“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” 1 Corinthians 1:18
“For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 1:22-24
“And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” 1 Corinthians 2:1-2
“But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.” Galatians 6:14
“Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)” Philippians 3:17-19
Sailing to Byzantium 
Whatver your church’s reason or justification is, the Bible trumps it. #sorrynotsorry
If there’s no Cross on top that “house of worship” (whichever it may be)…you have to ask yourself, “Why?”
Crosses were not as idiosyncratic with Christian worship and practice in early Christianity as it is in modern Christianity. To state that there is no reason for not showing a cross on a building that professes to be Christian, one would only have to look at Christian history to see the contradiction to that claim.
Then there is a lot of negative baggage that goes along with crosses, as they were generally the symbol under which atrocities were committed throughout history (Crusades, colonization, genocide, etc…). While not in any way representing the Christian ideal, these negative acts were carried out under nominal Christian pretenses, and for some this is problematic.
But in my mind, the most persuasive, is that the cross represents death, suffering, and pain. The message of Christianity should be about life and not death. If Roman has used an axe instead of a cross, would you want an axe on your buildings?
And the cross used was not of the “t” construction that is used these days anyway. FWIW
So, that’d be an interesting argument except for everything in the Bible about the cross to the contrary.
Not really.
As I said, early Christians did not use the cross like modern 20th century Christians do. This is not really debatable, it is historical fact. What you need to ask yourself is why?
My brother and I have a long running argument about reading the Bible. I do not think most people should do it, he disagrees. My argument is that the Bible is a document from a time, place, culture, and theology that most people in the modern world have no familiarity with, and as such most will never understand it. Reading an ancient document without understanding the ancient world means that the document cannot be understood. He thinks that people will make the effort to understand it, but my experience has proven completely otherwise.
That being said, you can reference the Bible, but you need to do so with an understanding of the ancient world that produced the Bible, and the context in which the words were placed. If Early Christians did not use the cross as modern Christians do (which is historical fact), you should not reference the Bible as an explanation for the modern practices, since this does nothing to explain the lack of crosses in the ancient world.
Early Christians had Biblical texts just as you do, but they acted differently.
Why?
The disuse of the cross as a symbol is not the same thing as the rejection of the cross as a symbol.
You are conflating multiple issues. Using the cross as a metaphor does not in any way force the use as a physical representation, which is what you are doing. Early Christians choose to use other physical representations, which no one seems to know or understand. Kullervo cannot say “Whatver your church’s reason or justification is, the Bible trumps it” without an understanding of the Bible or history (and neither seems evident). Likewise your question “If there’s no Cross on top that “house of worship” (whichever it may be)…you have to ask yourself, “Why?”” has multiple answers that have a solid basis in Christian history, that you seem unaware even exists at all.
This is sloppy argumentation in a logical sense. In a Christian sense, it is shoddy study.
Joseph,
If we have an understanding of the ancient world without reference to the Bible it is easy to understand why you could think the cross represents death, suffering and pain.
This is all laid out in the Bible after all. The cross is a scandal to the Jew and the Greek for precisely what it represented in the Roman world.
The question is, should we measure the meaning of the cross by the standard of the ancient world with the Jew and the Greek (death, suffering and pain) or with Paul (the power of God)?
It really is a matter of hermeneutics, If Paul is correct that the cross is the power of God and it pleased God to save through the folly of the cross, there must be something more than death suffering and pain to be found in the cross. I think a good argument can be made that Paul thinks the cross is wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, redemption.
Gundek, I do not necessarily disagree with the metaphorical aspect you are discussing, but you need to explain why the physical representation is not as prevalent in Early Christian representations.
After all, these are the people who would have interacted with Paul directly.
I don’t think your case for early Christian use of the cross is as clear cut as you have presented. We know for instance that…
…there are the disputed crosses in Herculaneum and Pompeii. If they are liturgical crosses they would date pre-79.
…the earliest Christian New Testament manuscripts use the Tau Rho cross.
…there is very early manuscript (Epistle of Barnabas 80-120ish) evidence for the liturgical use of the Iota Chi cross.
…the earliest Church fathers described the cross as a Crux immissa (quadrilateral cross or a low tau cross).
… the Alexamenos graffito (late second early third century) shows that the Christian use of the cross was common enough by that time to be used as anti-Christian graffiti.
Leaving all of that behind what is really the point? Outside of so called restorationist religions who is trying to ignore 2000 years of Church history. The cross (of various forms) are commonly recognized symbols for the Christian Church today. Its common use is based precisely on the Christian theology of the cross Paul teaches in 1st Corinthians.
In all honesty, I don’t think there is an explicit command to use the cross as a symbol in architecture, liturgy, devotions or art. In fact I think there are pretty specific commands not to create images Jesus Christ, especially blond haired Jesus paintings. The fact is there are plenty of Churches that do not display crosses. The question is why?
If your answer is with Paul that the cross of Christ is the power, mercy and wisdom of God revealed, but that you don’t use symbols in worship then I think you have a sound theological basis for not displaying the cross.
If your most persuasive answer is with the Jew and the Greek that the cross represents death, suffering and pain, then I think your reasoning us theologically unsound.
