Reconsideration of "The Rood"

After I finished writing my last Blopost here, I walked downstairs to make a coffee, and immediately realised I’d missed a whole area of reflection. I’d taken a completely negative view of the contextualisation implicit in The Dream of the Rood, missing the (very obvious) positive aspect, and the necessary nuance (and risk) involved in any attempt at contextualisation.

 I did wonder whether to rush back to the study, and rewrite the Blogpost, but decided against. I am always writing against the clock. Blogging is, at best, a distraction from regular ministry, an indulgence. Plus, the very nature of this kind of theological reflection is that it is time-bound, a snap-shot of responses, at this moment; not a fully worked-out systematic theology, but “theology on the run”. As such, it will always have inadequacies, and things which we will want to revise later on.

There are, of course, many examples of Christ defeating enemies on the cross in Scripture itself – for example, Col. 2.15. Gustav Aulen is famous for drawing attention to this, in his famous book, Christus Victor; which redressed the almost universal emphasis on only one motif for the atonement, of penal substitution, which (although thoroughly Biblical) is merely one image for the all-encompassing work of liberation which Christ achieved on the cross. This is so cosmic in scope, no one model can do justice to all its facets.

This picture of Christ defeating the powers, however, resolves into two different understandings and practices: liberational and literal, or political and pentecostal. Firstly are those who interpret the cross as a victory over the political, social and economic powers which keep people oppressed (see Walter Wink), and who therefore construe our mission as extending this today. Secondly, through deliverance ministry, charismatic Christians literally drive out demons by the delegated power of Christ, based on his victory on the cross.

In term of my own urban ministry experience, I’d say both have validity, as we see humanity bound by evil spirits, at all levels of experience, from the political and social, to the psychological, and spiritual. Indeed, these interpenetrate so much, in a web of domination, that all ministry and mission must be multi-faceted and wholistic. This is the implication of Jesus’ reading from Isaiah in Luke 4.18-19: the unification of evangelical (freedom from sin), charismatic (freedom from demons), and political (freedom from injustice) interpretations of Scripture.

So, with respect to the Rood: instead of my earlier one-sided diatribe, I’d say we need to take a two-sided view. All attempts at contextualisation run the risk of acculturation rather than enculturation; that is, of syncretism – and there is no doubt that, even while warning Christians from the global south, we old world believers have succumbed to our own version of cultural Christianity. As Paul Tillich wrote, the new life in Christ is always expressed within history and culture, and so is always “ambiguous”. This should not make us complacent, but call us to constant discernment about our idolatries (1 Thess. 5.20-21; 1 Jn. 5.21).

The key as to whether our use of Christus Victor is valid, lies in whether it is done from the underside or the overside - as a vehicle of freedom, for the poor and oppressed; or exploited as a tool of force, by the powerful, to maintain their position.