THE CROSS - FOOLISHNESS OR WISDOM

In the previous issue of TFT, we considered the all-important subject of loving, caring, serving relationships among the Lords people as the supreme apologetic (John 13: 34, 35). In the present essay, I would endeavour to examine the aspect of the foolishness of what was preached that Paul alludes to in I Cor.1:21 and its link to the quality of our inter-personal relationships in the body of Christ. This verse is often quoted as a Biblical objection to the use of apologetics as a tool for evangelism. Conclusions are drawn to the effect that the gospel is meant to be proclaimed and not defended. Some would even go to the extent of interpreting this verse to infer that the intellect should never be used to proclaim the gospel and that it (the intellect) is the tool of the devil! Some would argue that the content of the Christian gospel is intellectually foolish and is wise only in a spiritual sense. My intention is to go beyond formulation of an apologetic for apologetics! - I would seek to establish that the cross is Gods brilliant stroke of genius to undo what humankind brought upon itself in the disobedience at Eden and that it is the cross that makes possible the standard of relationships which proclaim the uniqueness of Christ before a watching world. We will do well to study the whole context of this verse from I Cor.1:18-26. We need to see that the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing (v.18) - this emphasis of Paul makes clear the fact that the foolishness referred to is not necessarily intellectual but rather spiritual and moral. In this use of the word, Paul is reflecting classical Hebrew thinking where foolishness is often a lack of moral direction. (The NIV is very useful here - the footnotes in Psalms, Proverbs [1:7,22 e.g.] etc. make it clear that there is a whole genre of words which for us with our Hellenistic thinking would have an intellectual connotation but what is meant to be conveyed is moral.) Conversely, the wisdom and intelligence that are denigrated (vv.19-21) are those of the world. What is condemned is not wisdom per se but that which is employed in humanistic and atheistic pursuits. In a similar passage (Col.1:28) meant for believers living in a gnostic environment, Paul defines hollow and deceptive philosophy as that which depends on (i) human tradition, and (ii) basic principles of this world which reject the reality of Christ. We need to be careful here. In all our thinking about the created world, we do not err when we draw conclusions about the existence or the glory of God (Rom.1:20; Ps.19:1 etc.). But the moment our thinking seeks to employ categories of naturalism, we begin to rely on the world system which is ruled by the prince of the power of the air - the devil - and is antagonistic to God. C.S.Lewis, in his masterpiece Miracles, argues powerfully that our normal reason which we employ has to be admitted to be supernatural in origin (chapter III) in order to be dependable. Elsewhere (The Abolition of Man), his famous statement against atheism runs thus: Reason might conceivably be found to depend on [another reason], and so on; it would not matter how far this process was carried, provided you found Reason coming from Reason at each stage. It is only when you are asked to believe that Reason comes from non-reason that you must cry Halt, for if you dont, all thought is discredited. It is therefore obvious that sooner or later, you must admit a Reason which exists absolutely on its own (emphasis

mine). In other words, the normal employment of reason without contradiction involves an indirect admission of the supernatural. Are you not reminded of the majestic opening line of Johns gospel: In the beginning was the Logos? In the light of the foregoing, I consider it a great pity that well-meaning Christians often find themselves in violent disagreement with the use of the intellect while clarifying issues relevant to the presentation of the gospel. Let us proceed further in this passage. The cross was a stumbling-block (skandalos in the Greek) both to the kingdom expectation of the Jews and the conceptual wisdom of the Greeks. How? The Jewish Messiah was to be the powerful ruler who would restore the fortunes of dispersed Israel. He could not be recognised as the One Who was crucified on the cursed tree in apparent weakness - a scandal indeed! The Bible does not imply in any way that the cross is weakness in an absolute sense. We are consistently taught by Scripture that spiritual powers and authorities were triumphed over by the cross (Col.2:15) and that victory over our selfish nature and the fallen world system is available in it (Gal.5:24; 6:14). The apparent weakness of the gospel is stronger than the real weakness of the Jew who wrongly understood the role of the Messiah and therefore rejected Him.(I Cor.1:24,25). The Greek, on the other hand, had made wisdom an end in itself (similar to the rationalists of our day). Vinoth Ramachandra rightly points out how the Greeks erroneously argued that because the circle was the perfect geometrical shape, God the perfect being must have created the heavenly bodies to move in circular orbits - actual observations however showed that they moved in orbits of distorted circles called ellipses. It was the same rationalism espoused by the Church that resisted the discoveries of Galileo later. The Greeks were guilty of denying the contingency of Gods creation which led them to this error in their scientific conceptualisation (Gods that Fail, p.141). Modern science had to wait to be born till after the reformation. The Biblical world view which depicted God to be transcendent and free outside of His creation was necessary in order to carry on the right kind of scientific theorising and experimentation. No wonder the earliest scientists were, as Ramachandra puts it, men of personal faith. of passionate and orthodox Christian convictions (Ibid., p.137). Transferring this approach to the subject of salvation, the Greek could not conceive of the foolishness and failure of the cross to be compatible with wisdom in the god of his imagination. He was thus unable to appreciate that the cross was the initiative of an all-wise God who would love humankind and bring it back to Himself without violating the free will He had bestowed on them. Pauls doxology in Rom.11:33-36 is primarily to the wisdom of God who has provided salvation for all people even through the failure of the Jews. Even in the passage under discussion, Paul makes it clear that the gospel is not foolishness in any absolute sense at all - rather the apparent foolishness of the gospel is wiser than the real foolishness of the wise man and the philosopher of this age who rejects it (vv. 24,25). The gospel further tells todays moralist that his good works based on his keeping of the law are of no avail and that he must admit his guilt before an infinitely moral God

