The Complexity of the Cross
Perception and perspective is often considered one’s reality. This notion forces one to acknowledge their own perceptions and perspective, particularly when it comes to their faith as they solidify and identify their own beliefs. For those who belong to the body of Christ, each member has its own journey formulating a testimony that is based on a personal relationship that is rooted in the loving grace of Jesus Christ. Within each life with Christ, there are complexities that only the grace of God can heal. In spite of life’s injustices, evil forces, sinful flesh, and degradation, the belief in the healing grace of Jesus Christ transcends all complexities and difficulties that are placed before us. In this manuscript, the religious philosophies of theologians, Karl Barth and James Cone are analyzed comparing their two books, Church Dogmatics and The Cross and the Lynching Tree, respectively.
Basis for Discussion
James Cone and Karl Barth have very different perspectives, yet corresponding interpretations of who Jesus Christ is. A review of both works are distinct when it comes to the workings of Christ, his death on the cross, resurrection and how they relate to the church. Cone’s interpretation suggests that the suffering of Christ is characterized by the community of the church. Barth’s writings interpretations of Christ focus on the inclusive participation in the victory that lies within His grace. While some may view and compare these two narratives and deem them as contradictory, one to another, they are ultimately connected on the basis that both interpretations are supported by the historical and theological, the infallible, incarnate Word of God. Moreover, their ideologies are connected through the eternal presence and deity of Jesus Christ. Pondering Jesus as the Christ who died on the cross with the hope of His glorious resurrection is the basis for this discussion as it relates to a Christian faith and the complexities of life. In life there is defeat and there is victory; there is suffering and there is comfort; there is chaos and there is peace. As Solomon states in the book of Ecclesiastes, “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens:” life can become quite challenging and reflective of the junction of suffering and victory, both the truth of death and the promise of resurrection. Jesus Christ, in the incarnation, is God’s declaration of solidarity with those who suffer and with those who have suffered oppression.
The kingdom of God is, ultimately, a conglomeration of people who have suffered, some more than others. Our suffering is likened to the sufferings of Jesus before and at the point of death on the cross. As Christ as suffered, we must also suffer, hence the “carrying of our ow crosses” before victory comes. This discussion, however, is a focus on those who have suffered because of their oppression as a people. Therefore, for the sake of this discussion, God is with His people and He is for His people, infinitely and eternally ready to undergo suffering alongside those who are hurting. Understanding that Jesus is the God who suffers, He is also the God who conquers. The Christian church represents the ongoing incarnation of Jesus Christ in the world. Therefore, it too must suffer in order to experience the restoration of all things, assuming that the Christian church, by definition, is in right relationship with God that is similar to the early church that soon organized after Jesus ascended into heaven.
It is important to point out that the Christian church shares in the sufferings of Christ, as a whole, because it will also gain the eternal blessings of Christ’s victory of death and eternal glory. There is no resurrection and victory over death without the sufferings of the cross. Here, the viewpoints of Barth and Cone come into conversation, one viewpoint reconciling to another, common ground is reached. Through examination of Barth and Cone, in their specified, theological ideologies, the goal is to identify why and how Christ is at the center of both viewpoints.
In order to reach this goal, it is important to first discuss some of the background of each person, their evolution of becoming a theologian, and how they came to their conclusions. While the contexts that formed James Cone and Karl Barth are different, there are certain affinities that bear highlighting here. Both theologians were formed by their experience as members and leaders within faith communities. Both were profoundly impacted by a thirst for justice for those who did not have access to justice. Both were deeply interested in social and economic equity for all persons. Both looked to scripture as their source for language and for inspiration as they prepared to speaking a word about God. In particular, Barth’s incarnational Christology resonates with Cone. Christ the revealed word of God is the “Friend and Savior” of the oppressed. Moreover, the important factor, in this discussion, for black Christians is the solidarity that God and that of Jesus Christ enters into the sufferings of those who are oppressed and have a relationship with Him. Cone describes this in The Cross and the Lynching Tree as he recalls the kind of preaching he heard in the black church as a youngster in Bearden. “Black ministers preached about Jesus’ death more than any other theme because they saw in Jesus’ suffering and persecution a parallel to their own encounter with slavery, segregation, and the lynching tree.”