Haven’t you just made my point? The opening point of the OP was “Why Rejecting the Cross as a Symbol is Stupid” and you have provided a number of reasons, including alternative symbology (which were not really crosses) that was historically used.
As for representations of suffering and death, the words of Paul are metaphorical. Had a guillotine been used instead of a cross, the metaphor would still hold valid and ultimately very little in the verse would need to be changed, but would you advocate a guillotine as symbology?
Certainly not.
Overall, I think there is a pretty big distinction between a system that rejects the use of any symbology in worship and a system where the cross is rejected because it represents death, suffering and pain. To be honest it really isn’t your position, no crosses on a building that is objectionable, its your argument.
You cannot simply dismiss Paul’s language as metaphorical. For Paul and Christianity something happened on and continues to happen because of what happened on the cross. Something beyond death, suffering and pain.
To your exact question, If the Lord can redeem the Roman cross I am sure he can redeem the French guillotine? I mean isn’t that Paul’s point? The Jew didn’t want a suffering messiah, they wanted a conquering king. The Greeks didn’t want the foolishness of an executed god, they wanted to wisdom of their philosophers. Same as today, some people don’t want the cross they want a blue eyed blond haired idol.
Except that the cross (the traditional lower case “t” conception) was not nearly as prevalent in Christianity. If Paul’s language was more than metaphorical, then early Christians had a strange way of showing it. As you, yourself pointed out, the crosses they used were not really like the Roman crosses, but neither was the “t” representation either. An actual Roman cross would have resembled a “T” but I have never seen a “T” hanging around someone’s neck.
Are you saying that you could see Churches with guillotines atop their spires?
I am not trying to be obtuse but I am have a hard time understanding what the theological objection is to a symbol changing over 2,000 years? I am wondering if you are confusing the symbol and the thing symbolized. Paul says that Christ crucified is the power and wisdom of God, not the symbolic representation.
Is it surprising that in a Greek culture the earliest symbols would be Greek monograms? Is it really surprising that as the Church grew these symbols would morph over time? Is it surprising that as the Church grew and developed its own architecture and art that the symbology would change? Was there even a purpose built church building in the first century (debatable)?
Is your test of worship practices really, “did the early church do it?”
Actual Roman crosses could be anything from a single pole to a tree. From the description in the Gospels (Matt 27:37) and by the early Church (Against Heresies, II, xxiv) there is every reason to believe that Christ was crucified on a “low tau” cross (t) and not “high tau” cross (T).
The cross is a much more hideous means of execution than the guillotine. If you only see death, suffering and pain when you see a cross then the guillotine should be preferable.
But all of this is besides the real point, even your guillotine question, because it is an aberrant theological view of the cross of Christ as death, suffering and pain that persuades you.
I would tend to agree, I certainly think religion should evolve, I think evolution is a sign of vibrant faith, but nothing above allows for this. The OP starts by saying “Why Rejecting the Cross as a Symbol is Stupid” and then continues in the comment section with “Whatver your church’s reason or justification is, the Bible trumps it. #sorrynotsorry”.”
This does not allow for evolution. What Paul was talking about, the people who Paul was talking to, and those individuals who had little to do with Paul but were Christian still, saw something different from the modern conception when the discussion of the Cross took place. When Kullervo says “Whatver your church’s reason or justification is, the Bible trumps it.” he is unaware that what the Bible is saying differs from the modern conception, yet is using the modern conception as a form of discrimination.
Kullervo was passing judgment on a physical representation that was not that idiosyncratic with early Christianity, nor was it used as a discriminator in the same period, and using a 20th century, ahistorical conception of the Bible to support the discriminator.
There are far more problems with this, most Protestant theology does not allow for evolution well (reference the Mishna discussion elsewhere).
I think you may be reading more into the original post than was intended, but it really doesn’t change the problem with your most persuasive reason for rejecting the cross.
Of course the Corinthian Church had completely different cultural baggage than a Christian today. That’s what makes your guillotine question absurd. It judges the symbol by the culture around it, while Paul is specifically rejecting both the Jewish and Greek ideas of wisdom.
How does Protestant theology not allow for evolution in symbols and development of theology?
You are opening more cans of worms here. Are you really sure Paul was rejecting Greek wisdom? or Jewish? That is going to bite you if you stick to it.
WRT the cross, it comes back to what I said. The OP is based entirely on symbology, which Kullervo does not seem to understand historically in and of itself, then calling others stupid for rejecting his chosen symbology, despite not understanding the historical or cultural context in which Paul was speaking.
If Kullervo saw an Early Christian Church without a cross, he might reject it on 20th century prejudices, which is sort of silly.
This is one reason I do not think most should read the Bible, any more than I think someone without background in Ancient China should try to understand the Tao Te Ching.
Paul was certainly rejecting the Greek and Jewish wisdom with respect to the reality brought by the cross of Christ, otherwise I think you are probably reading more into the post than was intended.
I didn’t read his 12 word comment as a detailed commentary on the ancient Churches us of specific ancient symbology.
Do you know why your Greek wisdom comment is problematic?
