What the Bridge Illustration Lacks
Recently I was reminded of the “bridge illustration” of the Gospel. I noticed its helpfulness in showing that we are separated from God because of our sin. And I noticed it presents Jesus as the only way to God. But I kept thinking something was missing.
What the “bridge illustration” of the Gospel leaves out is how we got separated from God, and how we get back. In the illustration sin is depicted as a “thing” that separates us from God… almost as if it is some foreign object that entered in and divided us. What this misses is that sin comes from us. It is rebellion, disobedience, insurrection.
If we wanted to use a bridge illustration, maybe it would go like this: In rebellion, man spit in God’s face and built a bridge in order to get away from Him. Then, after man crossed the bridge, he burned it so God wouldn’t interfere with his life or desires ever again. That’s how sin separates us from God.
But how do we get back? Typically, the “bridge illustration” portrays a large cross that fills the gap between us and God. In this way, God provides a way for us to get back. I think you can see what’s missing here. It places the burden on us to work our way back to God by crossing the bridge.
How can we keep the same illustration and capture that Jesus Christ died as a substitute for sinners? He didn’t just make it possible for people to be saved. He saved people. Perhaps Jesus crosses the ravine, puts us on his back, and takes us back to the Father. But that leaves out that He died as a substitute. Perhaps He died and the bridge was built with His own flesh and blood. But then we still have to cross the bridge on our own.
Do you have any suggestions? How can we use the “bridge illustration” and capture Jesus dying as a substitute for sinners?
