In an earlier post, I referred to the cross as a symbol, and was challenged for making it a "mere symbol." Symbols are important, but not so important as what they stand for. The cross as a symbol is less important than the event of which it reminds us.

My preparation for preaching for last night's (Tuesday in Holy Week) liturgy led me to read the essay on "Symbols" in "Encyclopedia of Christianity" (John Bowen, ed. OUP 2005). I had long been aware that the cross was not the most important symbol in use in the early church. What I read was that there are no undisputed uses of the cross as a public symbol before Constantine's use of the cross as his emblem. Before that time, Christian iconography was dominated by seven symbols:

    Dove
    Lamb
    Vine
    Winepress
    Anchor
    Boat
    Fish (including the Greek acrostic ICHTHUS.)

As Paul makes clear in 1 Cor 1:18-31 (last night's epistle), the cross was scandal and folly, a symbol of shameful death in Roman culture. The other symbols have more positive associations, and deeper roots in the Hebrew scriptures. Paul's concern in the passage is not so much with the cross as symbol, but with the crucifixion and its effects: Holy wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. We proclaim Christ crucified, not to exalt an instrument of shame, but to rejoice in what God accomplished through this vile human act.

John Calvin wanted to rid churches of all crosses, a reform which persists in some Protestant churches. Was he right? I have a crucifix in my office, not a medieval-style Christ in agony, but a Risen Christ figure, with Christ in priestly garb. I look at it, and rejoice in God's victory. I would not wish to part with it, but far less would I wish to part with the story behind it.