As for the 12 word commentary, I agree it did not consider ancient symbology. I do not think it could have considered ancient symbology, but shouldn’t one have some working knowledge of this subject matter before passing judgment based on an interpretation of an ancient text? After all, if we are talking symbology inherent in an ancient text, what is more relevant, the 20th century symbology, or the symbology inherent in the time period?
I think it would be an error to assume an ignorance of the subject from a 12 word comment.
Not really. I knew from the comments that the statement was based on poor historical understanding. Kullervo makes non-Christians out of the earliest Christians, precisely because they do not use the same symbology that a 21st century Protestant uses, and was backed up by TOA. If there is a more perfect example of historical disconnect, I am not aware of it.
You set the goalpost where you want them. The comment seemed to indicate the present but hey.
I reckon that I’m savvy enough to say precisely what I want to say.
Gundek, I am only referencing history. This is not a goalpost move, it is an interpretation of the verses given some historical understanding. You yourself provided evidence that the crosses used anciently are hardly the same used today. Why is that? Is it because Kullervo actually knew what he was doing and was disenfranchising the earliest Christians? If so, why? If he did not know, why not?
Kullervo, same questions?
Once more, in case you missed it the first time: the disuse of the cross as a symbol is not the same thing as the rejection of the cross as a symbol.
I don’t think rejection of the symbol is dumb, but it is a religious flaw that should be corrected.
The symbol of the cross means a lot more now than it did for Paul. If I was a Mormon, I could reject the cross on the reasonable grounds that the cross was also a symbol of errant doctrines and errant institutions. The advantage to rejecting the cross now is that it helps to continue to differentiate the church as the only true church.
But I think that rejecting the cross without an adequate replacement has left Mormon culture with a popular symbol deficit, which is a problem. There is no better symbol for Christ than the cross and the angel Moroni is too complex and awkward to put on a pendant. So LDS are left with a super-hero logo proclaiming how righteous they want themselves to be– the CTR ring. I think the CTR message is a good message, but LDS would do well to have something to instantly remind them of redemption.
Kullervo, I think your comment is slightly skewed. Early Christians were, by all accounts, far different from almost anything anyone would call Christian today. They were largely marginal Jews, who kept various aspects of the Mosaic Law, who blended Christianity and Judaism together into a mélange that you would likely find incomprehensible.
But they were Christians. Nascent Christians, but Christians all the same. And they had their pick of symbology, and the cross as it currently exists was not selected. They were aware of crosses, they were a part of the ancient world. They certainly had a choice.
Yet they went elsewhere. The theological connotations of the crucifixion are one thing, but taking those theological connotations and adopting them as symbology are another. The blood of Christ is a significant theological symbol throughout Christian history, but I know of no Christians who wear blood drops on necklaces around their necks (though the KKK uses them for some reason, I am not sure why, I am just aware that they have some utility in their symbology, though I cannot directly connect it with this subject, and never really felt the need to study it further).
The choice of symbology was readily available to early Christians and they chose something that was different from the majority of Christians now. I do not think you can so glibly dismiss the Christianity of anyone for not using your chosen symbol, anymore than I would approve of someone dismissing your faith because you did not use their chosen symbol.
Jared C, as for other symbols, why are they necessary at all in the first place? At some point shouldn’t we outgrow the need for outward symbology? I practice my particular faith by carrying around a very nice set of Muslim Prayer beads in my pocket at all times. I do think because I respect Islam greatly, they were a very nice gift, and I like to remember that I may not have a corner on religious truth, and should respect that I do not know everything about God. That to me is the best symbol I could carry, that of another faith entirely.
For all that, I do have a very nice set of carved Ethiopian crosses in an artistic setting on my wall, however.
Jared C, as for other symbols, why are they necessary at all in the first place? At some point shouldn’t we outgrow the need for outward symbology?
I don’t understand the bias toward internal private symbols over outward public symbols. It seems that outward symbols are more effective in a lot of ways.
Jared,
Doesn’t the Pauline theology of the cross allow Christ’s Church to ignore past errant doctrines and errant institutions with respect to the cross?
Joseph,
The blood of Christ is a significant part of the Eucharist. No need for necklaces.
Doesn’t the Pauline theology of the cross allow Christ’s Church to ignore past errant doctrines and errant institutions with respect to the cross?
I think that the abandonment of the cross symbol is coincident with ignoring Pauline theology. I suppose that might be part of Kullervo’s point in calling rejection of the cross as stupid.
Jared, private symbols are exactly that. Individual reminders. Public symbols too often become sources of discrimination, as in the case of Kullervo’s ahistorical attempt above.
Consider the “Nun” in the post Kullervo made entitled “#WeAreN”. It is an attempt to show solidarity for Christians in the Middle East. There is nothing really wrong with this. I used to be fluent in Arabic, it has gotten worse in the past decade since I have not practiced, but I have never heard or seen Christians referred to with a Nun. It was always المسيحيين. This is not big deal, but it is the solidarity I find somewhat disingenuous.
Middle Eastern Christians are something foreign to most Westerners. As intolerant as Muslims are accused of being, the truth is Islam has been good for a lot of Christians (and Jews for that matter). Christians that were completely unwelcome in the West because they were heretical, were welcomed in Middle Eastern lands, because the Muslims had no investment if they were heretical or not, they really did not care. So it is odd that many of the people (not necessarily putting Kullervo into this category) who are proudly displaying the “#WeAreN” as a form of solidarity would be saying “They (Middle Eastern Christians) are not REAL Christians” should the same people be living next door in America, in part because their symbology is different (the horror!!!).
