|
|
|
Posted At: 12:02am by Bloghardt
|
|
"That's just a cross you have to bear. That sickness is a cross. That you have
to go to your room and not revel in the darkness is the cross you just have to
bear. That's the cross of being a Christian."
Is that true? Is the cross of being a Christian that I have one piece of pie
instead of two. Or worse, is the cross no pie at all? Is that what
the cross is?
When our Lord says, "Take up your cross and follow me." The context is not the
suffering accompanied with our job, or missing out, or even sickness. The
context is not that Christians have smaller tvs or not as much fun as the sons
of the world.
The context is St. Peter's confession then his subsequent Satan-talk. St. Peter
had made a grand confession, "You're the Christ, the Son of the Living God."
Then, when Jesus spoke about what that meant, that it meant that He would suffer
and die for sinners, St. Peter didn't want such a Christ.
"Deny yourself," says Jesus. Deny what you know, feel, and think about
Jesus. That's the cross of being a Christian. The cross is to confess Jesus
Christ and Him crucified for me to a world that tells me that my standing with
God is based on what I do. The cross is confessing Jesus to a world that would
mock us, belittle us, and injure us.
Sickness isn't a cross. One piece of cake instead of two isn't a cross. The
cross is Jesus' cross - confessing Jesus cross to a world that would have none
of it.
That's the context of the phrase in St. Matthew
16. Our cross is confessing that against a world that makes the little things
that they don't like crosses. Our cross is Jesus' cross - His cross for you and
me.
"Take up your cross," the Savior said, "If you would my disciple be; Forsake
the past, and come this day, And humbly follow after me." (LW 382)
|
|
Trackbacked On: August 02nd, 2005 at 2:31pm |
|
Pr. Borghardt wrote concerning "Smiles in Suffering" and the Cross of being a Christian. What follow |
Posted On: July 28th, 2005 at 12:12am by Ryan Fouts |
Indeed... Speaking of "my cross to bear" with regard to worldly harships leads us inward, away from Christ, and to our own "imitation" (and a shoddy one at that) of His suffering in our own. I know many Lutheran theologians have spoken of "anfectungen" as "crosses," etc... but is this "inward" talk really helpful? I think Wingren talks of our "crosses" within the context of vocation -- where we do what we're put to do where we're put to do it. And there, for sure, we do suffer various trials, hardships, etc. So often, though, the "talking of the cross" talk is used, as you nicely point out, to *affirm* the self amidst suffering rather than *deny* the self -- therein, when one is put where self is deined, one clings to Christ's cross alone. No Old Adam can take pride for his own "crosses" or "sufferings" -- but as St. Paul, if we are to boast, boast only in the Lord. It's His gift, His cross.
|
Posted On: July 28th, 2005 at 1:05am by Stan Lemon [ + ] |
Pr. Borghardt,
Thank you for this. I definitely have not always thought in these proper terms and appreciate your clarity in settingme straight on the matter.
Pax Domini,
- Stan
|
Posted On: July 28th, 2005 at 10:43am by Madre [ + ] |
Everyone has tragedy and suffering at one time or another in this life whether Christian or not. That one is suffering cannot be a cross, Buddhists and Wiccans don't bear crosses. So what is the difference between the suffering of Christians and non-Christians? Particularly in the context of the passage, it is confessing faith in Christ alone, clinging (and in the midst of suffering is when we really learn what clinging is) to the promises God made to us in Baptism. Then, only by faith in Christ, we can say with the Psalmist that even on bad days, "This is the day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it."
Madre's Take
|
Posted On: July 28th, 2005 at 10:53am by Ryan Fouts |
Thinking a bit further here...
I think the pious inward, "I'm suffering so I must be a good Christian," sort of talk evolves from our desire to maintain language that, when we maintained a proper view of vocation, could be used appropriately.
Iuxta vocationem -- according to our vocations we do, in a sense "bear the cross" that Jesus, iuxta vocationem, bore. But our vocations differ. He is given to die. We are given to live in self-sacrifice, with what we've been given, for the sake of neighbor (hence, vocation). In that sense, our "cross" (Jesus' vocation) parallels our vocation.
