More on DeLay and the Cross

I have a somewhat different reaction than Rob to my esteemed teacher Martin Marty's column criticizing Tom Delay's speech about Terri Schiavo and Jesus.  (DeLay drew rhetorical parallels between their deaths -- both thirsting and forsaken -- which overlooks the fact that Jesus's death was the culmination of the divine plan.)  Rob thinks that attacking DeLay's theologizing is "one step removed from a straw man argument."  But I disagree; it seems to me that among Marty's points is precisely that the theological assertions of politicians like Tom DeLay are not marginal today but are influential (too much so) and that's why they need to be scrutinized.  Marty is also spot on in pointing out that DeLay's interpretation was far from literal; he shaped the text in ways that evangelicals often fail to acknowledge doing.

I have a different question, though.  DeLay is hardly the first person in politics to make an analogy between the unjust killing of Jesus and other injustices.  William Jennings Bryan, striking a crucifixion pose, said "You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold!"  Death penalty opponents point out that Jesus was a man unfairly condemned and executed.  Isn't the paradox of the cross, or its fullness, the fact that it is at once the epitome of human injustice -- and thus a type for other acts of injustice -- and also the centerpiece of God's grace?  The old rugged cross is both "the emblem of suffering" and the thing most to be "cherish[ed]."  I agree that we could call DeLay's use of the cross one-dimensional; I'd just add that we might have to say the same of other political rhetoric from across the spectrum.

Tom