Is the Cross Still Foolish? (1 Cor 1:18-25/Lent 3B)

Scripture: 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 (Translation and Notes)

After around 2000 years of preaching, whole nations that have claimed to be Christian, serious Bible study by well-qualified scholars, and plenty of examples to work from, does the cross still look like foolishness?

I have answer, “Yes, in every way!”

There is an element lacking in our modern culture that Paul could assume.  The vast majority of Paul’s audience would acknowledge the need to find something better, to seek after wisdom, to try to become better people.  One might even say, “to be saved.”  There was a similar general acknowledgement that people weren’t right and that they weren’t attaining righteousness.  Of course there were always individuals who pridefully proclaimed their mastery as there are today, but the public would instinctively reject them.

Today, I think, we are fast losing both the notion that greatness, “rightness”, or wisdom are things to be earnestly sought, and at the same time we are losing the sense that we are deeply in need of salvation, both in the sense of God’s rescue from this world, and in the sense of spiritual healing.  We’re losing the sense of greatness, and at the same time our sense of how far we fall short of greatness.

A survey conducted by The Barna Group, reported in The Christian Post, found that less than 1% of 18-23 year olds hold a Biblical worldview.  Now I’m personally not that happy with the adjective “Biblical” as it gets used in such a variety of ways, but Barna avoids this problem by defining it as follows:

A biblical worldview, as defined by the Barna study, is believing that absolute moral truth exists; the Bible is completely accurate in all of the principles it teaches; Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic; a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or do good works; Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; and God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today.

The key problem?  The young people don’t believe in absolute moral truth any more.  Now some negative answers might result from misunderstanding.  I’m often accused of not believing in absolute truth when I note that we are not really capable of absolute knowledge.  But there is a great difference between claiming that absolute truth does not exist, and being aware of one’s limitations in seeking such truth.

For example, I believe in God, but I don’t believe I can know God absolutely.  I even teach what I call the doctrine of infinite ignorance.  God is infinite and thus there is an infinite amount to know about him.  My knowledge is finite.  Infinite – any finite amount is still infinite.  So I always remain infinitely ignorant of God.  Now here’s the problem with that doctrine.  For me, it’s one of my great motivators to keep on looking.  I know I haven’t attained, and that means there is always more studying and more thinking to be done.  For some others, however, it means you might as well not try because you’ll never succeed.

But if we handle our life issues in that manner we will never get anything done.  I was talking to one of the authors whose book I’m editing right now.  I pointed out to him that when we produce advance copies in a few days there will be errors in them.  We then have time to do more work to make the final copy as good as we possibly can.  I also pointed out that such final copies are never perfect; inevitably I find an error after release that is embarrassing.  So should I bother with proofreading?  I will never attain perfection!

If I decide that proofreading is no good because perfection is beyond me, then I will be a horrible publisher and will never get any better.  But if I keep pursuing perfection, the actual books will be better and better, and will be much more useful to my readers than raw manuscripts.

Similarly if in college I decided that because a perfect paper could not be attained I must not bother to try, what would happen?  Many an ‘A’ might become an ‘F’, and I would learn much less.

I believe it is similar in morality.  We do not and cannot make perfect decisions on moral issues every time.  We don’t have a final answer to all moral questions.  Because we emphasize this point, (post-)modern people are deciding that there’s no point in bothering to debate moral issues and make decisions.  Everyone’s moral view must be essentially equal, since none of us are perfect.

I think it’s fairly easy to dismiss such a view.  We may not agree on all aspects of the right to life for embryos or unborn human beings. The terminology itself slants the debate.  If I say “abortion” rather than “killing an unborn human being” I have already biased the debate.  If I say “terminate a pregnancy” it’s different from “killing a child.”  If I say “destroy an embryo” it’s different than saying “put an end to a potential human being.”  But if you ask if it would be moral for someone to kill you and take your money for any reason, people will generally find agreement quite quickly.^*

You can always find some sort of issue on which people can generally agree.  Does that not suggest that discussion of moral issues has value?  While we might fall far short of universal agreement on what is truly morally right, by continuing the pursuit we gain enormous benefits.  Reductio ad absurdum is not always a bad thing, and moral relativism is quite susceptible to it.

Now what does this have to do with the foolishness of the cross?

If we think there are no moral standards, we tend also to think that there is no bad spirituality or good spirituality, just whatever spirituality I happen to want.  We are not sinners in need of salvation, we are not spiritually wretched, seeking healing.  We are in one spiritual state which is OK, though perhaps restlessly we might like to change to another spiritual state which will also be OK.  Who’s to judge?

Not only is God’s method foolishness to us in this post-modern age, we can’t comprehend the very need for it.  If having God die on the cross in the person of Jesus is foolish when looked at as a means of salvation, of solving a serious and intractable problem, how much more foolish does it look to those who are OK and believe their situation cannot and should not be judged?

To this generation, I fear, the cross has passed from foolishness to incomprehensibility.  We need to reclaim the ability to make moral judgments, to realize our failings, and thus to look for a solution.  Once we reclaim that, perhaps the cross will look foolish, but at least we will want what it claims to accomplish.

*I am indebted here both to Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. in his book Christianity and Secularism, chapter 7, “Is Christianity Relevant?” especially pages 174-177.  For the example, I’m indebted to my professor Dr. Alden Thompson author of Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God? who notes that young people do not, at the core actually believe all morality is relative.  He finds that he can always shake them up simply by using examples that apply the theory to them personally.  There is a strong sense of right and wrong covered up by the certainty that there isn’t.  This latter is an encouraging point.