But... alas... we don't talk about vocation anyway these days. So, this, along with contemporary "evangelism" programs, entirely misses the point. When "vocation" is removed we're turned inward. Evangelistically it becomes a matter of me telling everyone I meet, a sort of "tally" of the number of times I witnessed to my faith. The specificity of vocation is removed and we leave people with a generic "telling." What is that? Likewise, when our understanding of self iuxta vocationem (according to vocation) is removed, our cross is no longer a gift we receive -- paralleled with Christ, what we're given to do -- but an inward pious "suffering" that one, then, takes pride in because we now do the same thing Christ does -- suffers. The "cross" to take up isn't a matter of suffering, necessarily (even though suffering accompanies our "cross"), but it's simply a matter of being who we've been given to be, and doing what we've been given to do.
|
Posted On: July 29th, 2005 at 12:46pm by john pawlitz |
Bloghardt,
I agree with what you have said, but in the whole exposition of suffering there is a lot to be said. Definitely, being Christian does not mean we should go out of our way to bemoan suffering. And it does mean that we should rejoice. The idea that one can be pious by suffering is just as bad as the idea that one can be pious by being content. Suffering is a legitimate experience, even for a Christian, and not one that we should feel guilty of, apart from our general guilt of original sin.
(To put things in the negative) It is not quite clear to me that denying one's self is not the logical equivalent of suffering. In other words, Suffering is meaningless if it involves getting what you want. But if you are denying yourself (for the sake of the cross), that is what suffering logically means. It does seem ridiculous when people exult in "taking up their cross." It is not ridiculous to take it up, only to be happy about it, because what it involves is the very opposite of happy. (Why else would Paul say: "rejoice" as a command, for we would rejoice of our own glee if it was possible to be pleased by our experiences. I realize I have just touched law-gospel, but it is accidental; hence, parenthetical.)
Now, I realize I am no longer talking about theology (yes, as the gospel), but a moral-philosophical (yes, as the law) problem. But is not philosophy the "handmaiden" of theology? But then there is warning from Proverbs "Under three things the earth trembles; under four it canot bear up: ... a maidservant when she displaces her mistress." (30:23) So I am not suggesting that we should pay particular attention to these thing, but it is expedient to point them out.
Paul speaks of his suffering as evidence of his apostleship. We proclaim Christ "suffered" under Pontius Pilate. But then again, Paul also talks light-heartedly about those who have not suffered much for the sake of Christ, as if their complaints were ridiculous. In so much, I can only compare the words of Pr. Bloghardt to this notion of Paul's (how's that for a compliment). Although suffering is part of Christianity, it does not delete the command to rejoice. We are not to let the pangs we have suffered become evident, but rather, our "gentleness." This is all sounds very Stoic too, i.e. philosophical.
As for the application of vocation; it does seem to fit. I once had a great appreciation for the wisdom of vocation, but I have cooled off somewhat (maybe wrongly) It doesn't do much without understanding in general the relationship between faith, works, and love. But yet, it does seem to fit that suffering is part of one's vocation.
It is a hard beast to tame. I see it necessary to theologize on suffering from a moral perspective, not from a soteriological (though many deny that theology has and moral implications). However, I do not think we should tell people to be happy "despite" their sufferings, for perhaps they really should suffer (just as Christ did, through faith). I think we can "tolerate" a little suffering, whereas we cannot "tolerate" false doctrines. (The root of tolerate is "suffering" in Latin, I believe.)
A biblical example of this religious phenomenon is King David being cursed (prefiguring Christ) in 2 Sam. 16:5 and following. When David's generals suggest going over and cutting the neck of his mocker, David says:
"What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah? If he is cursing because the Lord said to him 'curse David,' who then shall say, 'Why have you done so?' And David said to Abishai and to all his servants, 'Behold, my own son [Absolom, who is rebelling] seeks my life; how much more now may this Benjaminite! Leave him [i.e. Shimei, the cusing Benjaminite] alone, and let him curse, for the Lord has told him to. It may be that the Lord will look on the wrong done to me, and that the Lord wil repay me with good for his cursing today." (from the ESV).
