“For this history is part of the story of my salvation … I may not understand why it had to be this way. I certainly do not like it. I may deplore the suffering and violence involved, even when I accept the Bible’s verdict that it was an act of warranted judgement. I may wish there had been some other way … But … what the Bible tells me is that this was an act of God that took place within the overarching narrative through which the only hope of the world’s salvation was constituted …
I have to read the conquest in the light of the cross. And when I do … I see one more perspective. For the cross too involved the most horrific and evil human violence … The crucial difference, of course, is that, whereas at the conquest God poured out his judgement on a wicked society who deserved it, as the cross, God bore on himself the judgement of God on human wickedness, through the person of his own Son – who deserved it not one bit.”
I like his honesty, his unflinching willingness to ask ask hard questions and his commitment to hold the big story of Scripture together. What do you think?
And from here we turn in the next few posts to some hard things to understand about that cross.