Recovering the scandal of the cross - lessons

In InnerCHANGE, one of our stated values is “Comprehensive Change”. We believe that God’s intentions for people, communities and nations, as revealed in Scripture, are “comprehensive”. All of life falls under God’s sovereign domain. We also believe that the body of Christ, with our diversity of gifts and callings, is uniquely endowed as the Lord’s ambassador in the world to respond to the realities that humanity faces today. I personally feel compelled by a biblical vision of transformation and the role that planting churches has in this as a catalyst for the kingdom of God to break into poor communities with transforming force.

In my diagnosis of “the problem” (simply stated: few churches catalyze transformation of their communities and cities), I tend to emphasize methodological “solutions” (that is, different ways of doing discipleship, small groups, church, etc.) Recently, however, -- and this will be the heart of this reflection – I read a book that heightened my appreciation for theological “solutions”. By theological solutions I mean how we think about God. The book, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts (Joel Green & Mark Baker, IV Press, 2000), deals specifically with how we understand the significance of the cross. The book helped me see how our thinking about the cross impacts the kind of disciples we make, the kind of leaders we develop, the kind of churches we plant, and the impact our churches ultimately make (or don’t make) in the world.

In the same way that Paul “conversed” theologically with the churches he planted, you could say that I am “conversing” theologically with you as we journey together as missionaries among the poor. I wouldn’t want it any other way. In fact I’m only writing this because I see the importance of it for the believers in the slums that we are developing into leadership. The stakes are too high to not step back and consider carefully what the end of our efforts in the slums will be. Speaking for myself, I’ve become dissatisfied with the pat answers that I inherited from my own church heritage. I don’t believe I was given the full picture of God’s intentions for the Church or for this world that God loves so much.

In the following theological reflections, I will put most statements in the first person singular in order to make explicit that what I’m writing about is how my story is intersecting with God’s story. Though, as you’ll see, I also refer to how our story, as children of the Reformation – North Americans, South Americans, Asians and Africans alike – intersects with God’s story. It is this dynamic of our experience “rubbing up against” the testimony of scripture (within the parameters of scripture) that enables us to meaningfully “converse” about the significance of the cross.

Enough of this. Join me as I try to unpack some initial theological reflections. Below you’ll find some of the insights I gained about the cross as well as implications.

1. The meaning of the cross is so rich in scripture that we must use MANY METAPHORS to convey its meaning.

The five primary metaphors in the bible:
Court of law – justification
World of commerce – redemption
Personal relationships – reconciliation
Worship – sacrifice
Battleground – victory

2. The biblical writers, like Paul and Peter, used various metaphors, depending on their audience and what would best communicate to the audience and their need (a la “receptor-oriented communication”).

3. In Western seminaries, since the Reformation, we have often limited the significance of the cross to ONE METAPHOR--namely, the idea of a court of law and how we are justified from sin before the judge.

4. Focusing on what can be called the “penal satisfactionary” metaphor of the cross (based on the court of law imagery) has deeply shaped how we live our faith as Christians (as children of the Reformation).

How has our exclusive use of the penal satisfactionary model shaped us? (Please understand that these are generalizations meant to provoke dialog.)

1. It has reinforced the view of an ANGRY GOD--venting his wrath on his loving Son.

My observation is that even though I try to emphasize God’s love when I teach about the cross, I end up conveying to people (quite unintentionally) the image of a mean, distant, judging God who needs to be appeased. I never felt comfortable with this portrayal of God, yet felt theologically somehow obligated to make the court room imagery with God as judge as the centerpiece of my teaching. This problem is accentuated by the fact that many of the disciples and emerging leaders we work with bring with them very negative and painful experiences with authority figures. Often their earthly fathers used anger abusively.

How do we teach the cross in a way that truly communicates that God’s love and mercy far outweigh his anger? How de we disciple and develop leaders to get out from under the “accusing eye” image of God?

2. It has emphasized a salvation that I have experienced as a kind of “LEGAL TRANSACTION” – as if God has a legal ledger and thanks to Jesus’ death for me, my name is moved from one side of the ledger to the other.

Have you ever heard someone teach about the difference between a “convert” and a “disciple”? Or heard someone’s nominal condition explained away because “they know Jesus as Savior, but not as Lord.” Could there be a connection between these examples of superficial Christian living and our narrow view of the cross’ significance? We lead people to a moment of receiving forgiveness that “gets them in”, but doesn’t deeply re-orient their lives. Could this explain the superficiality of many “decisions” for Christ that I have observed? From an apple seed, you get an apple tree. From a truncated understanding of the cross, we get truncated disciples.

3. It has TRUNCATED the CHURCH’S ETHIC in the world.

Is the cross only an invitation to join God’s family? Or is the cross also intended to define the nature of God’s family? That is, does the cross have the power to instruct us on how we are to live as God’s children?

The answer, of course, is “yes”. The cross teaches us how to live. Yet my observation is that one result of our exclusive use of the court room metaphor and the “legal transaction” significance of the cross is that the Church’s ethic doesn’t get the attention that it should. This manifests itself in that many Christians consider the cross as an unfortunate necessity – something that Jesus “had to go through”. Biblically, we must give greater weight to the cross as the final expression of a life given to God. Can we see the difference? And the ramifications?

The first view places the sole value of the cross on the invitation that it provides into the kingdom. The second view sees the cross also as the final act in many acts that teaches us to know God and his ways.

In Mark 10.42-45, Jesus responds to his disciples’ jostling for power by pointing to the cross. “The greatest among you will be the servant of all… for the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Jesus gave the cross the power to speak into how the Church exercises leadership. He created a clear bridge between his life and his death. He beautifully unites the message of his life with the message of his death. Both clearly have the power to instruct us. Both were intended to shape the way the Church lives its faith in the world.

If God intended the cross to speak into how leadership is exercised in the Church, we have to ask the question: Are there other critical issues facing the Church that God wants his cross to speak to?

Maybe I’m touching on something beyond the issue of metaphors. Maybe I’m touching on the issue of our worldview, that is, the assumptions about the world that we bring to the reading of scripture. More pointedly, maybe I’ve underestimated the impact of the assumptions that Western (affluent) theologians bring to the biblical text.

Within the heritage of European and North American thinking, we’ve been taught to validate the theological significance of the cross (namely, that “Jesus died for my sins”), while invalidating the socio-political significance of Jesus’ death on the cross (namely, that Jesus ended up dying on the cross because he stood up for the outcasts of Palestine and, thus, upset the socio-religious-political power systems of his day that oppressed and excluded the poor).

Can we expect North American and Western theologians without any personal experience of being oppressed to see and affirm the socio-political significance of the cross for oppressed peoples? Another way to articulate this issue could be to ask the question: Maybe our thinking is not “holistic”? Maybe this is about a truncated way of thinking that we have inherited – truncated in that we see and affirm the theological significance of the cross, without seeing and affirming the socio-political significance of it.

Until now I never really questioned the narrowness of our traditional interpretations of the cross. Yet I now see the critical need to more closely examine this doctrine--because of its impact on the Church’s witness and influence in the world.