is published by (I) The True Cross
“Meditations & Experiences” by William Shewen
I. It is a precious thing to know what the cross of Christ is, and how to take it up (Mark 8:34), and make use of it; for indeed, it is no less than the Power that crucifies sin (Romans 6:6-7), and saves from it; which Christendom, too generally being ignorant of, set up something else instead thereof, and so sin remains alive, uncrucified, and salvation is lacking; for it is not all the gold, silver, and wooden crosses, nor voluntary humility (Colossians 2:16-18), in the whole world, that are able to crucify one sin, as to the nature of it, nor to make any one disciple, nor enable to watch with Christ one hour (Matthew 26:40-41), nor follow Him one step in the regeneration (Matthew 19:28).
(Bible References added)
The True Cross
William Shewen begins with the cross. His focus is not on the outward cross that crucified Christ but the inward cross that crucifies sin in the believer’s life. Outward crosses made of gold, silver or wood have no power. The crucifixion of Christ becomes the “Power that crucifies sin, and saves from it” only after it is experienced inwardly.
At the heart of Christian faith is the concern for a restored relationship with God. and Early Quakers understood the cross as part of this process of atonement. But Quakers differed with their contemporaries in the nature of this atonement. The most widely held views of atonement in the church have involved external transactions of some sort. Atonement has been understood as paying a ransom or payment to Satan for his claims on us, or as a satisfaction of God’s standard of righteousness through the death of Christ, or as Christ substituting his life for ours on the cross.
For early Quakers atonement was not an external transaction, but an inner experience of what George Fox called the “true Cross,”. Christ is the type, allowing himself to be put to death on the cross, so that we can experience the antitype by allowing all that is outward to be put to death in us. Barclay refers to the description of atonement in 1 Peter 2:21-24: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed (KJV). The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ is a demonstration of the power of God over the power of sin. We experience this power by following Christ to the true cross within.
In contemporary theological categories, early Friends would fit into the “moral example” understanding of atonement, with some qualification. Atonement for Friends was not just a theological concept. Following Jesus to the cross meant a radical personal transformation. Nothing could ever be the same again. Religious symbols and rules (“voluntary humility”) fade into the background when living in Christ’s kingdom (“the regeneration”). Shewen describes that radical transformation in his “Meditations & Experiences.”
The more I see how we fall short by not freeing ourselves from our convenient personal-and-cultural idols, the more I see the need for something like this.
And yet, there are too many religions in this world whose premises call for a kind of spiritual suicide. My little personal self not only resents this; but this can hardly be the intention of God in creating us!
In at least three different religions–the Christianity of William Stringfellow, the Judaism of Alan Lew, the Buddhism of Robert Aitken–I find another concept I hope will turn out to be better attuned to God’s will: That our bad qualities themselves can be redeemed, and will then find their rightful place in God’s work.
[...] he explains that the light within becomes visible to us when we follow Christ to the True Cross (passage I). The Power of God that crucifies sin causes the eye of the mind to be opened. We are then able to [...]
Bingo! On the nose, Bill, although I would suggest that the earlier Friends were a little more strict than treating the atonement as just a “moral example.” Lots of modern left-wing Christian Quakers would accept that, but the early folks looked at it as an essential work of some sort. Even Hicks considered the inward transformaiton essential, although lots of his followers tossed it aside.
Thanks for the clarity.