Magyar Egyház, 1966 (45. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)

1966-02-01 / 2. szám

MAGYAR EGYHÁZ

7

MAGYAR

CHURCH

3or IGntt

Jesus’ Cross and Our Oum

Barth points out in his Church Dogmatics that the “cross” we bear and carry “is not the primary theologia crucis, of the Gospels, but it is certainly the secondary . . . It must not be equatel or confused with the primary theologia crucis, which is wholly and exclusively that of the cross of Jesus, but it cannot and must not be separated from it.” In one of his writings Arthur J. Gossip tells us that we are saved actually not by one Cross but two, by Jesus’ Cross and our own (“Anyone who wishes to be a follower of mine must leave self behind; he must take up his cross, and come with me” says Jesus in Mark 8:34b, New English Bible). And the meaning behind this statement is clearly this: a committed Christian is beginning to experience more and more the transportation of Christ’s Cross into his own life.

At the beginning of the Lenten season, therefore, let us ask now how is it to be done? What is the cross of the Christian?

The answers are manifold. Every Christian must discover the terms in which the Cross can be transposed into his own life. Stanley Jones is praying for another cross, after one was lifted from him “because my cross has made me what I am today.” Another theologian says, “We must understand that a cross, in the Christian sense, is not some inescapable burden which belongs naturally to our condition as human beings, not something to be prayed for and passively accepted, but some duty, some sacrifice to be taken up freely and under no compulsion except the compulsion of God’s love in Christ.” Or we may take note of the observation of John Knox, who understands the cross of the Christian and its acceptance to be “under an obligation” and explains it this way: “Taking up the cross means denying ourselves, not in the sense of denying things to ourselves, but in the sense of denying the self itself, of actually living around another center than our own interests . . .” (The Death of Christ). It is natural that our John Calvin understood the cross of the Christian, his own cross, bound up with persecution when he declared, “God subjects us to unjust persecution that we may rejoice because, as we bear the cross with Christ, we shall also experience and share in the resurrection to a blessed immortality.”

Our Christianity is characterized, more often than not, by the “what-can-I-get-out-of-religion” motive; and, although it seems to be helpful and satisfactory, it is not challenging, stimulating, and eliminates tension rather than creates tension. It is time, in Griffith’s words, to put the Cross back into Christianity. The Cross and only the Cross indicates that the grace which is ours through the Cross is “costly.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer makes note of the fact that the trouble with the Church today is that it merchandises cheap grace. He interprets the cheap grace in the following way: “Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without contrition. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the Cross.”

We stressed, let us remember again, the fact already that the Cross of Jesus is the primary theologia crusis, and as such, of course, unique. A cross, as a symbol, however, is and will be useless if the meaning cannot be seen in the lives of Christ’s people. There is much wisdom in that finding of Thomas A. Kempis’ that we shall best understand Christ’s cross, not by discussing it, whether with heat or in cold logic, but by carrying our own cross after Him. Sándor J. Farkas

THE SPIRIT OF GOD IN THE REMAKING OF MAN

Dr. Aladar Komjáthy reports from the Reformed World Alliance Area Council meeting in Atlantic City.

The North American Area Council of the World Alliance of the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches held its annual meeting in Atlantic City, New Jersey on January 11, 12, 13. This meeting was somewhat different from all the previous meetings. There were delegates from 13 North American denominations belonging to the World Alliance, most of whom are old friends who convene once a year in some off-season resort hotel. There were the time-honored customs of these area meetings: reports of the general secretary from Geneva, the North American secretary and the treasurer, reports of the various committees, information was provided about some of the smaller churches, particularly in the Caribbean area.

The really different event was the program of the second day of the area meeting: from early morning until late at night the Council heard reports from twelve task forces that had been at work during the past year in following-up the theme of the Frankfurt Assembly of 1964, “Come, Creator Spirit!” These task forces in about a dozen cities of North America had been seeking to discover “what, in their practical experience, the Holy Spirit is doing in the remaking of men and women today” and what evidence is visible “of the Spirit of God in the remaking of man in secular society.” Small groups of different professions, vocations and interest worked on this in strategic places “where the action is.” Under the leadership of Dr. Margaret Shannon, executive director of United Church Women and Carl A. Setterstrom of Paramus, New Jersey a Rexall Drug vice-president more than a thousand people were involved in these discussions.

There were two Roman Catholic observers present: Bishop Ernest L. Unterkoefler of Charleston, South Carolina and Msgr. William W. Baum of Washington, D.C. A lively discussion followed the lecture given by the new theological secretary of the Alliance on the Roman Catholic-Reformed theological dialogue. Our observer at the fourth session of the Second Vatican Council, the Rev. R. H. N. Davidson also gave a report of his own impressions.

Officers named to head the Council include: Charles C. Cochrane (Presbyterian Church, Canada) chairman; Robert P. Johnson (UPUSA) vice-chairman. Dr. James