Did Christ Have to Suffer?
As a child, HJ asked himself why Jesus died such a terrible death to put right Adam and Eve eating an apple? An apple! Was there no other way? What did it say about God? These are question any thinking Christian will have contemplated - or should have. And, if we are to bring others to Christ, we need to be clear in our answers.
Warning. It's a lengthy read - as it ought to be!
This article, by Paul Thigpen, Catholic Answers, covers the many questions raised by the Passion of Our Lord. As Good Friday approaches it seems fitting to contemplate the issues raised.
Sixteen centuries ago, when Augustine addressed the matter, he noted that he was not the first person even back then to discuss it. “There are those,” the bishop wrote, “who say, ‘What? Did God have no other way to free men from the misery of this mortality? No other way than to will that the only-begotten Son . . . should become man by putting on a human soul and flesh, becoming mortal so he could endure death?’”
If God could have made salvation possible for us some other way, why would he choose the way of so much blood, so much pain, so much agony? Wouldn’t something less frightful have been better?
To some observers, there are only two possibilities here: If the Crucifixion was the only means God could find to redeem us, then he must be limited in his power and wisdom. Surely an almighty, all-wise deity could have found a better way!
On the other hand, if God preferred choosing a horrible death for his own Son over other options, then he must be wicked. How could he possibly will such a thing if he could have fulfilled his purposes otherwise?
In some ways, it’s a variation on the question long familiar to Christians: If God is all-powerful, all-wise, and all-good, then why is there suffering in the world?
Typically, Augustine and other Doctors of the Church who followed his thought, such as Thomas Aquinas, saw right through the dilemma. They challenged the notion that, in light of Christ’s Passion, Christians serve a God who must be either a bumbling wimp or a repulsive sadist. No, they insisted: Our God is indeed all-powerful, all-wise, and all-good. But we must examine more closely, ponder more deeply, the true nature of divine power, wisdom, and goodness, as these attributes are revealed in the terrifying Passion of our Lord.
No Other Way?
To address the issue, Augustine and Aquinas first tackled the question about alternative divine strategies. Was there no other possible way to accomplish our salvation than the Passion of Christ?
Both saints were both firm on this matter: They insisted that God is God, and his wisdom and might know no bounds. Of course he could have found another way to save us.
Augustine summed it up this way: “Other possible means were not lacking on God’s part, because all things are equally subject to his power” (On the Trinity 8:10). When examining the question many centuries later, Aquinas quoted Augustine and added scriptural support: “It was possible for God to deliver mankind otherwise than by the Passion of Christ,” he concluded, “because nothing shall be impossible for God (cf. Luke 1:37).”
Aquinas admits that some scriptural texts seem to say God had no choice in the matter (cf. Summa Theologiae 3:46:2). On several occasions in the Gospel accounts, Jesus himself spoke this way. For example, after declaring Peter to be the “rock,” our Lord said to the disciples: “The Son of Man must suffer many things . . . and be killed, and on the third day be raised” (Luke 9:22, emphasis added).
Again, as Jesus walked with two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus, on the evening of the day he had risen from the dead, he rebuked the men for their lack of faith: “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” (Luke 24:25–26, emphasis added).
Necessary Under Certain Conditions
Nevertheless, as Aquinas pointed out, there’s a difference between being absolutely necessary and being necessary given certain conditions. In the case of Jesus’ Passion, by the time Christ had come into the world, certain crucial conditions were already in place: God the Father had already ordained that this was the way our salvation would be accomplished. And his foreknowledge of these events had already been manifested in divine revelation to the prophets and recorded in Scripture.
Given these conditions, Aquinas concluded, it was correct for Christ to say that he must suffer, that it was necessary, because at that point the matter was already settled: What the Father ordained could not be avoided, and what he foreknew could not be mistaken. As our Lord put it at the Last Supper, “The hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined” (Luke 22:21–22).
This conclusion is strengthened when we observe that Christ’s statement on the Emmaus road was made with reference to Old Testament prophecies. (See also his words on the day of his ascension, Luke 24:44–46.) God had chosen the way—he had revealed it to the prophets—so this was how it had to be. We can see then that rather than implying some limit to God’s power (as if he couldn’t have chosen otherwise), these scriptural passages actually affirm God’s power and sovereignty.