That a different group may use a different symbol is usually a source of prejudice more often than not. Individual symbols are based around reminding that individual, which is more in line with the spirit of the symbology in the first place.
The sad fact is, Kullervo’s comment is indicative of most Protestant thinking, which is woefully uninformed by serious historical study. There is an old Catholic joke that to be ignorant of history is to be Protestant. It is certainly unkind, but also contains a kernel of truth. The discussion of the abandonment of Pauline theology is unfortunately laced with the similar abandonment of Jamesian theology, inherent in the embrace of the Pauline. Most Christians are completely unaware of the James/Paul divide, or that there is decent evidence that there may have even been an actual fistfight between the two (heavens forbid Apostles not get along). The Bible itself is a woefully incomplete compilation that does nothing to really explain the rather chaotic environment that gave birth to the individual tomes themselves. This is why study is not only necessary, it is vital. It is also why blanket comments, like the OP by Kullervo, are worse than saying nothing at all.
Jacob Abraham,
You raise an interesting point in mentioning “spirit of symbology” but I think you have it somewhat backwards. It seems to me that the spirit of symbology is about communication of complex ideas between people. Having a common grasp of symbols is the foundation of human communication and, indeed, religion and civilization.
Public symbols invoke what they represent regardless of the sincerity of those that bear the symbol. Likewise, adopting the symbol of the condemned is an act of camaraderie regardless of how sincere.
For the rationally bent Christian, rejecting the cross as a symbol, especially if Paul used it, requires a reasoned justification. Just as rejecting Paul’s teaching would require justification, regardless of his disagreements with other apostles.
I think Mormons have reasons for not strictly following Paul’s theology, but rejection of the cross seems to be unnecessary iconoclasm that was part of a discrediting of Paul-based Christianity (i.e. Protestantism) within Mormonism.
You have some basis in that there are usually tools of education contained in some symbols, stained glass windows were often used for this purpose in the Middle Ages, but the idiosyncratic symbology is hardly that educational.
I am trying to think of a really idiosyncratic symbol of a Semitic faith that could mirror the cross, but I cannot think of one. The Islamic crescent is more of a reaction to having some symbol, and most mosques I am aware of have little symbology. Most Synagogues/Temples in Judaism, are also influenced by Churches and will display a Star of David, but even Stars of David are really secondary to some sort of 10 Commandments reference to the Torah in most architecture, which is really the more important feature, but that is nothing you would put on a pendant (though I have occasionally seen a Torah scroll pendant).
I think rejecting the cross as a symbol is easy. It is not that historical. It was adopted by those enforcing a later “orthodox” interpretation, but amongst the earliest Christians it was not that important of a symbol. This makes the later insistence of using it as a litmus test for purity more indicative of how fall Christianity has fallen from its roots, IMO. Not in terms of the symbol used, but the failure to even understand what those roots are in the first place.
As for Paul based theology, it is an odd statement in and of itself. I would rather state that the Protestant overuse of Paul is itself a deviation from a consideration of the whole (after all Paul and James notably disagreed and by some accounts loathed each other, and Martin Luther wanted the book of James removed from the Canon).
I agree that the use of the cross is a petty theological-purity indicator, and I don’t believe that theological purity is required by Christianity, But rejection of the cross is not an act of solidarity or brotherhood with most of Christianity, no matter how the trunk has grown from the roots. Rhetoric that rejects the cross also distances the believer from Paul’s imagery and the theology it represents.
Also, if James and Paul were actually at odds in their theology, then choosing one over the other might be needed in order to create a common theology. The logic being, that if there was conflict among the roots it should be arbitrated in order to avoid conflict among the branches.
Given the history you point out, Protestant arguments can be seen as a continuation of Paul’s arguments against James. Protestants want to use reason and the tradition of scripture as the arbitrator in determining which apostle’s view should be dominant. That approach might require justification in itself, but seems to be a reasonable direction to take.
The LDS approach to deciding these sorts of questions by revelation requires a lot of trust in the person proclaimed to be a seer and a demonstrably false belief that consensus among the anointed must occur. The conflict between Paul and James is the perfect example of a disagreement that could not be resolved by a simple appeal to the authority of revelation.
What is it about the cross that makes it a petty theological purity indicator? It is used by everybody from Coptics to Pentecostals and seems to transcend most theological differences.
It is “petty” because the cross as a symbol does not seem to be critical or important to practicing Christianity. Acceptance of the cross as a symbol of Christ is easy regardless of a person’s theology, and rejection of or disuse of the cross as a symbol does not necessarily indicate lack of Christianity. Traditional orthodox theology does not require the acceptance of the cross as a symbol. (Does it?)
I guess I should have reworded my question, how is the cross both petty and a purity indicator?
I tend to the more Protestant view that the person and work of Christ is what is important. The acceptance or rejection of a particular symbol says more about a person’s theology than their acceptance of Christ as the sole cause of salvation.
