4 Windows on the Cross: Suffering, Sin, Shame, Scars

Okay, so this is really a Good Friday post rather than an Easter Sunday post, but I am just now getting around to writing it.
This really started out as comments on the page of my Facebook Friend, Lance Schmitz, pastor of the "World's Largest Nano-Church", Capitol Hill Church of the Nazarene in Oklahoma City.


Lance likes to post thought provoking articles and get input and this is one that he posted: No, the Crucifixion is Not About Bloody Child Sacrifice Being Necessary for Forgiveness  by someone named Hellen Painter Dollar. Her post is long but she is arguing against the theological idea of "substitutionary atonement", that is that God required an innocent blood sacrifice in the person of Jesus to pay for our sins. She is not, however, saying that it is without meaning or purpose, but rather posits that cross is God's way of becoming fully human and identifying with all who suffer.

My first reaction to the comments on this article was to say that there is good scriptural backing to the idea of Christ as a substitution for us. 

• In John 1:29, John the Baptist declares that Jesus is "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world". "Lamb of God" really could only have one reference and that would be the sacrificial lambs in the temple.  An interesting thing to say as the death and sacrifice was not in focus at all in this point in the story. I wonder what people took away from that statement in the context of Jesus' baptism.

• Peter and Paul's epistles are rife with the metaphor of substitution
  

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit.  1 Peter 3:18

Of course, the actual theological construct of "substitutionary atonement" went through various phases and precisions in church history: ransom theory, Christus Victor, penal subsitution. (See substitutionary atonement).  Each of these has verses that will back them up. 

I remember hearing church historian Professor Andrew Walls speak at a conference in 2002. He posited that the church develops doctrines (already existent in scripture) as the gospel message is carried across cultural boundaries. "Christ as Messiah" (Jewish context) becomes "Christ as Lord" when the gospel goes from Israel to Greece and Rome. According to Walls, the concept of the "atonement" was crystallized as the message was taken to the germanic tribes of northern Europe.

Could it be that these different theological ideas are all just windows looking out on the same central truth, providing different views of the same reality? 

In the original post above, Hellen Painter Dollar says that the cross is about Christ joining in our suffering. I believe that is true. And Philippians 3:10  turns this on its side when it talks about the fellowship we have of sharing in Christ's suffering.

And in shame-based cultures (Africa and the Middle East), people are not as concerned about the GUILT aspect of sin (as we are in Western cultures) but the SHAME that comes with our own sin or the sin of others around us. In these cultures, an important part of the Good News is that Christ taking our shame when he dies on the cross. (The shame aspect is what causes fathers to kill daughters who have been raped due to the excessive shame that has been brought on the family.)


As I reflected on this late Friday evening, I was drawn to Isaiah 53. Assuming you see this passage as a prophecy about Jesus' crucifixion, then you can see that the cross works in so many areas, and they are so intertwined it is almost hard to extract the quotes from each other. (quotes taken from NIV)

  1. Suffering and Injustice

• "A man of suffering, familiar with pain" v. 3
• "Surely he took our pain and bore our suffering. . . Afflicted" v. 4
• He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth;  v. 7
•  Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, v. 10a
• After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; vs 11a
  

 2. Shame (He was Shamed on the Cross and bore that for us)

•  He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. v. 2  

• He was despised and rejected by mankind ..... Like one from whom people hide their faces
  he was despised, and we held him in low esteem v. 3
  (For more on the shame side of things, see Psalms 22:6-7  "But I am a worm and not a man,
  

  scorned by everyone, despised by the people. All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads."  Also consider that a major aspect of the problem for the "first Adam" was shame, so the Second Adam needs to address that).

3. Healing

• and by his wounds we are healed. v.5

4. Guilt of Sin

• But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him,v. 5
• and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. v. 6
• for the transgression of my people he was punished. v. 8
• and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, v. 10 b 

• by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. v. 11b

Different aspects of the Cross speak more to different people and cultures and also as we go through different phases of life - shame, sickness, guilt of sin, shame, suffering.  

 
What a beautiful mystery! Let's thank
God for the Cross and revel in all that it means and so much that we will never understand. 

Church Fathers - Day 11: Polycarp

More from my Lent Readings on the Church Fathers. I am behind on this.

Day 11 of the readings is the last of the letters from St. Ignatius. This one was addressed to Polycarp which is not something you might find at Bass Pro. Instead he was the Bishop of Smyrna (in Turkey) who lived from 69 AD to 155 AD. He was martyred, by being bound and burned at the stake but when the fire would not touch him, they ran him through with a sword.