This is not to say, of course, that Christ was somehow forced into such a terrible fate. Some have tried to deduce that meaning from passages such as Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane to have the “cup” of suffering removed (cf. Luke 22:42). But the truth is that, from before all time, God the Son had lived in perfect union with God the Father: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). Together they had willed our redemption and determined that, in order to accomplish it, he would come to earth and suffer for us.
It’s true that in Gethsemane we hear Christ crying out as his human nature recoils in horror at the prospect of such awful suffering. But even then, our Lord wanted above all what the Father wanted: “Not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42). As the writer of Hebrews reminds us, Jesus “endured the cross” not because he was forced to do so, but rather “for the joy that was set before him” (Heb. 12:2)—winning the victory he had come to achieve.
A Choice both Good and Fitting
Because of his sovereign power, Augustine and Aquinas thus concluded, God could have found another way to save us. But Christ’s making satisfaction for the penalty of our sins through suffering was in fact the way God chose to make possible our salvation. Given this reality, we should examine it more closely to discern some reasons that it would be in accordance with the Father’s perfect wisdom and love.
Recall the dilemma we described earlier. If we hold that God could have chosen an alternative means to our salvation, then we seem to be left with a disturbing conclusion: God must be wicked to have willed such suffering for his Son. How could he have done such a thing when he had other options?
Against such objections, Augustine wrote, “We assert that the way in which God deigned to deliver us by the man Jesus Christ, who is mediator between God and man, is both good and befitting the divine dignity. . . . There neither was nor need have been any other means more suitable for healing our misery” (On the Trinity 8:10).
How could this be? What was good and fitting about Christ’s Passion? The bishop continued: “For what else could have been so necessary to build up our hope, and to free the minds of mortals despairing because of their mortality, than that God should show us how highly he valued us, and how greatly he loved us? And what could be more clear and evident proof of God’s great love than that the Son of God . . . so undeserving of evil, should bear our evils?” (ibid.).
Augustine was certain that anyone who meditated for long on Christ’s Passion would experience the same overwhelming sense of faith and hope. The Father had no greater gift to give us than his Son, the bishop insisted—and that’s precisely the gift he gave.
As Paul had put it long before: “If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?” (Rom. 8:31–32).
Inspired to Love
Aquinas developed this line of thought more thoroughly. He noted that our reconciliation with God and becoming like him requires more than simple forgiveness. He wrote that, in the Passion, “many other things besides deliverance from sin came together for man’s salvation.”
First, he observed, Christ’s Passion moves us not only to have faith and hope in God, as Augustine had pointed out; it also motivates us to a grateful love for God. “By this, man knows how much God loves him, and is thus stirred to love him in return. In this loving response lies the perfection of human salvation. That is why the apostle says, ‘God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us’ “(Rom. 5:8).
Our salvation isn’t complete without our learning to love as God loves. So in Christ’s Passion, said Aquinas, we aren’t simply pardoned. We are given a convincing reason to devote our whole hearts to God.
More Reasons That the Passion Was Fitting
Yet there is more. Christ’s suffering doesn’t just move us to respond in love. It shows us how to love in a world that is broken.
The means God used to redeem us, Aquinas continued, tells us what we ourselves must do to love as God loves in the face of natural and moral evil. Christ “set us an example of obedience, humility, constancy, justice, and the other virtues displayed in his Passion, which are also necessary for man’s salvation. Thus it is written: ‘Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps’” (1 Pet. 2:21).
If we are to grow up into “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13), then we must imitate him. The Passion shows us most clearly what attitudes and actions we are to imitate. “Have this mind among yourselves,” wrote Paul, “which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God . . . humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:5–6, 8). The Passion demonstrates that love is costly to God, and it will be costly to us as well.
A Great Reward
A third reason God ordained that the Passion would take place is that, through it, Christ merited a great reward. Since Christ humbled himself so extravagantly, Paul added, “therefore God has highly exalted him” (Phil. 2:9).
Aquinas quoted Augustine’s comment on these words of the apostle, adding his own remarks: “Augustine says, ‘The humility of the Passion merited glory, and glory was the reward of humility’ (Tractate on John civ). But he was glorified, not merely in himself, but also in his faithful ones, as he himself says: ‘I am glorified in them’ (John 17:10)” (ST 3:48:1). Because Christ is the head of the Church, his merit overflows to the members of his body. So Christ shares his reward with us as justifying grace and the glory of blessedness in heaven.
