Two stories: glory and the cross

Just dug out one of my favourite books: Gerhard Forde’s On Being a Theologian of the Cross. I’ve posted on a number of occasions about the theology of the cross, in particular the table in this post which contrasts the theology of the cross with the theology of glory.

The theology of the cross can be a difficult concept to grasp, partly because it is a very subtle and easily misunderstood concept, and partly because the theology of glory comes far more naturally to us. Forde provides a useful explanation in terms of the two stories we can tell ourselves about our lives: the glory story and the cross story.

The glory story

Forde describes this as “the most common overarching story we tell about ourselves”:

We came from glory and are bound for glory. Of course, in between we seem somehow to have gotten derailed – whether by design or accident we don’t quite know – but that is only a temporary inconvenience to be fixed by proper religious effort. What we need is to get back on the “glory road”.

This has a number of variants, of which one of the most common is “the myth of the exiled soul”, in which the soul must seek knowledge, gnosis to escape from its exile, trapped in our bodies, and attain its true destiny.

As Forde observes, the glory story “is a powerful story”, one which we find “attractive and comforting”. Indeed, Christianity itself has frequently proclaimed a form of the glory story, in which the cross becomes a means by which the fallen human soul can attain to the glory for which it was created.

The cross story

By contrast, the theology of the cross refuses to see the cross as merely the means to a glorious end. As Forde puts it:

The theology of the cross arises out of the realization that it is simply disastrous to dissolve the cross in the story of glory.

The cross is not merely one element of another story, the glory story. It “insists on being its own story”; one which “does not allow us to stand by and watch”, but instead “makes us part of its story” so that “the cross becomes our story”.

It should be noted also that the “cross story” is not simply about Jesus’ crucifixion taken in isolation, but is “a shorthand way of intending the entire story culminating in cross and resurrection”.

The cross is “the key to unlocking” that story. It is to become the way by which we understand both God and creation. In Luther’s words, we are brought to look at all things “through suffering and the cross”.

But at the same time we see that “God vindicated the crucified Jesus by raising him from the dead”:

So the question and the hope comes to us. “If we die with him shall we not also live with him?”

Hence the theology of the cross is, in the end, a theology of hope rather than of despair. But it is a hope that sees suffering and the cross as the only means by which we can know God in this life, rather than as an unwelcome interruption to the “real story” of human and divine glory.

To put it another way: the theology of glory sees glory as the key to understanding the cross (if it takes any account of the cross at all). The theology of the cross sees the cross as the key to understanding glory.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Theologians of the Cross and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Two stories: glory and the cross

  1. Mack Ramer says:

    Not sure I understand. You say that the glory story is one “in which the cross becomes a means by which the fallen human soul can attain to the glory for which it was created.” Yet you juxtapose this with the theology of the cross, “a hope that sees suffering and the cross as the only means by which we can know God in this life.”

    Thus, on the one hand we’ve got the cross as a means to the glory for which it was created, i.e. the Beatific Vision. And on the other hand, we’ve got the cross as the means to know God in this life, again the Beatific Vision, insofar as it can be experienced here. So I’m still lost as to the distinction between these two things.

  2. Pingback: Confessing Evangelical » Blog Archive » Cross and glory in Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah”

  3. Phil Walker says:

    Mack: the question is whether we think of ourselves as fundamentally on the road from glory to glory, and with just a hiccough in between which needed the cross, or whether we see the cross as the very centre of the purposes of God. [I shall remark, but not elucidate, the obvious application to the BHT’s “John Piper” discussion.] Do we think of knowing God as what we basically deserve, and the cross as the means to that end? Or do we look at the cross and say, The true knowledge of God hangs on that tree? In one, the cross is a means to knowledge of God; in the other, the cross is the knowledge of God. As Luther put it, crux sola est nostra theologia.

    It’s hard to put into words. Read the book. 🙂

  4. Mack Ramer says:

    I think I get it now. I think the confusion was my reading “the glory for which it was created” in an ontological sense, rather than the sense of deserving that it was intended.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s