Furthermore, both Cone and Barth are theologians of the Word of God. They have demonstrated, in their works, a shared emphasis on the centrality of Jesus Christ in the life and proclamation of the Church. However, affinities between the two theologians do not fully bridge the divide in their distinct points of view. It is important to note the distinctions between them in order to fully appreciate the lines of theological dexterity that they share.
Theological Ideologies of James H. Cone
In Dr. James H. Cone’s book, entitled, The Cross and the Lynching Tree, Cone, brilliantly, makes a connection between the sufferings of black people in America and that of Jesus Christ as they beat him, tortured him, spat in his face, and mocked him. It is common knowledge that black people, or preferably referenced, people with African ancestry, have been largely oppressed by white people, or people of European ancestry, throughout the history of this nation. In years past, the racial oppression that Cone references throughout his book takes place during the laws of “Jim Crow”, when lynching black people was the norm.
It is from the perspective that this discussion is explored as it relates to the complexities of the cross of Jesus Christ. As we probe into the empirical sacrificial Lamb, it is important to examine the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as it compares to the constant lynchings of black people in America. Cone points out that crucifixions that took place during the time of the Roman empire were reserved for “insurrectionists and rebels”,while making them a public example for the purpose of discouraging others who may have the same ideas of going “against the grain.” Yet, Jesus was neither an insurrectionist nor a rebel. He was guiltless and without sin. The blameless death of Jesus dying on the cross is likened to the many unjust lynchings of black people that was the ultimate manifestation of white supremacy and their oppression of people of African ancestry.
Roman Empire crucifixions and white supremacy lynchings, alike, were horrid acts of great torture, mutilation, scourgings, and therefore, in concert, considered “one of the most humiliating and painful deaths ever devised by human beings”. Cone’s book is a litany of juncture’s of the oppression of black people that are quite telling with chapters entitled, “Nobody Knows De Trouble I See” and “Oh Mary, Don’t You Weep”. These senseless executions were extreme in every case and troubling in the eyes of most humane people as we view these happenings in retrospect. Jesus, in his willingness to be humiliated, he carried His cross. The cross of black people in America was the oppression of white supremacy. The cross of both the black man, the black woman, and the black child was the constant fear of the white man, the white woman, and even the white child having any complaint or perceived offense. Death by lynching was imminent for any black person who was even accused of breaking any law.
The role of the church, particularly the black church, was to offer a hope of glory that defied the many atrocities that were experienced, regularly. The black preacher was compelled to make the parallel between the “strange fruit” of the south and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This message of hope conveyed and encouraged an oppressed people that there is a God who loves them and who can relate to their pain of loss and unjustified victimization. Even at the point of death, within the church’s message, there is a hope of victory that transcends death.
Theological Ideologies of Karl Barth
In the scripture reading found in John 3:16, it reads, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” As we continue this discussion of the complexities of the cross, it is important to acknowledge who God is, who Jesus is. Karl Barth, a great authority in the world of theology for several decades now, takes the lead in teaching the preacher and every theologian after him. Barth, the author of Church Dogmatics, places emphasis on the of omniscient being of Jesus being God and being the Son of God. Within the series called, The Election of Jesus Christ: Jesus Christ Elected and Electing, Barth reminds the Christian church that the complexities of the cross involve understanding that the scripture, from Genesis to Revelations, is founded on this event of death on the cross, resurrection on the third day, and His ascension into heaven at the right seat of His Father.
As only the Deity can, Barth recognizes God as the Father, God as His own son, Jesus Christ, His presence being infinite, and how God refers to Himself as “we” and as “us”. Not only that, the plan of the cross was from the beginning or what would be considered the point prior to the Creation. (While this discussion does not include this person of divine being as the accompaniment of “we” and “us”, we would be remiss if we did not acknowledge God, the Holy Spirit, to make the Triune God as its complete identification.)