St. Ignatius wrote to him (chapter 3) 

Stand firm, as does an anvil which is beaten. It is the part of a noble athlete to be wounded, and yet to conquer. And especially, we ought to bear all things for the sake of God, that He also may bear with us. Be ever becoming more zealous than what thou art. Weigh carefully the times. Look for Him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes; impalpable and impassible, yet who became passible on our account; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes. 

Interesting image of the anvil which is beaten but does not move, nor seem to have much choice in the matter.
The image of the athlete persevering is also familiar. In this case, the idea of the WOUNDED athlete is new to the metaphor, wounded and yet continuing on to win.
Impassible - I had to look this up. It is the theological idea that God does not experience pain or pleasure. So the idea here is that Jesus took on and experienced pain and suffering as part of his incarnation.

Later in Chapter 6, Ignatius further exhorts him and the church under his care to live together in community, persevering and living in long-suffering with each other.

Labour together with one another; strive in company together; run together; suffer together; sleep together; and awake together, as the stewards, and associates, and servants of God. Please ye Him under whom ye fight, and from whom ye receive your wages. Let none of you be found a deserter. Let your baptism endure as your arms; your faith as your helmet; your love as your spear; your patience as a complete panoply. Let your works be the charge assigned to you, that ye may receive a worthy recompense. Be long-suffering, therefore, with one another, in meekness, as God is towards you. May I have joy of you for ever! 

 The spiritual armor listed here is different than in Ephesians. Love is a spear - an offensive weapon. And patience is the "panoply" which is defined as a complete suit of armor "the shield, breastplate, helmet and greaves, together with the sword and lance.
The idea is the same but the emphasis different. It is interesting that patience is what provides the complete package, compared with Colossians where it is Love that binds them all together in perfect unity.

Colossians 3:12-14
Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

Interpretation of the Martyring of Polycarp.

Which Bible Hero was a Socialist?

Which beloved Bible character and Sunday School flannel-graph hero was a socialist, as least by modern definitions?
 Some hints:

• He had the position of Prime Minister under a pagan King.
• He levied a 20% tax on a basic commodity and then sold that commodity back to the people when it became scarce. 
• When the people used up all their money buying this commodity, he took payment in their livestock and eventually in their land so that everything in the land eventually belonged to the State. 
• The people were allowed to work their (former) land as sharecroppers, keeping 80% but paying the state 20%. 

The people acclaimed him as the one who had saved them and scripture says that God planned all of this and used it to save many people, both those who were God followers but also the pagan nations around.

Still guessing? 
His name was Zaphenath-paneah, but you know him by another name: Joseph, next in line after Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.


Check the story out in Genesis, specifically chapters 41, 47 and 50. Joseph was sold by his brothers into Egypt as a slave. He was in Potiphar's house and then falsely accused and thrown in prison.
Eventually he was called out of prison to help interpret Pharoah's dream (Genesis 41). Pharoah had dreamed of seven years of abundant harvest followed by seven years of devastating famine.  Joseph suggested that he find a wise man to be in charge of Egypt and that they should collect 1/5 of the crops for seven years to use during the  coming years of famine. (41: 21-35)

Pharoah liked the plan so much he picked Joseph to be his number two man. He gave him that funky name, Zaphenath-paneah. Joseph collected 1/5 of the grain and stored it away. This was a tax but also took resources for the state to manage. Storehouses had to be built and people employed to transport it,  guard it and distribute it.

Then comes the beautiful story of Joseph's brothers coming for grain and Joseph testing them and then revealing himself to them and forgiving them.
Chapter 47 carries on with the broader context in vs 13. The starving Egyptians came and bought grain the first year of the famine. When their money was gone, the paid with their livestock. Then when all of that was gone, they sold themselves into slavery and sold their land.
Rather than let them die, Joseph provided them seed to plant and instituted a 20% tax on all that they grew. Sharecropping. Indentured Servitude.
AND the people thanked him for saving their lives. (47:25).  

Later Joseph reveals that all that happened - him being sold into slavery, put into prison, being made Prime Minister and the plan for the state to provide for everyone's needs - ALL of that was something that God intended for good to save the lives of many people. (Genesis 50:20). 
OKAY, so was this really socialism? Wikipedia says that

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy. "Social ownership" may refer to ... state ownership
A socialist economic system would consist of a system of production and distribution organized to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit.

So in the Joseph story we have state ownership of large sectors of the economy. High taxation. Government handouts. If the sandal fits. . .

I guess the question is why did God choose to work this way and call it "good", whereas so many will argue that there are better systems than socialism and taxation and people living off the State? In this story, the entire nation of Egypt was made slaves to their Pharaoh and that doesn't seem acceptable today.

I really don't know why God chose this means to accomplish His will. Certainly Pharoah gave Joseph free reign. He could have

• proposed a system of capitalism with companies or farmer co-ops set up to manage and profit from the grain harvest, so that the profit from this went back to the people. If the people had kept their 20%, wouldn't this have produced wealth they could use later to buy grain?

