The anti-war protester on the front page of this morning’s paper looked defiant. His sign was an assortment of slogans (“food not war”) and symbols. The first one that caught my eye was the circular sticker – a black cross in a red circle, with the international red diagonal slash. The message was clear – a part of the numerous messages he wanted to communicate was a definite anti-Christian mindset.
But the theological imagery gripped me. He not only rejects the church and the faith and Christendom. He rejects the Cross – “I don’t want the cross, I don’t need the cross.”
The connection between his various messages also intrigued me. Not all anti-war positions are based on non-Christian or anti-Christian bias. Obviously the history of the church includes many examples of individuals, movements, and denominations committed to the cross of Christ and equally committed to non-violence and pacifism. This is not a discussion about the Christian view of war. None of this is to minimize the horrific consequences of economic injustice and its contribution to conflict around the globe. But the protester’s sign gives us a chance to see why the anti-war position is much easier to maintain without the cross.
The simplistic “food not war” and “give peace a chance” mentality boils down to a fundamental premise. If we can just eliminate hunger and poverty and economic crises, if we can just communicate effectively, the absurdity of war and conflict will disappear. This optimism grows out of an even more optimistic view of human nature. If human beings are fundamentally good, then communication and economic adjustments can eliminate the issues that cause conflict and result in war.
But orthodox historical Christianity takes a different view of human nature. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Christians have both a higher and lower view of human nature. On the “high” side, humans are not just the evolutionary product of haphazard chemical processes. We are created in the very image of the Triune Creator – we exist for community and creativity and relationship with Him. But there is a dark side. We have rebelled and rejected and relinquished any claim to the glory intended for us. We are fallen. Rather than being fundamentally good, we are corrupted. Economic improvements and better communication skills are not enough to overcome the underlying principle of our nature.
The Cross is the Creator’s answer to this corruption. Again, Christians have a variety of opinions (strongly held) about how the solution to our individual corruption is applied to our corporate problems. But the protestor’s anti-cross message is a logical corollary to the fundamental human goodness that will make the economic adjustments and communication improvements work. If the cross is not needed (in fact is a distracting tangent to the real problems), then without that cross, giving peace a chance just might solve the problem.
But the most striking issue (for me, this morning, looking at the front page) works backwards from the macro issue. If the protestor were to admit (or even consider) that the fundamental problem is deep in human nature, he would also be forced to deal with the reality of his nature. Ending war with economic and political improvements means the problem is out there. The cross means the problem is in here. Rejecting the Cross provides much simpler solutions to the horror of war. But without the Cross, we miss the singular solution to the even greater horror within each of us.
Copyright 2006 by Michael Wiebe