The Foolishness of the Cross

I Cor. 1:18-25

 

        Paul hit the nail on the head when he wrote, “The Cross is foolishness to Gentiles.” Truth is in recent years the cross has become an awkward symbol that no longer easily hangs around our necks. To the casual observer, how odd our faith must look, not only from the outside looking in but from the inside looking in. To the outside observer, Christians insist weakness is used to affirm the power of God. From our perspective, there is the paradox of redemptive suffering.

        The theological question at the center of this discussion asks how humanity becomes reconciled to God. The classical answer declared, “Reconciliation is impossible without an action by God.” Paul preached this Godly action was the death and resurrection of Jesus. The cross stood as the representation of this Godly act. In other words, death stands between us and God and only God is capable of erasing that obstacle.   This  belief has been reinforced for 2,000 years. The 20^th century theologian Richard Niebuhr stated, “The cross does not deny the reality of the death. It reinforces it. What the cross does is deny death’s finality.”

        Many of us grew up singing, “The Old Rugged Cross”. Last Sunday the choir concluded the service by singing the first verse of, “O Sacred Head Now Wounded”. And herein lies the problem. Those songs represent an ancient theology some folks find difficult to accept. Is suffering ever redemptive? Did God preplan the death of Jesus? For centuries folks were told their suffering would be rewarded in heaven. But today we question if the affliction of the innocent or the suffering of the powerless can ever be justified. For 2,000 years men in position of power determined what was theologically orthodox. But the tide has turned, giving us an opportunity to reevaluate the significance of the cross.

        Is suffering redemptive or is it foolish to consider such a thought? We certainly hold high our martyrs as example of one laying down his or her life for another. But many folks suffering in silence continue to be told by the church that their pain will eventually be rewarded. Is that redemptive or propaganda to protect the status quo?

        I think we must go back to the beginning and reconsider the question, “Why did Jesus die?” We can argue from a contextual perspective that Jesus upset the religious authorities and it was killed to retain social order. If there had been no resurrection, this explanation would have been satisfactory. Jesus would be celebrated as another prophet who stood against the powerful and lost his life.

        But the very existence of the Christian Church is based on the Easter event. Now our explanation of the death of Jesus becomes theological as well as contextual. Without the resurrection, there is no religious insurrection within the Jewish community. Without this insurrection, there is no Pentecost. Without Pentecost, there is no Saul. Without Saul, there is no Paul. Without Paul, there is no theological explanation of the resurrection. I realize that is simplistically overstated but when the explanation becomes theological, God is invited into the conversation.

        So the second question becomes, “What is the role of God in the death of Jesus?” Historically we know Jesus was crucified. His death was recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus. We know the early church existed. What we can’t prove is God’s intention. To be more specific, did God plan the death of Jesus or did God react to the death of Jesus?

        That is a question never raised in the first 1600 years of the churches existence. But then we became “enlightened” and entered the age of reason. The idea of God was not eliminated from human thought but the concept of God was understood more in terms of creation than salvation. While Christianity did not disappear it certainly began to wane. To a large extent human reason replaced faith. Liberty and freedom stood over against monarchies who claimed Divine Right had legitimized their power. Washington, Adams, and especially Jefferson considered themselves to be more humanist than Episcopalian. But then Napoleon, and Kaiser Wilhelm and finally the rise of Hitler and a second world war caused enlightened minds to question if the human spirit could really save itself. Once again the idea of human sin was introduced folks like Dorothy Sayer announced, “God was never longer content to call creation good from afar.” The cross regained its place at the forefront of any conversation concerning the intention of God.

        In the midst of the horrific human suffering of the 20^th century, evangelicals such as Billy Graham took the ancient road preaching that God’s intention had always been to save us through the death of Jesus. Graham encouraged his flock to understand suffering led to heavenly rewards and the cross symbolized this. Other theologians claimed God reacted to death of Jesus and choose to be   immersed in humanities deepest afflictions. They condemned the cross as an unnecessary symbol which exemplified bad theology.   And yet there it hangs. Do we take it down? To leave it acknowledges that despite our wisdom and desire to be Godly people we still need to wrestle with the concept of sin. It is Hard to admit that we might not be perfect. It is even harder to admit that we might be sinners in need of God’s grace. Often we cringe at ancient words depicting such a horrific sight. But to dismiss the cross as foolishness seems to risk losing sight of the presence and love of God.

        Martin Luther King, a man who understood redemptive suffering preached, When I look at the cross I am reminded of the goodness of God and the ignorance of humanity. The cross is Christ at his best. But it is also is humanity at its worst. We must continue to see the cross as a magnificent symbol of love conquering hate. Yet in the midst of our glowing affirmation let us not forget Jesus was nailed to the cross because of human blindness.

        Psalms 27 ends, I believe that I shall see the goodness of God in the land of the living. Wait for the Lord. Be strong. Let your heart take courage. Wait for the Lord.

        The Psalmist does not say I KNOW I shall see goodness of God. This is not some blind optimist waiting for Nirvana. This poet is searching for something to hold onto in the midst of his desperate situation. He chooses to cling to his faith by singing that his God is an agent of transformation.

        When I look at the cross I am reminded that no predator in all of creation is more dangerous than the human species. This caused me to I shut my eyes and tremble. Then I take courage that beyond the collective blindness of all humankind is the love of God.

Can I prove this?

No.

But do I believe it?

With all my foolish heart.

                                       

To God be the glory.   Amen.