Tuesday, January 6, 2015
On empty mangers and empty crosses. . .
Yet we are much more reserved about crosses without the figure of Christ in suffering. . . the crucifix. In fact, we might be relieved that someone has stole Jesus' body from the cross so that we don't have to look on it anymore. Why are we outraged that the baby Jesus would be missing from the manger but relieved to find a cross without the figure of Christ in His agony?
That is indeed the problem. We like babies and a religion of a baby God who comes to be cooed over and cared for. We are rightfully uncomfortable about a religion of a man God who comes to wear our sin, carry our suffering, die our death, and be laid in our grave. This Christian Gospel is shocking to our comfortable lives of self-delusion about the seriousness of sin and its dreadful enemy death. It is so shocking to us that we would rather make peace with death and deem it natural than confront the honest price it cost the Lord to set us free from sin and its curse of death. It is so shocking to us that we would rather live the lie that a little self-improvement help is all we need, some tips on how to live a better, fuller, richer, longer, healthier, more successful, more pleasurable, and happier life than to face up to our lost condition. It is so shocking to us that we complain mightily about the baby missing from the manger but do not utter one word of complaint when we see a cross minus the figure of our Lord in His wounded and suffering condition, paying the full price of our redemption.
Something wrong with that. . . For another view of the same problem read Adriane Heins blogpost. . .