and accept humbly the salvation that God, in His grace has freely provided for him through the cross of Christ. When we carefully extrapolate the argument of Paul, we can see that the cross becomes a scandal to different people in different ways. To the rich (whether material, intellectual or emotional), the poverty that the gospel requires at all these levels becomes a stumbling-block. They find themselves worshipping the idols of the intellect, emotion (generated by satisfying relationships) and wealth and that idolatry prevents them from accepting the way of the cross. This perverse idolatry gloats in enthroning self and is subtler than the image-worship which is easily discerned as evil. We will do well to remember that in the Ten Commandments, the injunction against idolatry takes a lower position (the 2nd) than proscription of the worship of other gods beside Me (the 1st). If our friends who pursue popular folk religions are guilty of breaking the second commandment, we Christians could very well be guilty of breaking the first! In an interesting exchange with followers of the ISKCON (International Society of Krishna Consciousness otherwise called the Hare Krishna) movement in the IIT Kanpur, I found myself challenged by their constant comparison between Christ and Krishna whom they had elevated to the level of the infinite-personal God, contrary even to classical Hinduism. (I carefully refrained from attacking the morality of Krishna). When finally they made a reference to the sublime beauty of their heaven and of the attractive personality of Krishna, I simply referred to the description of heaven in the book of Revelation but went on to emphasise that the central personality of our heaven would not be as comely as their Krishna but would be a nail-scarred Saviour (Rev.5; Is.53:2,3. I went on to explain that without those marks of the cross, I would not be qualified to be there). The whole room fell silent as there was no scope for any further comparison! I realised that the cross was ugliness to the ISKCON devotee because it offended his sense of aesthetics! I can now say that the cross is not ugly in any absolute sense - to the Christian, it would be the theme of the anthems of heaven! - the apparent ugliness of the cross is more beautiful than the real ugliness of the sentimental romantic aesthete who rejects it! Now we shall take a closer look at the cross itself as Gods instrument of salvation. In what way can we say that the cross, which is considered foolishness by the fallen world, is wiser than mans wisdom (I Cor. 1:24)? During an open forum in the Physics department of Nagpur University, a penetrating question was put to me by a Hindu postgraduate student - How then can we be saved? The question was in itself quite innocuous and invited a ready-made evangelistic reply. But what surprised and thrilled me was the context in which it was raised. I had finished giving a critique of Paul Davies God and the New Physics, particularly with reference to the chapter on Free will and Determinism. His hidden question would have run something like this: If I am truly free, I can choose to be or not to be saved, but if I am pre-programmed to behave in a certain way, I cannot help being saved or lost! Before I gave him the straight-forward answer of the gospel, I placed before him the two other alternatives available to God for human salvation - (i) to have destroyed evil, or (ii) to have prevented us from making the wrong choices by continuous intervention. But both these options would have reduced

us to the level of robots. The only way God could achieve His way in us while respecting our freedom was to demonstrate His love in the most selfless way possible - the cross humankind could then freely respond to this Divine wooing without any kind of external compulsion or manipulation. This is not as simple as it sounds. It is extremely profound in that the salvation of God-like beings (humans) cannot be orchestrated without damaging the imago dei in them. God expects our selflessness in the only way in which it becomes practically possible - in response to His selflessness displayed on the cross. A Christian believer can reflect long and hard on the cross as Gods instrument of salvation and cannot fail to be fascinated with the love and the wisdom of God:O loving wisdom of our God, When all was sin and shame, A second Adam to the fight And to the rescue came.

O wisest love! That flesh and blood Which did in Adam fail, Should strive afresh against the foe, Should strive and should prevail.

And that a higher gift than grace Should flesh and blood refine, Gods presence and His very self And essence all-divine.

O generous love! that He, who smote In man for man the foe, The double agony in man

For man should undergo.