Maintaining the distinction that Kulervo has of rejection and disuse and as I said earlier a group that doesn’t use symbols as a practice because they are not specifically commanded really is no more or less a Christian. But I don’t find their reasoning petty.
A theology that rejects the cross because it is an instrument of death, pain, and suffering is sadly deficient or at least poorly informed of how important the theology of the cross is to the Church.
As Ignatius of Antioch says “My spirit bows in adoration to the cross, which is a stumbling-block to those who do not believe, but is to you for salvation and eternal life.”
I think that the argument against use of the cross as a purity indicator is that the cross is only a symbol. Just as “Jehovah” is only a name, despite the history of its veneration.
Some who believe in Christ believe that the specific name for God is critical and veneration of the name shows whether you are true believer. Others, believe that the name doesn’t matter much and that which is behind the symbol is all that matters.
They clearly have literary, psychological, and social power, in part because of their historical prestige, but logic does not demand their use, and their origin or historical use is irrelevant to their current public meaning or importance. This is why Mormon rejection of the cross can be seen as a part of its wholesale rejection of traditional theology.
I recognize that many believe that religious names and symbols have essential (supernatural?) power or authority. Of course, whether this position is tenable depends on whether a magical worldview is tenable.
Jared, you have made an interesting comment. You said “rejection of the cross is not an act of solidarity or brotherhood with most of Christianity, no matter how the trunk has grown from the roots”
Why?
The whole error with Kullervo’s comments is that they were made in the clear absence of historical understanding. Early Christians, those actually closest to Christ, the Apostles, and their direct spiritual descendants, used different symbology.
Your comment is that this does not matter. That is odd. Why not? Is it that important to be part of the “club” that one has to adopt the symbology of others?
Also, you seem to believe that disuse of the symbol (you say rejection, but I think that is unnecessarily editorialized) is a turn away from Pauline theology.
I am not sure this is justified either.
Lastly, out of time, you seem to believe that one must choose Paul or James. I do not follow…?
I wish you would quit talking about my “absence of historical understanding.” I am perfectly aware that the cross as a symbol was not generally in use by Christians during the first few centuries, and I have not at any time claimed otherwise.
Your argument is that because the origin of the cross is not OC (Original Christian) then it does not carry real weight or meaning as a Christian symbol. This is a sort of genetic fallacy.
Your logic doesn’t work because symbols do not work that way. Their historical meaning is nearly irrelevant to their current meaning, just as burning the current U.S. Flag wouldn’t mean much of anything to the original revolutionaries, but today, the act is clear protest against the current United States.
History shows that the cross has grown to have enormous meaning within Christianity, and is currently the de facto standard of the Christian faith to adherents and non-adherents alike. How a person or group accepts or rejects the cross is meaningful in this context, regardless of the early Christian history. Its rejection can be reasonably seen as a rejection of the faith that the cross represents. (And to large degree, the Mormon narrative that rejects the cross is just that, pointing out how wrong-headed other Christians are in their theology and symbolism.)
Lastly, out of time, you seem to believe that one must choose Paul or James.
Apparently, if Paul and James were in fact fist fighting, they felt some sort of choice between what they stood for was proper. I personally don’t think you need to choose between them, but its not unreasonable to think that one should determine which ideology to focus on.
Also, you seem to believe that disuse of the symbol (you say rejection, but I think that is unnecessarily editorialized) is a turn away from Pauline theology.
I don’t believe disuse of the cross signifies rejection of Pauline theology, but a rejection of the cross could reasonable be seen as a rejection of the Pauline theology it represents.
Kullervo, it does not appear that you were excluding early Christians who did not use the cross from your condemnation of those who chose different symbology. In fact, the comments you made seem to be a blanket condemnation without any hint of exclusion of any group whatsoever. I do not think this was intentional, but it exists nonetheless.
Jared, The problem with Kullervo’s comments is the condemnation. If in 200 years Christians take the symbol of the palm leaf, that is simple evolution. It happens all of the time. If those same people then use the lack of a palm leaf to discriminate, that is ahistorical prejudice. The time period is relatively irrelevant. It could be 200 years or 2000. The simple fact is that Kullervo is using the cross as a symbol of prejudice, a tool to discriminate. This is ethically wrong, likely morally wrong as well.
The issue of Pauline theology is far more complex. First, you would need to define Pauline, which is not really that easy.
Jared
You are just too “D-U-M” to understand.
Gundek, you realize that your statement is unnecessarily inflammatory, and more likely an effort to avoid addressing difficult issues than it is something I actually said?
Given how concerned you are about gundek not engaging with every point you make, it’s funny that you’re really not engaging with my actual position at all, and how insistent you are that you know what I am saying better than I do.
Was my comment any more inflammatory than your unwillingness to engage with Paul’s use of “Cross” terminology? This is a blog no one expects a thesis but at the most basic, Paul’s letters have the most references to the cross.
Then how do your comments account for the fact that the cross was not the dominant symbol of Christianity in early Christian circles?
When you say “Whatver your church’s reason or justification is, the Bible trumps it.” how do you account for the fact that the Bible did not exist for decades to centuries after the first Christians (really centuries), therefore you are using a document to discriminate which did not even exist at the time?
I see nothing in your comments that would allow for this.
