This Holy Week, my devotional readings are looking at The Dream of the Rood, an Anglo-Saxon poem about a vision the writer sees of the rood or cross of Christ. In the poem, which I will share in full on Friday, Christ is depicted as an eager young warrior king and the rood as both valiant soldier and battleground, which is first seen giving its story from heaven, encrusted in jewels or blood, depending on the moment.

It is a deeply evocative and symbolic poem, which plays on the genre of the Saxon hero tale to retell the story of the Crucifixion in a way which highlights details which we might not have considered, whilst ensuring that it would be rooted in Anglo-Saxon culture. It's depiction is not accurate - Christ was weak, not obviously strong and heroic - but as a writer and reader of fiction, I'm a firm believer that something does not have to be historically accurate to be true. For example, I don't believe the world was made in six days or that Adam and Eve sprang up from the dust. Neither was there in all
likelihood a tree or a fruit or a serpent, but the story all these elements form part of is true - what we learn from it about God, about our world and about ourselves, remains entirely the same.

So, too, does the Dream of the Rood teach us truths even as it weaves a fantasy in-keeping with Britain in late antiquity. Christ's death and resurrection was a battle and one in which Christ himself was the victorious hero. The awful cross became the symbol of His church for a reason and so too is glorified by its terrible work.

How much does the historicity of Bible stories matter in your assessment of whether or not what they speak about is true? Can you imagine key stories, such as the crucifixion, told in new ways that reveal truths which might otherwise have been hidden in our age?