Apart from being one of my favorite verses in the Bible, What exactly does this add to our doctrine of suffering? I hesitate to say. For I think it shows that God does send us suffering to endure, and David reprimands those who deny it. For he has confidence in God's ability to save through suffering. Certainly, David does not "suffer" (using archaic English) his generals to kill the man cursing him. Nonethless, he "suffers" (still archaic) the man to curse him.
So I think suffering occasionally comes up as a vocable part of true theology, and it is not the part of true theology to reject the idea "suffering" as impenitent. Even Christ, the humblest of all, is defined in his service as the "suffering" servant of God; i.e. his role as a prophet was particularly: to experience suffering, this was the highlight of his ministry.
For this reason I am tentative on the subject, which makes me as neutral as an ocean. Whereas wisdom is a bubbling spring. I declare, therefore succinctly: we should suffer. It is the part of Christ and, therefore, the Christian. It seems we should remember to suffer all things, not just a facade of petty ones, for the sake of Christ.
|
Posted On: July 29th, 2005 at 10:10pm by Bloghardt |
John,
I simply was saying what the Bible says about taking up your cross.
It's right there in the context of Matthew 16.
|
Posted On: July 30th, 2005 at 12:57am by Erin Stephens |
"What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah? If he is cursing because the Lord said to him 'curse David,' who then shall say, 'Why have you done so?' And David said to Abishai and to all his servants, 'Behold, my own son [Absolom, who is rebelling] seeks my life; how much more now may this Benjaminite! Leave him [i.e. Shimei, the cusing Benjaminite] alone, and let him curse, for the Lord has told him to. It may be that the Lord will look on the wrong done to me, and that the Lord wil repay me with good for his cursing today." (from the ESV).
Apart from being one of my favorite verses in the Bible, What exactly does this add to our doctrine of suffering?
Doesn't this say that David is receiving the curse being put upon him by the Lord via Shimei? The last sentaence of that passage seems to be speculation on David's part, but he flat out says "Let me have what the Lord is sending me."
"Receiving" is a word i equivocate with two things: gifts and faith. gifts are what are received and it is done through faith. "Shall we accept good from God and not trouble?" (Job 2:10). Job, aside from being the uber Lutheran, had a whole heck of a lot of suffering to tolerate, or bear (tolero, tolerare: (L.) to bear) and he thanked God for it.
It is the part of Christ and, therefore, the Christian. It seems we should remember to suffer all things, not just a facade of petty ones, for the sake of Christ.
That sounds a little backwards to me: didn't Christ suffer so that we wouldn't have to. being part of Christ means that we are freely saved, not by anything of ourselves. our suffering has nothing to do with being part of Christ; it has to do with being part of the world, the sinful flesh. that is why we suffer. but we can rejoyce in suffering because we are saved.
please correct me if i am wrong.
valete!
|
Posted On: August 02nd, 2005 at 12:46am by john pawlitz |
Erin,
I have to agree with your assessment of Job, or at least, the idea that he endured suffering and prosperity with equal faith, so to speak.
Unfortunately, my ideas are theologically bewildering not because of their intelligence, but because they are ridiculously ad hoc in many cases. That being said, I have not endeavored to make things as simple as possible, but rich and full, to the extent possible, of meaning. This does not mean I have any right to contradict some of the theological ideas you mentioned, such as receiving faith and gifts.
But if I can add to the idea of receiving things in faith by clarifying what it means to suffer, then that is at least a worthy aim. We can certainly "rejoice in suffering," and if I had to summarize my response to this in one word, it would be to make sure that we do not rejoice "at" suffering. I assure you, I am not suggesting that we should not rejoice, nor, on the other hand, do I suggest that we will not have to suffer. What does this have to do with receiving things in faith? How does one receive suffering?