Aquinas insisted that a fourth reason God sent his Son to suffer is that it created what can be seen as a debt to Christ’s holiness. When we recognize the debt, we see ourselves obligated to pay it by avoiding evil—and that avoidance contributes to our salvation. Because of the Passion, then, “man is all the more bound to refrain from sin, according to 1 Corinthians 6:20: ‘You were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body’”.
A Boost to Human Dignity
Finally, both Augustine and Aquinas concluded that God ordained the Passion of Christ “because it redounded to humanity’s greater dignity” (ST 3:46:4). Of course, to simply have God become man in the Incarnation was an honor beyond all telling. But in Christ’s suffering, our race was granted more honor still.
How could that be? Aquinas wrote: “Just as man was overcome and deceived by the devil, so also it should be a man who should overthrow the devil. And since man deserved death, so it should be a man who, by dying, vanquishes death. That is why it is written: ‘Thanks be to God, who has given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1 Cor. 15:57)”
The human race had been left in bondage to sin, death, and the devil by the Fall. So it was a fitting irony—a kind of poetic justice on God’s part—to use a member of that race to conquer sin, death, and the devil. The tables were turned; the roles were reversed; the victor was vanquished. Satan, who had fallen away from God through pride, was humiliated.
We might still be tempted to ask: If God wanted Christ, as a representative of mankind, to defeat Satan, and Christ had available to him all the power of God, why couldn’t Christ simply crush the devil in combat? Why submit himself to such torment?
In addition to the reasons we’ve already noted, Augustine offered this one: “The devil was to be conquered not by the power of God but by his righteousness. . . . For the devil, through the fault of his own perversity, had become a lover of power and a forsaker and assailant of righteousness. . . . So it pleased God that, in rescuing man from the grasp of the devil, the devil should be vanquished not by power but by righteousness. In the same way men, imitating Christ, should seek to conquer the devil by righteousness, not by power” (On the Trinity 13:13).
In a sense, then, righteousness is itself a kind of might, but a higher kind than brute force. So it was more fitting that God should use the higher kind of might against an enemy whose perverse strategy was to use the lower kind. Righteousness thus defeated raw power.
Everlasting Glory and Grace
In all these ways Augustine and Aquinas concluded that God’s decision to have Christ suffer to save us was good and wise. Aquinas wrote: “It was more fitting that we should be delivered by Christ’s Passion than simply by God’s good will.” Augustine summed it up this way: “Why, then, shouldn’t the death of Christ come to pass? Why shouldn’t an all-powerful God have decided against innumerable other ways to free us in order to choose this death? For in this death, nothing was lost of Christ’s divine nature, and from the human nature he took for himself, how great a benefit was bestowed on us men!”
The everlasting glory of the way of salvation the Father chose far outweighs the horrors his Son had to endure—and the resulting grace overflows in abundance to us all.
Hello again, @Jack. It's good to see you back a few days earlier than we'd been led to expect.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Ray.
DeleteI think this article downplays the Holy Trinity. Christ was not an appointed human agent who suffered on behalf of mankind ironically or for 'poetic justice' - there are echoes of penal substitutionary atonement here, which would indeed be a barbaric cruelty - Christ was, is, truly and wholly God. Although God the Son is a distinct person of the godhead, he is not a separate god. God offers God to God.
ReplyDeleteIn the East, the crucified Christ is not seen as a problematic suffering victim, but as a victor over death and evil. St. Athanasius the Great wrote 'Here, then is the…reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man’s account with death and free him from the primal transgression. In the same act also He showed Himself mightier than death, displaying His own body incorruptible as the first-fruit of the resurrection.'
Kallistos Ware, of blessed memory, 'reflecting on Jesus’ exhausted cry, “It is finished” (John 19:30), comments, “What has been fulfilled?" We reply: "The work of suffering love, the victory of love over hatred. Christ our God has loved his own to the uttermost"'
The section: "A Boost to Human Dignity" covers this and needs to be read with the rest of the article in mind. Jesus is God and also fully human.
DeleteAs Aquinas is quoted: “Just as man was overcome and deceived by the devil, so also it should be a man who should overthrow the devil. And since man deserved death, so it should be a man who, by dying, vanquishes death. That is why it is written: ‘Thanks be to God, who has given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1 Cor. 15:57)”
It's not penal substitutionary atonement. It's Christ's self giving. As God, Christ was one with His Father in deciding this was the most fitting way to reconcile man and God.
Just as man was overcome and deceived by the devil, so also it should be a man who should overthrow the devil.
