The Infinite Cross of Christ

This is a big, deep post, and I’m not sure how I will put it into words.

I suppose it starts in one of my previous posts, where I discuss my new vision on abortion. Please read the full post, but in summary I was saying that abortion is always an intolerable evil, but which still needs to be there. It’s always wrong, but is often the best way forwards. If you find you are walking on the forbidden lawn, you still have to walk on it to get back to the path. I referred also to the Israelite soldiers who went into Canaan and committed genocide under God’s command, and then offered sacrifices because they had incurred bloodguilt by breaking God’s law – even though he told them to do it..

So now I am developing those themes. Imagine an American abortion clinic. Outside are two massed demonstrations: one shouts and screams about the rights of the child, one screams and shouts about the rights of the mother. In the past I have always been very partisan: vocally anti abortion. I have even presented motions in meetings of my branch of ‘Unison’ (many years ago) to denounce the union’s extreme pro-choice policy. But now I see that we are created in god’s image, and both of those demonstrations is expressing the heart of God. God cares passionately for the baby he has created in the womb. He also cares passionately about the life of the mother. Both opposing demonstrations are expressing the heart of God.

So how do we proceed?

The difficulty is that we are mortal, limited, physical human beings. We don’t share God’s infinity. We cannot reconcile is trinity with his indivisible one-ness. We want one answer to each question. Our God is infinite. In him, parallel lines meet. Opposite truths are in balance. Free will and predestination co-exist. Three is one. Abortion is both the ultimate sin, and the ultimate right.

And yet, even within the infinity that is God, these opposites somehow jar. His love and his justice are not easy bedfellows.

Because of that, infinite problems require infinite solutions. In infinity, the normal rules of maths and physics cease to apply. And yet, infinity can still fit within the finite. If you go on a journey, you keep halving the distance remaining. You do it an infinite number of times. It should take forever, but in fact you reach your destination in a finite time, despite the infinite number of distance-halvings. And so: The infinite God shoe-horned himself into a finite man. The immortal one died.

So in the cross, parallel lines meet. It is the place where every irreconcilable opposite is reconciled. Love and justice embrace. Free will and predestination turn out to be Siamese twins. Abortion is the ultimate sin - permitted. The innocent is a convicted criminal, the convicted criminal is innocent.

The Cross of Christ is the narrow neck of the hour glass through which the whole universe falls. The Cross of Christ is the black hole through which we pass into the next universe. It is the singularity from which the universe emerges, and collapses into. It is the union of the infinite and finite. It is the union of God and man. Immortal and mortal…………………….


In fact, it’s really quite good!

Looking at it; is it two lines crossing on a flat plane, or is it four parallel lines meeting at the vanishing point on a far horizon?

A model for Free Will and Divine Sovereignty

Christians often fall into two camps. (that is a statement in itself!)

On one hand we have those who take a high view of the power, omniscience etc of God. He controls everything, selects who will become a Christian, etc. I call these people ‘Calvinists’. Their opponents state that this makes God responsible for sin and evil.

On the other hand we have those who emphasise mankind’s free will. It is mankind’s choice to rebel or serve God. Anything else would be just slavery. This view makes man responsible for his own sin. I call these people Arminians. Their opponents argue that it leaves God as a helpless observer, wringing his hands in despair at the sidelines.

Of course neither of these are fair caricatures.

But I propose the following model.

Imagine that a person is a ball – free to roll around [the free will bit]. But God has provided a channel for it to roll along. [the God’s sovereignty bit]. The ball can wobble a bit within the channel, but is constrained by the sides and the slope.

This model has its limits. It still leaves God responsible for sin. So: extend the channel, and make it branch in different directions like a tree. Some of those branches will end in places of blessing; others will end in places of sin. The whole channel system, the whole tree, is made by God. He is in full knowledge and control of the whole thing. And he rolls human balls down the channel system. When the balls come to a branch, they have a choice – left or right? Easy option or hard option? Sin or not sin? Many of the branches have signposts: “do not go down to the harlot” – “love your neighbour”, etc. So the balls rattle down the channel system, eventually ending at the destiny that God has warned or promised that he has made that branch they have chosen lead to.

In this model, God has absolute sovereignty – he made the channel system and you are never out of his will – and yet we have choices, hour by hour and minute by minute, that will affect our passage through life and our final destiny.

The next stage of development of the model would be to talk about a forest of these decision channel trees, and we could talk about how where the branches of one person’s tree touch the branches of someone else’s, the passage of the ball in one tree can open or close branch channels in the other. So my sin can hinder other people, or lead them into sin, while my righteous deeds can unlock the path of blessing in someone else’s life (even if they never use that branch to experience the potential blessing so unlocked)

Well, I like this model.

What do you think?