My point is the astonishing conclusion that we do not receive suffering merely as a means to an end, but it is an end in itself. Before I can clarify my distinction between "at" and "in" I have to try to make sense of this problem. If I can liken suffering to any single Christian topic, I would choose baptism, for in it, we drown the Old Adam. Furthermore, we are marked with the sign of the cross, which agrees with "taking up the cross," at least theoretically (though in my judgment: completely). Luther is regularly cited as discussing the value of remembering your baptism--not only, say, on your baptismal birthday, but daily. On these grounds, we can see how both repentance and faith, and suffering and dying are a daily part of Christian life.
At the same time, if I could liken the call to rejoice to any single topic, I would choose the Lord's Supper. There we taste the feast of the lamb and rejoice in his merits as our Savior, and in our redemption. This is the formal, Christian cause for happiness and rejoicing. Certainly the cleansing of baptism, practically speaking is a moment for rejoicing, as the Bible says the angels rejoice over the one sinner more than that 99 who do not fall away. I am not, however, convinced that this rejoicing can be allegorized to imply that we should be happy we have to die to sin. Rather, we are to be happy that through dying to sin and rising to life in Christ, we can participate in that sacred feast, so to speak. Now, I have theologized about what I priorly moralized over: i.e. suffering. I hope my interpretation can be found in agreement with our worship and confession of faith.
At the same time, at least as long as we live on earth, we are to remember that we live in our baptism. I.e., we live (here on earth) through putting to death our old Adam, not (if I can make this distinction) despite it. As Pr. Bloghardt reminds us, "Denying ourselves," is what taking up the cross means. We do not have ourselves and our baptism, or "have our cake and eat it too" (but now I am bordering on the ridiculous again). In the end, though, I do not believe we rejoice at this mode of suffering, but despite it. We live through it, here on earth, but we live, in an eternal sense, upon the body and blood of the sacrament. Or, to put this another way, the suffering that we do on earth, through faith, is our birth into the kingdom of heaven, but it is not in itself heaven, but earth.
Now that I have made my lengthy reply, I hope that I have not increased that cause for consternation. All of the ideas you mentioned seemed sound enough to me. I had felt that the doctrine of denying oneself as Bloghardt has given to us does a good job of pointing out that getting caught up in "suffering" might be a short-sighted representation of "taking up your cross." The fact that the world is cursed means that all people will "suffer" to some extent, either here on earth, or shall we say, in their conscience (or in eternity)? Often enough, suffering seems to be God's working in mysterious ways. In any event, my laboriousness was oriented to showing that suffering, although not something we should properly "like," is preferable to not suffering whatsoever. For suffering is the means God has given us by which to be saved, for Christ suffered, we suffer and "die" while we live in our baptism, and on the whole suffering has a either a cathartic or destructive effect. For those who will not believe, it has a destructive effect, for those who will, it cleanses them under the waters of God's Word. This is the best I can do, I am afraid, without flattering myself that my efforts are more productive than elucidating this simplistic thought: that we can rejoice in suffering, but not at it.
|
Posted On: August 02nd, 2005 at 1:40pm by john pawlitz |
Also as an afterthought...
I may make more sense if I explain how my education has consisted of the scandalous teachings of mathematics. I had to attend lectures, at one point (in my abstract algebra course) that pertained to the proof of the commutative property of addition.
yea...I was taking a 400-level course that stopped to discuss how a + b = b + a. I guess that taught me the value (is it really valuable?) of breaking things down, and in the case of this (suffering) subject it is simply too hard for me. So I apologize if, on account of incompleteness, my thoughts seem useless. I am entertaining the possibility of a more general, more systematic, if you please, understanding of the subject.
|
|
Search this Blog:
Subscribe to Blog:
My Weather
45° Fog
Conroe, TX (77301)
Feels Like: 45°
Humidity: 93%
Wind: From CALM at calm mph
This blog sponsored by:
The views represented on this blog are not necessarily those of Higher Things, nor does Higher Things necessarily endorse them.
|
