawn out very much in the Fourth Gospel and in some of the Epistles.
11. His death was total darkness. There was an uncanny darkness which fell on the world during the crucifixion, out of which came that terrible cry of inner dereliction derived from Psalm 22:1, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34).
12. His death was total vindication. Darkness was not the end. The first words of Psalm 22 are probably meant to give indication of the triumphant conclusion to that psalm. Moreover, there are many other occasions on which Jesus predicted a wonderful outcome of his sufferings.
In flash after flash Jesus looks through the calamity of the cross to God’s vindication of him. As he taught the couple on the Emmaus road, in the light of all the Scriptures (particularly Isaiah 53 and Psalm 110:1), “Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” (Luke 24:26).
In passages such as these, Jesus is holding together his death and vindication. The cross without the resurrection is utterly disastrous, the sad end of a great man. The resurrection without the cross is utterly banal, the traditional happy ending.
Jesus knew that his death would mean total identification with the lot of sinners, though he himself was sinless. He was drawn to that cross to express God’s judgment on the world, and at the same time to offer his life as a sacrifice, a ransom, in which he would be Godforsaken as he bore the sins of the world.
Yet he seems to have perceived that his death would not be the end. God would raise him from the dead, and by going to Calvary he would open a gate through death for believers. And all this would spell God’s victory over evil in all its forms, together with its satanic fount.
That is a powerful combination of answers to the question, “Why did Jesus think he had to die?” Nor must we forget that the disciple is no less called to the path of self-sacrifice.
As Bishop Stephen Neill was fond of observing, “We all have some dying to do. Jesus showed us how it should be done.”
Michael Green is an Advisor in Evangelism to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and a partner in “Springboard,” their initiative for the Decade of Evangelism. His ministry has included teaching, administration, and pastoring at institutions such as St. John’s College in Nottingham, England; Regent College in Vancouver, Canada; and St. Aldate ‘s Church in Oxford, England. This article is adapted from one of his numerous books, The Empty Cross of Jesus. Used by permission of Hodder and Stoughton, London, UK.
by Steve | May 16, 1994 | Archive - 1994
Archive: Re-Imagining and the Fair Name of Ecumenism
By Geoffrey Wainwright
We did not last night name the name of Jesus,” said a participant in one of the worship services at the Minneapolis “Re- Imagining” Conference, and then more generally: “Nor have we done anything in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Her remarks were met by laughter and cheers. Since, then, nothing Christian took place, it might seem that we could stop worrying and forget about the whole thing. Unfortunately, however, some have claimed a Christian status for the Minnesota event. And, in particular, some have invoked the principle of ecumenism to justify the participation by United Methodists. It is the ecumenical question that I want to address.
For all my adult life, I have been engaged in the ecumenical movement; and in recent years, I have regretted it when Evangelicals have tended to contrast themselves with Ecumenicals. For I have always seen myself as standing within classical Christianity: Evangelical, Orthodox, Catholic Christianity. And I have always understood the modem ecumenical movement—from its origins and at its best—to be about the manifestation and attainment of the unity of the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, which is the body of Christ, and the communion of the Holy Spirit. And for what purpose?
The early motto of the ecumenical movement was taken from the prayer of Jesus for his disciples at the Last Supper, “that they all may be one.” And why this unity? “That the world may believe.” Division among Christians diminishes their witness to a gospel that declares “God has reconciled the world to himself.” When, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the Methodist layman John R. Mott led his church and others into the ecumenical movement, it was in the service of “the evangelization of the world in this generation.” The same cause inspired the great Edinburgh missionary conference in 1910 and led to the formation of the International Missionary Council (IMC). After World War II, the IMC brought its energies into the World Council of Churches (WCC).
Of course, Christian unity is not simply a matter of assembling a humanly organized community around a humanly contrived message. The Church gathers around the one gospel and correspondingly seeks to confess and proclaim the one faith. That is why matters of Faith and Order have been essential to the ecumenical movement. Through long years of study and reflection, consultation and conference, classical ecumenism has painstakingly brought the churches closer to agreement on the core contents of Christian doctrine and practice. That is the achievement of the Lima text on “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry” (1982), of “Confessing the One Faith” (1990), and of numerous texts produced in bilateral dialogues among the Christian communions. Genuine ecumenism will respect and build on these hard-gained convergences. It is the failure to abide by the ground rules that disqualifies the Minneapolis event, however varied the denominational allegiances of its participants, from any claim to the honorable title of ecumenical. Let me illustrate that with regard to the membership basis of the World Council of Churches.
The constitution of the WCC established it as “a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Savior.” How then could applause greet a speaker at Minneapolis saying, “I don’t think we need a theory of atonement at all. … I don’t think we need folks hanging on crosses and blood dripping and weird stuff”? The WCC makes its confession “according to the Scriptures.” How then could the liturgies of Minneapolis turn the divine wisdom of Proverbs into an independent deity, to be called on in prayer as “Sophia, creator God”? The WCC seeks to accomplish its mission “to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” How then could the Minneapolis event feature as a speaker Chung Hyun Kyung, notorious since the 1991 WCC gathering in Canberra, who duly obliged by introducing a “new trinity” of “goddess”—Cali, Quani, and Enna?
