Posted on 03/16/2002 6:42:19 AM PST by LarryLied
It's the most familiar symbol you can imagine, but ponder for a moment how odd it is that Christians display an "emblem of suffering and shame," as the hymn says.
The cross reminds us that Jesus was executed as a common criminal, hardly the upbeat message a publicist might choose.
Yet two decades after Calvary, the Apostle Paul wrote, "Far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Galatians 6:14). Under this mysterious emblem, the early Christians vanquished the empire that had crucified Jesus.
The symbol holds 21st-century power. Two days after the World Trade Center attack, a rescue worker wept as he discovered a 20-foot cross -- two fused metal beams buried in the rubble. This cross provided comfort to impromptu worshippers amid the mourning.
Yet the cross is spurned by Christian liberals Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker. They find belief in Jesus' saving death repellent, saying this sanctifies violence and submission to evil.
"To say that Jesus' executioners did what was historically necessary for salvation is to say that state terrorism is a good thing, that torture and murder are the will of God," they say in their book Proverbs of Ashes (Beacon).
Brock, a Harvard Divinity researcher, has chaired the joint global ministries board of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and United Church of Christ, and was a theology speaker at the Disciples's national assembly last year. Parker is a United Methodist Church minister and president of the Unitarian Universalist seminary in Berkeley, Calif.
Roman Catholic leftist John Dominic Crossan has joined in, hailing the authors' attack upon what he considers "the most unfortunately successful idea in the history of Christian thought." And the current Unitarian Universalist magazine features Brock and Parker in a cover story headlined "Violence and Doctrine: How Christianity Twists the Meaning of Jesus' Death."
"Perfect . . . sacrifice"
By contrast, another current author joins Paul in glorying in the cross. Fleming Rutledge, a traveling Episcopal preacher who lives in Port Chester, N.Y., embraces the Book of Common Prayer's Communion affirmation that Jesus Christ made "a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world."
Rutledge has collected seasonal meditations in her book The Undoing of Death (Eerdmans). Though sermons often fall flat on the printed page, this book is unusually readable devotional fare.
She believes the cross is misunderstood if we forget that Jesus the Son is equally God along with the Father (which liberal Christians and Unitarians deny). And some conservatives portray "a wrathful Father piling condemnation on an innocent, victimized Son. This mistake must be strenuously resisted," she writes.
The heart of the atoning sacrifice on the cross, Rutledge insists, is "the fact that the Father's will and the Son's will are one. This is an action that the Father and the Son are taking together." They are "accomplishing our redemption together," acting in united love for humanity.
However, her Good Friday sermons worry less about such liberal or conservative theories than about people's inclination to pretend their sins aren't all that bad so they have no need of a Savior.
"We do not like to believe that we deserve condemnation," she says.
Some seek to justify themselves by the kind of people they like to think they are -- more moral, sensitive, loving, intelligent, thoughtful, patriotic, fashionable or socially aware than others. Then there's the opposite, people who tell themselves they're more misunderstood, long-suffering and deserving than anyone else.
But Christianity says we're all sinners in the light of God's holiness. Despite sin, Rutledge believes, when Christ looks at someone "he sees a person that he loves more than life, more than glory, more than power, more than riches, more than divinity itself."
She also contends that the cross shows us Christianity is true. The reason? Mere human imagination or wishful thinking would never have concocted "a despised and rejected Messiah."
The problem here my friend, is that some people cannot accept the fact that it was OUR sin that put Him on that cross.
Some seek to justify themselves by the kind of people they like to think they are -- more moral, sensitive, loving, intelligent, thoughtful, patriotic, fashionable or socially aware than others. Then there's the opposite, people who tell themselves they're more misunderstood, long-suffering and deserving than anyone else.
Perfect description of liberal thought. I and most of the people I know have no problem believing we are sinners. I also do not consider myself better or more deserving than anyone else. It is the liberal thought process that creates these distinctions. They are all bigots and since that is all they know they assume everyone else is like that too. Pitiful.
So, my friend, are you saying that someone from the Wesleyan-Armenian tradition is NOT a Christian? and where did you get that quote "neutralized by universal prevenient grace?" Inquiring minds need to know.
So, my friend, are you saying that someone from the Wesleyan-Armenian tradition is NOT a Christian? and where did you get that quote "neutralized by universal prevenient grace?" Inquiring minds need to know.
You have a way with words! That sums up the meaning of the cross very well.
The Reformed tradition has a strong tendency to misinterpret God's grace. Wesleyan-Armenians do not believe that sin is "neutralized." We believe, in contrast to the Reformed/Calvinists, that God's grace is available to everyone, not just the "elect." There is a huge difference between that and saying that sin is "neutralized by universal prevenient grace."
Hardly. WesArmism teaches that "Jesus is the light who lightens EVERYONE who comes into the world." It teaches that the Lord himself brings the individual to a point where they can make a real, valid choice between real, valid alternatives. This "prevenient grace" doesn't CHANGE THE DEPRAVITY in any way. It is simply a mericiful intervention by a merciful God.
It makes MORE sense to say that Calvinism "neutralizes total depravity." In c'vism God "forces the individual" OUTSIDE of their depravity FOR GOOD. That's neutralizing TD.
The reference to universal prevenient grace was Wesley's own variation on Arminianism.
Which you completely distort when you say: which claims that the depravity inherent in original sin is neutralized by universal prevenient grace
You know very well that the concept of prevenient grace does not neutralize man's sin, but that it means that God's grace is available to everyone as opposed to your Calvinist view of grace which is only available to the "elect."
It is one thing to disagree with the Wesleyan-Arminian position. It is an entirely different thing when you dishonestly represent it, when you have a clear grasp of the difference.
It's not because of what it reminds us of in the death of Christ. ("God forbid that I should glory save in in the cross of Christ.") The problem is, visible objects are sometimes used in lieu of saving faith.
So, objecting to the use of crosses is based on a serious concern about idolatry. This is not really what the article is talking about.
(Protestants do object to the RC mass, too--and the reasons are related to what you mentioned--but more important, we object on the specific grounds that the sacrifice of the mass violates the Book of Hebrews, especially Hebrews 10.)
You still haven't explained 1 Corinthians 2:14 correctly. You have merely appealed to a theory of universal prevenient grace as the logical fix for the conundrum. So, my statement was correct.
And then these churchified unbelievers will try to use pieces of the scripture they reject to talk about the cross, or about baptism, or about communion. Their religion is all form and pagentry. They'll argue in anger about "not rebaptising infants." But they reject the scriptures they use to make their case.
What silliness!!
If you want to continue this discussion, please start another thread or go back to the "Defense" thread.
He's no more Catholic than a Buddhist!
Because someone is a baptized Catholic, doesn't mean they are livng a Catholic life. That is, we are called to LIVE the gospel. This guy Crossan is a disgrace to Christianity. His association with the Jesus Seminar should be an indication that he is a CINO. I'm scandalized by many in my church but he's one of the worst!
You flatter yourself. In your original post you said:
Brock comes from the Campbellite tradition (which denies original sin altogether); Parker comes from the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition (which claims that the depravity inherent in original sin is neutralized by universal prevenient grace); and Crossan comes from the Romanist position which assumes that, whatever original sin is, it is easily washed away by holy water.
The implication following your statement about Brock is that the Wesleyan-Armenian tradition says sin is neutralized by prevenient grace. That is not true, whether you meant to imply it or not.
I'm inclined to agree with Shadow that this discussion is better served on the other thread. I don't think any of us have a problem with the fact that the "ministers" in this article aren't anywhere close to the truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.