The Cross, continued

I’m breaking a self-imposed rule here by referring to two other bloggers in the same day. (It’s not that I don’t like the other bloggers: some of them have even become email penpals of a sort. I just don’t like reading blogs that are nothing but blogs on other blogs, and so I try very hard not to write one.) Emily Stimpson has responded (it's a multi-post post, so scroll down a little) on her site to my comments, and asks a good question that needs a reply. Plus, she’s traveling to her goddaughter’s baptism, so I can reply without generating a response, and so win. Winning is important.

Emily quoted from my conclusion, then wrote:

I agree with Brian...to a point. I think that many of the sufferings that we endure are just the natural consequences of a fallen world, and that when we embrace those sufferings as Christ embraced the cross, we grow in holiness. But is that always the case? The Lord, knowing us more intimately and more deeply than we know ourselves, knows exactly what each of us needs to be saved and sanctified. Does He never present us with crosses designed by Him for just those purposes? I'm not certain what the answer is, but would love to hear your thoughts.

I still think the answer is no. The irony of Evil is that it must use the stuff of the world, the good, natural stuff that God created, to tempt and corrupt us. And it always, automatically, hones in with an unerring precision on our fundamental weaknesses as the means of doing so. The only thing needed for us “to be saved and sanctified” is the grace and strength to overcome those weaknesses. Christ does not have to design the Cross for us; Wormwood will do that for Him. And then, if we are open, Christ will use all Wormwood’s machinations against him, “And we shall be saved.”