DeleteThis would be correct if Christ was (just a) man like Adam, but he isn't. Although St. Paul uses the language of the first and second Adam, this is surely allegorical and simply refers to the progenitor of the first (fallen) and second (restored) created order - or as totemic of humanity fallen and restored in its wider sense.
This feels like a solution in search of a problem. The purpose of the Incarnation was to reunite God and man - 'Christ became man that man might become God' - and suffering is an inevitable part of human existence. Christ could only redeem humanity entirely by entering into it entirely, which he did on the Cross.
St. Ambrose said of the Lord's baptism that '... He wished, not to be cleansed, but to cleanse the waters, that, being purified by the flesh of Christ that knew no sin, they might have the virtue of baptism'. In the same way, Christ's death and suffering sanctifies our own.
But would you agree the Passion wasn't 'necessary' to redeem man? His incarnation would have been sufficient as He would have suffered in the same way we all do and died. So why the brutal death?
DeleteA philosopher once suggested that every boy, upon leaving school, should be given a copy of St. John's Gospel and Plato's Death of Socrates so he could see what the world did to people who speak the truth.
DeleteChrist came into a world that 'knew him not', in the fullness of his divinity. As the brightest light casts the darkest shadows, it was inevitable that the full forces of the world's rejection would be arrayed, brutally, against him. But Christ wasn't just crucified at Calvary, but at Sinai when the golden calf was cast, in Solomon's palace when he filled it with his wives' foreign idols, David's palace when he 'took' Bathsheba, in the acts that Ezekiel saw in the Temple, and so on into our everyday actions. He has always been Isaiah's rejected and suffering servant. These crucifixions are no less brutal just because we cannot see the blood.
Was the crucifixion 'necessary' to redeem humanity? Is anything 'necessary' with God? If it wasn't, then it's just an act of divine theatre. I don't know if you recall one of Sarky's arguments back on Cranmer, that being crucified was no big deal to someone who was God and knew he'd come back to life in a few days. I think that's ultimate where we end up if we say that it wasn't 'necessary'.
The incarnation was necessary to heal the rift between humanity and God. The death of Christ was necessary to overcome and sanctify death. Jesus' coming into a world that prefers to live in darkness made the crucifixion inevitable, unless God cheated (as the Quran has it). The crucifixion is both the full depths of evil and of love laid bare (although we have largely been too dense to learn from it).
As an aside, I'm surprised the article omits any reference to Passover or covenants. The shedding of blood is pretty significant there.
"The crucifixion is both the full depths of evil and of love laid bare ... "
DeleteYou've just given the reason why God chose this as the way to redeem mankind.
Doesn't the Passover and the shedding of blood to seal covenants, prefigure the death of Christ and the literal meaning of His words in establishing the New Covenant?
Did God choose it, or did God allow it? I think the latter.
DeleteThe crucifixion is, in many ways, the reversal of the natural order. Rightfully, humanity is helpless in the hands of god(s), and spent most of its history sacrificing firstborn sons and virgin daughters to try to appease or reconcile with the divine. In the crucifixion, in the whole incarnation really, God becomes helpless at the hands of man and sheds his blood to reconcile himself to us. God himself provides the sacrifice (Gen 22:8).
Yes, the Passover is the shadow of crucifixion. Christ is the Passover Lamb (1 Cor 5:7). The blood of the first Passover lamb protected the Israelites from death, the blood of the second extends that to the whole world. The first Passover lamb had to be killed and consumed (Ex 12:1-12), which prefigures the Eucharist.
Acts 2:23:
DeleteThis man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross."
Penal substitutionary atonement is the exact reason Christ had to die. It is plainly taught by scripture. Why would you wish to deny it?
DeleteWhy did he have to die such a terrible death? He didn't. When I read the parable of the Bad Tennant's, it seems to me to be saying that the son was sent not to die, but to redeem. It wasn't God sending his son to death, but was sending his son the reconcile.
ReplyDeleteIt was mankind that condemned Jesus to such a horrible death.
God knew it would happen, in that sense he allowed it, but he didn't will it.
As he has allowed mankind it's free will for all manner of disgusting things. How else could it be?
There will be a reconning for those who refuse to see their part in it, but for those who seek forgiveness, forgiveness will be given.
As an aside, when I watched my first film about Jesus, I remember being very upset and asking next time could we have a happy ending!!