I’ll point out that my OP consisted of only a title (which I composed) and five quotations (which Paul composed). And then I suppose the first comment as well. But that’s pretty sparse, and you’ve managed to read an awful lot into it that I did not in fact say and that does not in fact necessarily follow from what I did say.
I am not unwilling at all. I am pointing to the hole. As you say,
“Paul’s letters have the most references to the cross”
so why do early Christians NOT use the Cross more?
This is your argument, please explain.
The disuse of the cross as a symbol is not the same thing as the rejection of the cross as a symbol.
Paul’s letters ot the Corinthians, Galatians and Philippians didn’t exist for centuries? Because that’s what we’re actually talking about here.
But let’s say you’re actually right, and not only did the first-century Christians reject the cross as a symbol because of the negative baggage that goes along with crosses, but the Pauline epistles (whoever wrote them) were not actually written until, oh, I don’t know, say the high middle ages.
Even then, the first-century Christians’ reasons for rejecting the cross as a symbol would most absolutely be trumped by the word of God.
And how is that discrimination?
Let’s look at this logically.
You said “Why Rejecting the Cross as a Symbol is Stupid”
People who reject the Cross as a symbol are stupid.
Early Christians, who well knew what a Cross was, rejected it, in that they had options and decided to use other symbols.
Therefore, by your comments, these Christians, who knew/lived/walked/talked/ate with/were taught by the Apostles are stupid.
I simply pointed out that you might not want to make that argument, but apparently you do.
Early Christians well knew what a Cross was, they saw it a LOT (historical fact), so it is not like they were unaware of the possibility. Yet they went elsewhere.
Why?
The Pauline Epistles did not sway this symbol acceptance.
Why?
Is your definition of Pauline theology even accurate?
Okay.
Yep.
Nope. That does not follow. I thought we were looking at this logically.
That’s silly. You’re imputing a considered rejection that doesn’t actually exist. Using the cross as a physical symbol may simply not have occurred to them–I’m not asserting that’s the case, just saying that the disuse of the cross as a symbol is not the same thing as the rejection of the cross as a symbol.
But even if you’re right and at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, right after they got done deliberating the applicability of the Law of Moses to Gentile converts to Christianity, they also deliberated the use of physical symbols, considered the cross, argued for and against its use, and decided to reject it.
Let’s say that actually happened. In that case, I am in fact saying that (1) rejecting the cross was stupid and (2) whatever their reasons were, they are trumped by God’s word.
Nope. That does not follow. I thought we were looking at this logically.
Fortunately, that’s not actually an argument I am making here.
Hmm, I’m looking for where I defined Pauline theology upthread and I’m having trouble finding it. Link please?
So when you say “Why Rejecting the Cross as a Symbol is Stupid” you are NOT saying that people who reject the Cross as a symbol are stupid….?
How does that follow?
Second part.
Were early Christians familiar with the fact that Jesus was crucified?
Were the citizens of the Roman Republic familiar with one of the most common forms of Roman execution?
Second question, what is God’s Word, specifically?
Think about it. It’ll come to you.
Ahhhh, and now we’re there. This is it. This is your real problem.
It is your argument…? If you cannot explain it….?
I am not sure it is my problem, at least not in the way you think. You have a 21st century conception of Christianity, and of the Bible, symbology, and just about everything else. This is, as described, a terrible way to approach a Semitic faith that is millennia old. Much like Fazlur Rahman, one must go back to come forward.
You seem to know an awful lot about my conceptions of everything based on an extremely limited interaction.
I have scanned your blog, it seems a reasonable conclusion. As in this thread, you did not know early Christians did not use Crosses a lot, you are not that familiar with Christian symbology, and I am not sure you are that familiar with the issues involving the Bible. This is consistent with the modern Protestant POV.
A conclusion based on what? You “scanned my blog?” That means what, you scrolled down a bit? Come on now, I’ve been writing this blog for seven years. I have over 500 posts, not counting the ones I’ve gone back and deleted for various reasons. But you “scanned” it and came to all these conclusions?
Who says? That’s an assumption you made. And I thought I clarified it earlier.
Wait, what? What are you basing that on? Again, that’s an assumption, not something I’ve actually demonstrated. The fact that you think that my argument can only conceivably be made by someone who does not know that early Christians did not use crosses a lot and is not that familiar with Christian symbology doesn’t make it so.
Again, what? How do you come to that conclusion? You’re assuming again.
Whose modern Protestant POV?
So, in mid September, after you state that people who do not use the cross are stupid and state “sorrynotsorry” and after a lot of posting that showed that early Christians used a cornucopia of different symbologies, you state that you knew this all along, even though it never seems to occur in your argument until that point.
I am sorry, but it appears to be a ruse to escape from the ahistorical argument you made in early in August.
And the sad fact is, if you HAD studied actual symbology in early Christianity, you might have found that the Christian world is a wonderfully diverse place. There are sects and groups that no longer exist that were, and still are, fascinating. There is history that is wonderfully complex, contradictory, and very, very messy.
Your problem is that you see this as a polemic. It is an opportunity to explore a deep tradition.
The reason it never seems to occur in my argument is because, as I keep telling you over and over again, it is not relevant to my argument.
Yes, I get that you think that.