The new general secretary of the WCC, Dr. Konrad Raiser, has claimed that “if the WCC did not exist, we should have to invent it.” That is no justification for the sad decline from the original vision and the abandonment of existing achievements. The disaster of Minneapolis should serve as a summons to recall the World Council of Churches and all ecumenical agencies to their first vocation of uniting Christians for the proclamation of the Name in which salvation is to be found. And the Decade of Solidarity with Women would be better marked by honoring and emulating those who have contributed so much to classical ecumenism: a Suzanne de Dietrich and an Ellen Flesseman-van Leer in their Bible studies, a Janet Lacey in interchurch aid, a Kathleen Bliss and a Madeleine Barot in the cooperation of men and women in church and society, the many women missionaries, evangelists, teachers, and local church leaders who have testified to the one gospel in every land, and the countless millions of women who have united throughout more than a century for the annual World Day of Prayer.
Dr. Geoffrey Wainwright a minister of the British Methodist Church, is the Robert E. Cushman Professor of Christian Theology at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. He is chairman of the World Methodist Council’s committee on ecumenism and dialogues. Wainwright is a co-editor of the Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement (Eerdmans and WCC Publications) and the author of numerous books.
by Steve | May 15, 1994 | Archive - 1994
Archive: The Beauty of the Cross
By Alister E. McGrath
Corporations spend huge sums of money on designing logos. Advertising agencies are hired to conceive a logo which will express the qualities that the corporation wants to be associated with it in the public mind. These are usually qualities such as stability, reliability, progressiveness, or aggressiveness. This design will appear on their letterheads, on their products, and be prominently displayed at their national and local headquarters. In the 1980s the British Labour party, anxious to shake off its associations with an increasingly unpopular socialism, abandoned its traditional logo—a red banner—in favor of a red rose. A red banner conjured up now unacceptable images of such things as military parades in Red Square, Moscow. A rose evoked more tender and sensitive associations for the British people (traditionally noted for their love of gardening in general, and roses in particular). Militant associations were being rejected in favor of more compassionate and gentle ones, designed to project the image of a caring party. A logo tells us a lot about a corporation or organization—or, at least, about how they would like us to see them.
An organization which chose as its logo a hangman’s noose, a firing squad, a gas chamber or an electric chair would accordingly seem to have taken leave of its senses. It would be sheer madness to choose an instrument of execution as a symbol of an organization. Its members would instantly be regarded as perverted, sick, having a morbid obsession with death, or having a nauseating interest in human suffering. It would be an advertising agency’s nightmare. Only an organization determined to fail as quickly and spectacularly as possible would be mad enough to choose such a symbol.
And yet exactly such a symbol is universally recognized as the logo of Christianity. Christians are baptized with the sign of the cross. Churches and other Christian places of meeting do not merely include a cross; they are often built in the shape of a cross. Many Christians make the sign of the cross in times of danger or anxiety. The graves of Christians are marked with crosses. Careful studies of the origins and development of Christian symbolism have made it clear that the cross was seen as the symbol of the Christian gospel from the earliest of times.
But why? Why choose such a shocking and offensive symbol? Why not choose something more caring and compassionate? Throughout history, people have been scandalized by the cross. Many of its critics have argued that Christianity would have a much more favorable public image if it abandoned this absurdity. Even at the time of the New Testament, the bad press received by the cross was fully appreciated. Paul had no doubts that the Christian emphasis upon the cross was regarded as outrageous by two very significant groups of people. The Jews regarded it as scandalous, and the Greeks saw it as sheer madness (I Corinthians 1:23).
So, given this widespread hostility in the world towards the cross, why not abandon it? Why not allow public relations and advertising agencies to come up with some new symbol of the gospel, which would be far more attractive to the general public? There has never been a shortage of people urging that this should be done. It would, we are told, be much easier to sell the gospel in the marketplace of life if it was more attractively packaged. Get rid of these unpleasant associations with death, suffering and execution. These are barbarous ideas, which needlessly offend the sensibilities of intelligent and cultured people. Then the Christian faith could achieve new heights of influence and acceptability.
But the cross has a relevance of its own, which must not be lost. It is a potent symbol of Christian realism. It declares that any outlook on life which cannot cope with the grim realities of suffering and death does not deserve to get a hearing. This symbol of suffering and death affirms that Christianity faces up to the grim, ultimate realities of life. It reminds us of something we must never be allowed to forget. God entered into our suffering and dying world in order to bring it newness of life. Those outside Christianity need to Learn—need to be told about—its relevance and power for the tragic situation of humanity. It is a sign of a glory which is concealed. It confronts the worst which the world can offer, and points to—and makes possible—a better way. It stands as a symbol of hope which transfigures, in a world which is too often tinged with sadness and tears.
So consider the cross. A symbol of death? No. A symbol of suffering? No. A symbol of a world of death and suffering? Not quite. A symbol of hope in the midst of a world of death and suffering? Yes! A symbol of a God who is with us in this dark world, and beyond? Yes! In short, the cross stands for a hope that is for real, in a world that is for real. But that world will pass away, while that hope will remain for eternity.
Alister E. McGrath is a member Oxford University Faculty of Theology and is lecturer in Christian doctrine at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. This article is taken from one of his numerous book, What Was God Doing on the Cross? Copyright© 1992 by Alister McGrath. Used by permission o Zondervan Publishing House.