I was given a small presentation Book of Common Prayer as a christening gift by a well meaning godmother. It had a number of illustrated plates, which I looked at long before I was old enough to read it, because it was like a picture book! As well as the lovely starry night Christmas scene, one plate had a detailed and full colour illustration of the crucifixion. I didn't sleep for a week, and the book ended up on the top shelf of my parents' wardrobe until I was a lot older.
DeleteThat picture still disturbs me.
These types of things in early childhood have a long term impact. I still find clowns sinister. I do not understand why anyone would find them funny and it all dates back to a film I watched.
DeleteOi I posted something here, where has it gone 😡
ReplyDeleteIt's there!
DeleteNo, Christ didn't have to die such a terrible death to redeem us. However, it carried additional benefits for mankind by revealing the path of surrender and self sacrifice. Agreed, we all play a part in the brutality of the crucifixion.
Did the film not end with the resurrection?
I also think if God had intervened, what message would it be giving to the mother whose children have been murdered, or the woman who had been raped, or the boys who are castrated, or the men dragged frightened to battle?
DeleteIf God intervened for his own son, how about all the other sons who also died horribly. Where would be the justice?
It's a price paid by love.
I was to upset to notice. I was really quiet young, and the theology sort of passed me by!
Remember though that God did intervene in history. He selected the time and the place to become man. He chose the virgin, Mary. He chose 1st century Israel under Roman occupation. He foreknew the consequences of entering history at that point and where the interplay of the free will decisions of the various individuals involved would end - on the Cross at Calvary. We have to say that brutal passion of Christ was God's plan and it had been communicated to Israel through the prophets.
DeleteHence the question: Why this way?
I agree with everything up to the point that it was God's plan that his Son should die in such a brutal manner. It was inevitable that the son would die, but that was our choice as the parable shows, God didn't send him to die, he sent him to redeem.
DeleteIf he sent him to die, if that was his plan, then those who are responsible for his death, Judas, the Priests , Pilate and the crowds were simply doing God's will.
Don't take this next comment too literally, as I cannot think of the right words, but in a way God is limited ( can't think of a better word) by his foreknowledge.
He knows all things, in a way it must be a source of pain to him.
@ Clive - I agree. Christ could have 'summoned legions of angels' to protect him, but that wasn't the point of the incarnation - Christ 'emptied himself' in becoming man (or limited himself, as you said). If we had divine power, of course we'd use it to avoid such a brutal death, which is why I think the cross has long been a 'stumbling block', literally a 'scandal' in Greek. In that sense, Islam is correct that our conception of an almighty god wouldn't allow himself to suffer such a fate. But the cross is the inevitable end point of all love truly lived.
DeleteIncidentally, I've found this is a problem with some of the evangelical theologies I was exposed to as a teen - they overemphasise the cross as the focus of 'God's plan' and neglect Christ's earthly life (and resurrection sometimes!). It's as though the only thing Christ was incarnated to do was to die.
The Cross is such a powerful, yet divisive image. Even within the Church, it is portrayed differently. Protestants typically show an empty cross, emphasising the Risen Christ, while Catholics show Christ on the cross, reminding us of the suffering, and both are right.
ReplyDeleteIt is such a powerful image, that it overpowers. I understand why so many elements of the Church focus almost solely on it. But you are right, without the rest of the Gospel it would be image without context.
Protestants typically show an empty cross, emphasising the Risen Christ.
DeleteI don't have any issue with a cross without the corpus as a simplified symbol (my own 'Orthodox' cross has no figure on it), but I do have difficulty with the theology behind understanding the empty cross in this way. The empty tomb is the symbol of the risen Christ, not the empty cross. Christ was dead when removed from the cross, not risen, and there were (at least) three empty crosses on Golgotha that day. It just feels to me like a post hoc justification for getting rid of the 'popish' symbol of the crucifix, where simply saying that one doesn't believe that one should depict Christ's body on the cross would be more theologically genuine.
I find it interesting that Western art tends to depict Christ as dead or suffering on the cross - the medieval depictions are particularly gory - whereas Eastern icons of the crucifixion tend to be bloodless and emphasise Christ on the cross as victor not victim.
I never watched the passion of the Christ movie. I don't really feel comfortable watching that sort of level of violence, I had heard the film being criticized as a violence porn movie.
DeleteHowever all the art I've seen, medieval, renaissance, contemporary, western or eastern, fail to reflect the true horror of those events.
