Skip to main content

The Cross

Most Christians can talk a good game about the cross of Christ. They will say that it is the reason for their confidence, the forgiveness of their sins, and the like. This is mostly to the good. Yet there is a reason why the whole matter is called by the Church "the paschal mystery." It is forgiveness, the confluence of the covenants, the joining of a people, the realization of long-awaited hope. It is much more than we are able to say.

Let me ask this question: Does God love you? Does God love us? I ask it because I remember when I used to see in the Cross only pardon, toleration, a bemused and distant acceptance, and only for a few of us, at that. It was impersonal, and no matter what we'd say to massage it, it had to be: When God the Father looks at me, he doesn't see me; He sees Christ, or so it went.

But now I see something else. I see in that cross true good news for me. For you. Jesus preaches that gospel from His throne on that cross: This is how much I love you. This is how far I will go. The just for the unjust, with no hesitation. He did not wait, and he does not. The cross does not tell the story of wrath turned away for an undeserving yet arbitrary few; it tells the story of our hatred toward Him turned back, swallowed in unending mercy.

The wrath of God will indeed be terrible, but only because the most affectionate appeal has already been made from the mountain of Calvary. Jesus Himself said, "And after I am lifted up, I will draw all men to myself." No one who preaches it has more to say but, "Look!" Or, if you like, "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world!"

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un