• Or Joseph could have set up some sort of participatory democracy, but then Pharaoh might have been much less favorable to the plan.

• A modern-day Joseph might have set up some sort of Foundation or NGO or govt agency to manage this and then provide the grain as free aid to the people in Egypt in neighboring countries rather than enslaving them.

• Certainly the individual Egyptians could have simply saved their own grain, but then how easy is it to encourage personal savings?

In the end, the Egyptian State was likely the only actor with the wherewithal and will to put into place a plan to save everyone. God could easily have instituted a plan to save just the 70 members of Jacob's family but he was (and is) still concerned with the basic needs of everyone!

I think the most likely explanation is that God chose to work through the existing system, adapting it gradually and pushing out the boundaries as we often seem him doing throughout history, expanding our understanding, moving from law to grace.

It is comforting to see God working through, and even in spite of our different human structures. There are lots of different ways the Church chooses to organize herself locally and at higher levels. There are different structures possible for mission organizations and different sorts of relief agencies.  Some use democratic processes. Others use more top-down leadership with elders and boards and God chooses to work through them all. And throughout history, He has chosen to work through various governmental systems - Pharoah, Caesar, Prophets, Judges, Kings, Socialism, Capitalism, Democracy, Monarchies. Some systems obviously make it easier on Him, but thankfully He is sovereign and will carry out his purposes.

Theology of Risk - Hebrews 11

A fairly big part of my job is helping respond to crises in different countries, whether that be coup d'états, crime, political insecurity or the threat of kidnapping and terrorism.

Once you start planning for crises and making decisions about when to pull people out of hot spots, you end up eventually looking at what some call the "theology of risk". How do you weigh the risk of having people in danger against the benefit of them being there. And how does God fit into the equation? 

There are very different views on this from group to group. You basically have two different ways of handling things:

• The organization lets each individual make their own decision based on prayer, personal judgment. The result is that some people leave and others stay on to the bitter end.
• The organization makes decisions for the their entire group with varying degrees of input from members. Decisions to leave could be based on predetermined triggers, policies, embassy warnings, etc.

There are differing underlying assumptions and oddly enough you can find scriptures for both viewpoints:

God has called me here and will protect me: 

Ps 138: 7 Though I am surrounded by troubles,you will protect me from the anger of my enemies. You reach out your hand,and the power of your right hand saves me.

Ps. 91:9 If you make the Lord your refuge, if you make the Most High your shelter, 10 no evil will conquer you; no plague will come near your home. 11For he will order his angels to protect you wherever you go.

God instructs us to take note of danger, plan for it and withdraw from it when possible.

Proverbs 22: 3 A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions.The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.

The Theology of Risk studies I have seen usually take you through Acts and you note that in some cases,

• God acts mightly to protect people  - Peter rescued from prison by angels
• God does nothing and people are killed - Stephen is martyred, and persecution erupts and the church spreads.
• God's people take preventative action - Paul lowered to safety over the wall in a basket.
• God's people stay on in spite of warning and evidence of danger. Paul going on to Jerusalem even when told it will mean his imprisonment and also choosing options leading to long-drawn out trials when he could have been freed. 

And so you are left with no clear direction and the reality that sometimes God protects, sometimes it is right to withdraw and sometimes it is right to stick it out and face persecution.  This can lead to a lot of tension in communities when people are taking very different and apparently equally legitimate decisions.

This week I was reading in Hebrews 11 in the great "Hall of Faith" chapter and got to the end, which I memorized back in college. Since all of this crisis stuff was in my mind, I looked at it through those lenses:

Hebrews 11: 32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. 35Women received back their dead, raised to life again.

 So far so good. This is what we expect from God - protection and miracles, especially in the Western church. But vs 35 continues without a break to:

There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. 36 Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were put to death by stoning; they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38 the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground.

This is the bit that is harder to deal with, especially if you go into risk thinking God will protect you at all costs. But maybe the people who were flogged, or sawed in two were just people who did something wrong, or fell out of favor with God, or misinterpreted his will and shouldn't have been there. No, that would be too easy an answer because it continues:

39 These were ALL commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

So they were all people of faith, doing what God asked of them, and commended for it.


This passage doesn't do much to elucidate the Protection vs Prevention debate. For one, the focus is looking backwards after everything is done and over with, rather than looking forward, as one does in contingency planning. It does add in the forward focus in verse 40 with the bit about God planning something better for us so that together WITH us their past victories and sufferings could be made perfect, but then I have never fully understood that last verse.

May God continue to give us wisdom, protect us where needed and give grace to face the suffering when it comes, knowing that it, too, has a purpose that will one day be made perfect.