As I understand it, this film has come closest. And it copped a lot of flack.
I don't think people are able to face the reality of the violence of the crucifixion.
I'm not.
It's a very difficult film to watch. It's not for nothing that the English word 'excruciating' literally means 'the pain the comes from crucifixion'.
DeleteI never knew that. You are a source of great wisdom Lain.
DeleteThank you, I usually get called a great source of something else 😂
DeleteIt comes from the Latin excruciare, which meant 'to torture, torment, to [put on the] rack'. Ex- means 'out from' plus cruciare 'to cause pain or anguish to', literally 'to crucify', from crux, 'cross'. So excruciating pain is literally the pain the comes from (being on) the cross.
I meant to also add that one thing that The Passion of the Christ does extremely well is to firmly put to bed the 'auto-resuscitation' theory: the idea that Jesus didn't die on the cross - he merely swooned, was mistakenly taken down and slept it off in the cool of the tomb.
I'm really not qualified to judge whether or not the Christless cross was a result simply of anti-catholicism or was a genuine feeling that this is how the risen Christ should be portrayed. I do know that for the majority of protestants today that is the way to seen. I do understand your point about the empty tomb, I have never really looked at it in those terms, but I cannot get to hung up about these things. I have a certain suspicion about theology! Too often it's used to divide, not to understand, and not to bring people together in a common understanding.
ReplyDeleteMy childhood was in some ways affected by the troubles in Northern Ireland as that's where my mother's family came from, and we are unable to visit for several years due to concerns about the safety of such a visit. My father being an RAF pilot who walked like a an individual from the forces.
There was so much stupidity in Northern Ireland with people obsessing about the trivial as well as the important, that I'm wary of too much theology, 😂
I think I need to explain better. The above was to glib in parts.
DeleteTheology is about understanding God and where it's used for that, for the common benefit of the Church who can criticise?
But the history of the church says all to often it's been used as a lever for power. Whether it's used to cement the authority of the priesthood/ Pastor/ minister or whatever.
And when used in those terms it destroys.
In part at least it caused the split between the eastern and western church, the splits within the western church, and numerous pogroms,, crusades and witch hunts.
And all parts of the church are tainted by this.
So for me, and I'm not criticising, it matters little whether the risen Christ is reflected using an empty cross, it's what this understanding is ultimately used for.
Upon saying that, you have changed my mind and you are right about the empty tomb .
It's a bit unwieldy as a symbol to put round your neck on a chain however!
Theology means literally to speak about God. One cannot speak of one's faith without theologising. Evagrius the Solitary said 'a theologian is one who truly prays'. But yes, theology as an academic discipline can be nitpicky and divisive, and I wish we'd recover the original meaning - it pains me to hear Christians say that they don't do theology.
DeleteI once went to a friend's church where they wouldn't even allow a plain cross on the 'table', and the minister refused the gift of a large lectern Bible because having a 'special' Bible had too many 'Roman' trappings. I also know Orthodox who won't wear a straight cross because it's 'western', and we should only use the 'Orthodox' cross (even though there's no such thing, it's simply a Byzantine cross).
I think that theology does make a difference, and the Irish troubles are a result of what happens when we don't take theology seriously. How can anyone with the slightest grasp on Christian teachings blow each other up? It's blasphemous to exercise one's own hatred in Christ's name.
What we believe about God affects how we act. For example (broadly speaking), in the West death is usually seen as a punishment for sin; therefore Christ is the victim on the cross (leading to some horrible atonement theories), God is wrathful and death is something bad. We go out of our way to avoid suffering and put off or deny death.
In much Eastern thought, on the other hand, death is a mercy granted by God to put limits on our sinfulness and to encourage us to reconcile with him. As a result, Christ entering into death is a victory, God is love, and death isn't something to be feared - as St. Paul put it, 'I have the desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better'. St. Francis also realised this when he spoke of welcoming 'sister death'. So Eastern thought sees more value in embracing and sanctifying suffering and contemplating one's own mortality.
Sorry, I posted my comment before I saw your follow up. I do agree that theology has been terribly misused. 'God agrees with me' is a huge temptation for the ego, and I'd say it's largely ego that has caused the splits in the churches. That said, some divisions were necessary - 1 Cor 11:19.
DeleteAs for empty tomb jewellery, I think a large blingey signet ring is the way to go!