Nevertheless, to most, the fact that you would call those who rejected the cross as a symbol stupid, when most of the early Christian world rejected the cross as a symbol, does seem to matter.
Most? Who’s most? You?
Sigh. No I didn’t.
The disuse of the cross as a symbol is not the same thing as the rejection of the cross as a symbol.
But again, as I spelled out for you pretty clearly, even if it is the same thing, and even if most of the early Christian world did in fact reject the cross as a symbol, they were wrong to do so, and their imaginary reasons, whatever they were, were bad reasons.
PS you’re shifting the goalposts again. Put them back. kthx.
Joseph,
I have already said that the use of the cross was not nearly as uncommon as you have implied, offering a number of examples.
I tend to think that the use of cross symbolgy in manuscripts, for the first century is probably the most important evidence that a rejection based on the perception of the cross being death, pain and suffering misses how the earliest Christians understood the cross.
I think the writings of the ECF support this.
I have no doubt that you both honestly think that the goalposts have been moved on you, and this is part of the problem. The “goalposts” are where they have always been, you just don’t seem to have been aware of it.
For example, you have said, “The disuse of the cross as a symbol is not the same thing as the rejection of the cross as a symbol.”
This is not necessarily true. As I asked…
Were early Christians familiar with the fact that Jesus was crucified?
Were the citizens of the Roman Republic familiar with one of the most common forms of Roman execution?
The answer to both questions is undoubtedly Yes. Everyone in the Ancient world knew what a cross was, the Roman has been using them for a while. Likewise, the early Christians knew Christ was crucified. Nevertheless, they chose something else to represent them.
This is all factually accurate, and it is an undoubted rejection. But you have not addressed it at all. You seem to want to pretend it does not exist. This is not moving the goalpost, it is a goalpost you did not know existed.
And I am sure that the earliest Christians would be completely indifferent to the fact that you dislike their choice of symbology. An American, living in a culture, time, language, and geography that could not be more different from their lives is likely to not matter to them at all, any more than your disagreement with Confucian beliefs would really matter at all.
And that is the point in general. Armchair Christian quarterbacking is rather silly.
Gundek, do you have some substantiating evidence? Link?
First i think you should understand that you are the only person who has interpreted this post as a commentary of first century symbolism.
Yes it is factually accurate that the early church was aware of the cross and the crucifixion of Christ. It does not follow that the choice of any other symbol is a rejection of the cross. Much in the same way the modern use of the ichthys is not a rejection of the cross.
Your most persuasive reason to reject the cross is its represenstation of pain death and suffering. A review of the Pauline writing or the early fathers writings directly counter this argument. Pain death and suffering is just unsupported as an explanation for the early church understanding of the cross
My sources are “Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins” and the first two volumes of the ANCF
I agree I may be the only person who interpreted it as a comment on first century symbolism. This is part of the problem. Kullervo did not actually consider history before commenting, showed no familiarity with the history, but then claimed knowledge once it was pointed out. All of this should be kind of awkward.
How does it not follow that when early Christians knew of the crucifixion, knew of the cross as a potential symbol, and then decided to use something else, it is not a logical decision to use something else…?
If I am at Baskin Robbins, and look at the selection, then decide to buy chocolate, I am clearly making a decision that in my case chocolate is superior to all other choices. You might want to consider why…?
The sad fact is, Christianity as it was, shows little resemblance to Christianity as it is, and this SHOULD be a problem. It is not for several reasons, the most glaring of which is that too few know the problem exists.
Before you accuse me of calling you “d-u-m” you might want to consider that you actually have some historical books, but you cannot use them without plagiarizing. This means you have done a little research, but not a lot. This simply means you should study more.
As for your sources, could you provide a direct citation?
The Christian faith hinges upon the Cross of Christ and it’s accompany forgiveness of sins for the ungodly.
“We preach Christ crucified.”
If believers reject the Cross as symbolism, it means that the Cross was not enough. Then the whole thing turns into a project around ‘the self’. Not that many Christian churches that use the Cross as a symbol don’t do that anyway.
But without the Cross…one doesn’t have a chance. It will be one big religious project of self-ascendancy. As is a picture of the Mormon religion. I won’t dignify it by calling it a church.
It doesn’t follow because you have not shown a connection between any lack of the use of the cross to the rejection of the cross. You have put the cart before the horse by assuming that other symbols represent a rejection of the cross.
The earliest writers of the Church (please see disclaimer below) did not write about the cross as death, suffering and pain as we see from Paul and other ECF. If you could show Mark, Matthew, John, Luke, Paul, Jude, Peter, James, Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, or Clement of Alexandria specifically rejecting the symbolic representation of the cross based on suffering, death, and pain then there would be some evidence to support your conclusion.
Otherwise you have the common adoption of a symbol that represents an important historic and theological claim of Christianity in the middle of the second century and nothing more.
The idea that 21st century Christianity is not going to be different from 1st century Christianity seems, well, naive.
It is my understanding that what I have posted above is basic knowledge to someone who has read basic Christian Church History or a high school intro to Christian History at least in the Justo Gonzalez style. I make no claims that any of this is my own research, scholarship, or the product of any research or scholarship that I have participated in. The lack of proper citations comes from the media being used (a blog comment) and my own laziness. Any errors are completely my own.
