It's possible for Christians to brandish the cross, literally or verbally, as a kind of stick to beat the heads of unbelievers; and for their message to come across as: 'Agree with what we tell you about the Cross, or you go to hell'. But this attitude is worlds removed from how Jesus approached people. As an evangelising technique it may have apparently worked when Christianity dominated society's outlook on things, but nowadays it doesn't work - and I for one am glad it doesn't. Anyone 'converted' that way, then finds it very difficult to 'unlearn' the angry, judgmental picture of God it conveys and, ironically, to discover how to live in the true grace of the Cross.
Fundamentally, the Cross imparts to us the fullest revelation of Who God is and has always been - although until that moment, it had been harder for mankind to perceive that. True personal faith always has to be based upon personal revelation, however helpful theological thinking can later be: "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven" (Matthew 16:17).
So, what does the Cross tell me about my God? All my remaining days will be filled with finding out more, and the thought of that causes a great joy to arise in my heart. 'How can it be, that Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?' That You give all of Yourself for the human race? You allowed nothing to stand in the way as You reclaimed Your Bride? You never, despite what we thought, intended to "count men's sins against them" (2 Corinthians 5:19)?
A few saw this before the Cross, and we cherish the amazing moments of such revelation which are scattered through the Hebrew scriptures. For the rest of us, it takes the sight of Jesus dying and rising to open our eyes to "how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ ... and all the fullness of God" (Ephesians 3:18-19). The Cross isn't a stick, it is 'salve for our eyes' (cf Revelation 3:18) so that they are opened to God's true nature and intentions for us.
Postscript - A plea for non-religious language
Normal English attaches only a negative meaning to the word 'boast'. That is confirmed in any dictionary you might check. It really sounds odd to pick it to translate the original Greek, and it's only our familiarity with religious language which allows us to give it a positive meaning here in Galatians 6:14. Kauchaomai was a word St Paul really liked and used 35 times - not including his use dozens of times of the derived nouns kauchema and kauchesis. There are only two other uses, both in the letter of St James. It actually means 'to glory in', with a generally positive sense, although in some contexts that can imply self-glorification, ie boasting. The King James translators usually used 'to glory in'. We may need to find a more modern phrase - but, please, not 'boast'.
In the NIV, it gets even worse: in Romans 2:17, the translators render that verse: "Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God ..." This is so tendentious - verging on the anti-semitic. St Paul's much more neutral words are: "Now, you are called a Jew, and you stand upon the Torah, and you glory in God ..." His true meaning is the reverse of what the NIV says.
No comments:
Post a Comment