Prof Clive,
DeleteYes, I think N Ireland is still poorly understood by most from the island of Britain, and seems to contains hatred I can hardly imagine. The family of Armagh-born mathematician and Christian apologist John Lennox got bombed because they employed both Protestants and Catholics in their shop, and he is wonderful to listen to regarding the dangers of sectarianism, the virtues of reading theologies sensibly, and the over-riding truth of Christianity.
The Irish troubles were not primarily religious or theological in nature; they were nationalistic. There is an incredibly long history behind them but, at the risk of horrendous oversimplification, a concerted campaign by the English to Anglicise Ireland involved the eradication of Irish identity (suppressing Gaelic, for example - see also Wales) and replacing Irish Catholic landowners with English Protestant ones. Catholicism effectively became the last 'refuge' of Irish identity, and its network of churches and sympathetic Irish priests provided a mechanism to propagate Irish nationalist sentiments.
DeleteA class divide was forced on Ireland where to be Irish generally meant to be poor, a worker of the land, illiterate and Catholic, whereas the English interlopers were powerful, educated, landed, and Protestant. There was very little interest from the English in converting Irish Catholics to Protestantism, (as one would expect if it were a religious altercation) only in making the Irish controllable. One's religious affiliation became the most obvious external tell as to which 'side' one was on (English anti-Catholic feeling is rooted in the same thing: a distrust of people affiliated with a 'foreign' power, rather than any theological issues). It all, unfortunately, plays into the hands of the 'religion is bad, look at what damage it's caused' mob. That Christ's name was ever used to justify any of this is yet another crucifixion of our Lord.
I understood the plain -- no figure -- crucifix was actually something that Spanish missionaries developed in South America when converting the native population to Catholicism, the reason being that a crucified figure would not be a symbol of their new religion that would impress them, so the cross itself became the symbol of Christianity.
DeleteGOOD FRIDAY...the saddest day on the Christian calendar.
ReplyDeleteST MATTHEW PASSION....J S Bach
in tears of grief'
dear Lord we leave thee
hearts cry to thee
O Saviour dear
rest thou softly here
https://youtu.be/jyq06eoPoqk
GOD BLESS ALL THOSE SUFFERING IN PAIN........Cressida
A blessed Good Friday to my western brothers and sisters.
ReplyDeleteWe see a strange and fearful mystery accomplished today:
He Whom none may touch is seized.
He Who looses Adam from the curse is bound.
He Who tries the hearts of men is unjustly brought to trial.
He Who closed the abyss is shut in prison.
He before Whom the Hosts of Heaven stand with trembling stands before Pilate.
The Creator is struck by the hand of His creature.
He Who comes to judge the living and the dead is condemned to the Cross.
The Conqueror of Hell is enclosed in a tomb.
Thou Who hast endured all these things in Thy tender love,
hast saved all mankind from the curse.
O long-suffering Lord, glory to Thee!
- from Vespers for Great and Holy Friday.
I see his blood upon the rose
ReplyDeleteAnd in the stars the glory of his eyes,
His body gleams amid eternal snows,
His tears fall from the skies.
I see his face in every flower;
The thunder and the singing of the birds
Are but his voice—and carven by his power
Rocks are his written words.
All pathways by his feet are worn,
His strong heart stirs the ever-beating sea,
His crown of thorns is twined with every thorn,
His cross is every tree.
Joseph Mary Plunkett
O Jesus, it is not the heavenly reward you have promised which impels me to love you; neither is it the threat of hell that keeps me from offending you.
ReplyDeleteIt is you O Lord, it is the sight of you affixed to the Cross and suffering insults; it is the sight of your broken body, as well as your pains and your death.
There is nothing you can give me to make me love you.
For even if there were no heaven and no hell I would still love you as I do!
https://youtu.be/Cg8XT0cPGvg
ReplyDeleteI just love the Messiah
Wishing everybody here a blessed Easter!
ReplyDeleteAmen. From your old friend Chef.
DeleteCheffers, great to hear you again! You know of any Cranmer-like blogs going on these days?
DeleteGood to see you here Chef....I must say that on a few occasions in the past your comments showed impressive insight and intelligence ( that's when you were the only one who agreed with me of course:) A Blessed Easter to you dear Chef !
DeleteHE IS RISEN
ReplyDeleteA BLESSED EASTER TO ALL
https://youtu.be/zhhYIZJj6rk
VIVALDI'S GLORIA
Prayers and love for those unable to attend
the Easter Services