There is a simple problem you are continuing to avoid.
Early Christians knew what a cross was.
Early Christians picked a different symbol for their faith.
How is this anything but an assessment of potential symbology and a decision to go elsewhere?
Well, because the mere knowledge that something exists is not the same thing as assessment of its symbological utility. You are failing to connect the dots.
Effectively, you’re suggesting that early Christians assessed all concevable objects known to them and considered the symbological utility of every conceivable object individually before affirmatively rejecting all all concevable objects known to them (other than the symbols they chose) as symbologically unsuitable.
Because that’s not only a completely untenable position; it’s just utterly absurd.
Elephants were known in the ancient world. Are you suggesting that early Christians deliberately assessed the symbological utility of the elephant, and, having decided for one of more particular reasons that it was unsuitable, rejected it?
The aqueduct? The chiton? The jerboa? Phlegm?
Unless you’re prepared to give positive evidence that early Christians considered using the cross as a symbol but then decided against it for considered reasons, you can stop asserting that they did as if it was somehow a logical tautology.
And even if you could produce such evidence, it still doesn’t render my initial post somehow historically illiterate, because I would still say that, if early Christians did in fact reject the cross as a symbol, their reasons were bad reasons.
We’re not actually obligated to operate on the presumption that the early church was someohow more correct or more true. That’s a restorationist assumption and not somehow self-evident.
Unfortunately there is a lot you are missing in your argument. The comment “The aqueduct? The chiton? The jerboa? Phlegm?” is clearly reducto absurdum, so I cannot imagine you are unaware of the problem. Nevertheless appeals to logical fallacies is far more problematic than you likely recognize.
The cross was not just some passing thing. Jesus was crucified. Two of the Apostles were crucified. More Christians were crucified. To compare the cross as a symbol in early Christianity to “The aqueduct? The chiton? The jerboa? Phlegm?” is just plain silly, but I think you know that.
The cross was a very prevalent symbol, one that was central to the Christian story and experience, so it is not as if it was just anything.
Yet it was not used.
Why was a symbol so central to the faith, to the story, to the experience of early Christianity not used as a self identifier?
Because no one wanted to. It is simple history, simple understanding of the Roman world, simple logic. No one wanted to identify with an instrument of death and persecution. The same verses you used to reference to Paul were available in some form to early Christians, yet they read it differently than a 21st century Evangelical Protestant, hardly surprising, and came to different conclusions.
This is the problem with your whole line of reasoning, it is absent historical basis. As I said to Jared, symbols can certainly evolve, this is somewhat natural, but to use a popular 21st century as a discriminator, without understanding history, is not only silly, it is prejudiced. But this is precisely what you have done.
And for your reasoning to have legs, all you need to do is show the actual rejection of the cross as a symbol in the early church rather than a gradual adoption of the cross as Christianity became more stability within the Roman Empire.
And again your comment is completely ahistorical. And oddly, this is the entire point. Early Christians could never have outright rejected the cross as a symbol, because it never would have occurred them to use it as a symbol. The symbol itself was so anathema to their belief system, and so disregarded in the culture of the time, that it would have been unthinkable to even consider it, which is why Kullervo’s argument fails so badly.
Kullervo’s implicit argument is that it is stupid for contemporary Christians to reject the cross as a Christian symbol because Paul explicitly used the cross as a symbol in his writing. (Thus the cross was obviously part of the early christian symbology, even though pictogram of a cross was not used until later.) In addition, since Paul’s writings, the cross has become the preeminent symbol for Christianity.
Joseph Abraham argues that this is wrong because it is not stupid to reject a symbol not used by earliest Christians (who apparently did not use the pictogram cross as symbol.)
However, it seems the only history that matters in the discussion is the history of the development of the cross as a symbol for the Christian faith.
Rejection of the cross as a symbol makes perfect sense if you want to also reject the church(es) that grew out of Paul’s writings which eventually began using the cross/crucifix as their symbol. Kullervo’s argument depends on his implicit thesis that this sort of rejection is also stupid.
Joseph Abraham seems to disagree with this thesis, and seems to think that it is completely reasonable to reject any symbol not used by the earliest Christians. However, this assumes it is reasonable to reject the symbol almost universally used to denote Christianity.
The force of Kullervo’s argument depends on the validity of the decisions by later Christians to adopt the cross as their symbol. Joseph Abraham’s depends on their invalidity. Either thesis seems to demand plenty of justification.
Joseph Abraham,
Not to startle you but you just used Kullervo’s argument that you cannot reject a symbol you have not adopted.
How do you explain the historic reality that the Cross was just as anathema to the Roman in the Second Century as the First and the regular liturgical use of the cross in the Second Century?
I’m glad you pointed out; I didn’t want to look tacky.
That’s a quote from the other thread. You might want to pay closer attention to what is being discussed where.
But what I want to say is this: Discrimination? Prejudice? That’s absurd. Only if you define them so broadly that they begin to lose any meaning.
But as I said over in the other thread, I’m talking about knowing and worshipping the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent. The fact that you don’t seem to think that He exists basically renders your criticism about discrimination and prejudice irrelevant.