The scripture in John 1:1 states, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This scripture represents a fundamental belief in Jesus supporting Barth’s message of who God is. It is important to notice that “the Word” is capitalized, and now Jesus is referenced as the son of God by another name. It was “the Word” who was present in the beginning. It was “the Word” who was with God. Moreover, and emphatically, it was “the Word” that was/is God. God chose, from the inception of the world, to sacrifice Himself because of His love for His own creation. He knew that the nature of human beings would fail as a result of His gift of free will.
Among the various dispensations of God’s grace, the complex issues surrounding the event of Him dying on the cross is the foundation of Christendom. It is difficult for the common man to conceive God’s ability to be God, to be His own Son, to be the Holy Spirit, the Helper. But, as Barth points out, God elected to create human beings. He then chose to extend the offering of free will. Ultimately, God knew that man would fail, so He chose to not only provide a perfect sacrifice, present Himself as His son to die on a cross. This was done so that His creation could choose to receive the gift of salvation and eternal life. It is in this hope of glory, the Christian church should not only be focusing on this principle in their message, it is their responsibility. It is a message that transcends the polarization of racism and white supremacy at any point in history. The electing and the election hope that lies in Jesus ultimately transcends the suffering of the Christian church, individually and collectively.
Everlasting life is the eternal hope and promise that Jesus Christ, one of the three persons of God, has a love creation that is not that difficult to understand. His creation of the institution of family and the relationship between children and parents, God’s love for His son parallels His love for His children (or His creation). The complexity of this relationship is the occurrence of rejection that He so often experiences from His creation. The rejection of God’s gift of eternal life promises the antithesis of this hope, which is a journey to perdition. God chose himself to render an agape love for all of mankind. God chose all of mankind to be given the choice to receive His love and eternal life. Then, God chose to become His own Son to experience the human condition. Therefore, Jesus not only carried His literal cross, He experienced the sufferings of mankind in a life on the earth. Jesus was tempted by the devil in the same way mankind is tempted by him each day. Jesus was rejected by his family and people in his own town. From birth, Jesus’ life was at risk. Herod was literally trying to kill Him. So, the sufferings of Jesus Christ were not limited to the day of His death. The difference between Jesus and mankind is that Jesus is the all-knowing, all-seeing God. He is the lover of all souls, but it is important to know that His election is only for the elected. The elected ones are those who do not reject His gift of eternal hope and glory that is never attained without some level of suffering.
conclusion
In conclusion, this comparative essay serves as a discussion reviewing the religious philosophies of theologians, Karl Barth and James Cone. It is an analysis comparing the books that they authored, Church Dogmatics and The Cross and the Lynching Tree, respectively. From a Christian perspective, the term, religious philosophies, is used to communicate the nature of the discussion. But it is important to note that the foundation of the message of the Christian church is not based on the interpretation of religion. It is based on a foundation of a relationship with Jesus Christ that both Barth and Cone can relate to empirically. Moreover, while their perspectives are different, their authority and dexterities of their individual themes are based in the Word of God.
The ultimate message of hope that only God can provide should be the message of Christian church. The notion of victory over death and the hope of glory can be attained, but not without suffering. Using Cone’s narrative of the oppression of black people in America through the humiliation of lynching as an example of great suffering is the backdrop of this discussion. It is an effective discussion because of the paralleled circumstances that such lynchings have in relationship to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The lynching tree is similar to the cross. The blamelessness and victimization go hand-in-hand. The election and electing theme of Jesus that Barth so eloquently communicates, attempts to explain the incomprehensible existence of God as the Creator of mankind; the infinite presence of God as the son, Jesus (the Word); and the powerful existence of God, the Holy Spirit.
Bibliography
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Bloomsbury Academic, 2004.
Cone, James H. The Cross and the Lynching Tree. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, n.d.
NIV. Bible Gateway. n.d. April 2016. <https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+3%3A1&version=NIV>.
—. John 1:1. n.d. April 2016. <https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+1%3A1&version=NIV>.
—. John 3:16. n.d. April 2016. <https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+3%3A16&version=NIV>.