And in the garden secretly, And on the Cross on high, Should teach His brethren, and inspire To suffer and to die.

This beautiful hymn of Cardinal J.H.Newman - with the likes of which we must sadly admit that we are becoming less and less familiar - points to, among other ineffable realities like the Incarnation, the inherent wisdom both of the Godward aspect of salvation and its humanward complement. The primary aspect of the cross is the atonement and propitiation which it effects towards an infinitely holy God in whose sight our righteous (should I say, self-righteous) thoughts, attitudes and deeds are as filthy rags. It is through the precious blood of Christ, signifying His sinless life, shed on the cross that we are pardoned and made children of God who now becomes our heavenly Father. But I turn to the other aspect of the cross, the humanward, by which we are invited to die to ourselves voluntarily in order to enable the life of Christ to be revealed in us. This is often technically called Sanctification and relegated to a chronologically later period after Justification, the immediate certification of us as morally acceptable to God. However the terms may be separated in our experience as Christians, we need to recognise that the cross is performing its work even when we accept Gods verdict on us as sinners. Till then, we were selfishly holding on to whatever we considered righteous in our lives. Now, without any pressure except the legitimate and stark moral contrast between God and us, we die to ourselves and our idea of morality. See how the cross stands out in brilliant contrast when set against the backdrop of the self-preoccupation in our religions and particularly our philosophies! As Indian Christians, we need to paraphrase the confessional prayer of Isaiah (6:5) in this context - I am a selfish human being and I live in a land of self-exalting philosophers! I wonder whether we have been genetically conditioned to be pre-occupied with ourselves and not to think of others except in a patronising way. Our country has given to the world several export-quality gurus. Below the apparent diversity of their teaching and practice, there is a strong common under-current: our egos can be transcended by the greater Self within. All that we need to do is to get rid of the ignorance (avidya) which keeps suggesting that we are frail and finite. With the help of various practices (sadhnas) such as yoga and meditation, we are to discover that we are part of the Infinite. Whether it is the Transcendental Meditation of Maharishi Mahesh

Yogi (now being marketed under a scientific brand name for consumption in the West) or the promiscuity popularised and legitimised by the hedonistic Rajneesh, we are bombarded by a constant stream of self-realisation techniques. Even in Islamic Pakistan, there is no problem in getting company executives to join in on lunch-break meditation sessions which are supposed to increase their productivity in the work place. It is the Self that is supposed to effectively deal with the nasty ego. We can as well believe that we can launch ourselves into outer space by pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps! There is a strident refusal to admit to the need for an external frame of reference - a Saviour who can redeem us from our present predicament. We need to recognise that these demonic alternatives exalt the self rather than calling its bluff. On the other hand, the crucifixion - have you ever reflected on the fact that it is not possible to commit suicide by crucifixion and the hand that crucified the rest of you would still remain uncrucified! - ensures that our old nature is drastically dealt with by Christ. It is only the cross that shows us the true colour of our fallen nature - did we not manage to indict the sinless Son of God and have Him condemned to death when He visited our planet? - and calls us to be co-crucified with Christ in order to experience true deliverance from it. Are we now any nearer the answer to the question as to why we are not able to live selfgiving, feet-washing lives in terms of our relationships with one another within the body of Christ? Having begun our Christian existence at Calvary, why is it that we often go back to self-centred living? Are we able to discern the subtle self in our so-called loving of others? We do not really love others but only our alter ego - the projections of our selves - in them. That is the reason Christ calls us to hate our father, mother etc. (Lk.14:26) - that is to hate the self in our love for them. Some of us might have sacrificed the good life in order to serve Christ, only to see our old nature showing up through various kinds of superiority and inferiority complexes. These inbred attitudes deeply affect our relationships with one another and betray Christ and deny the cross in our lives - we refuse to carry the cross daily and indulge ourselves in insidious substitutes. One other example is the degeneration of the Church to the level of a well-run machine. The designations in the hierarchy give us an identity which we do not seem to have discovered in Christ. We have forgotten that the word Church was never used in the New Testament to denote a building or an organisation but the redeemed people of God as a loving community called out of the world. We leaders have turned the Church into a bureaucracy and carved out for ourselves a niche in the EAS - the Evangelical Administrative Service! We have even given a semblance of biblical justification for this substitution of meanings because the set-up suits our lust for recognition, power and position. Let me conclude - the cross is foolishness not in a rational sense but because it goes against the grain of human nature. When the world propagates the up-for-grabs mentality, we Christians find it difficult to resist the temptation and decide to join the rat race. In so doing, we find ourselves trampling over one another and denying our Lord in our relationships with one another. The world in which Christ has placed His people is

still waiting to hear a definitive statement from them about the uniqueness of His Being and work on Calvary. - L.T.Jeyachandran Ministry Associate RZIM Singapore