non-essential
Various people have been commenting on the British Airways action against Nadia Eweida, an employee who refused to cover up the cross she was wearing.
The Barnabas Fund is one group who have pointed out the inconsistency in BA's policy - they disallow visible crosses since there's no biblical requirement to wear one, whereas hijabs are acceptable, even though not all Muslims themselves are agreed as to whether it should actually be compulsory.
The Barnabas article also gives examples of crosses as targets for violence and destruction in some parts of the world, saying that 'those who persecute Christians are very aware of the significance of the cross as symbolising the Christian faith,' and that 'in the Christian faith the cross is a symbol of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, God incarnate, and his resurrection, to take away the sins of the world, that is, a symbol of the most central doctrines of Christianity.'
This might well have something to do with my personal background, but, although the cross is indeed a symbol of Christ's sacrificial death, I don't think I'd feel very comfortable wearing a physical representation of it. Crucifixes are out of the question for other reasons, but I've always understood crosses to somehow trivialise what actually took place at Calvary, and, in spite of the Barnabas claim that they symbolise his resurrection as well as his death, they seem to focus too much attention on the Redeemer's state of humiliation, without being able to convey either the success of his work on the cross or what you might call the glory of his humiliation, even at its lowest point.
The obvious response to what I've just said would be that we're meant to boast in the cross, and little silver crosses around your neck (and large wooden crosses inside churches) are one way of doing that. But there's a quote at the back of my mind by some Reformed writer to the effect that you wouldn't want to wear something that symbolised the Saviour's greatest shame and disgrace, and the cruelty and wickedness of the people responsible for killing him - like celebrating the pistol that was used to murder one of your closest family members. It's not his sufferings in themselves that constitute his atoning sacrifice, it's what he was doing when he suffered, which is what you run the risk of overlooking, I think, when a cross is the symbol for your Christianity.
Having said all that, in the situation with BA and their employee, I think I'd still want to come down on the side of the employee - if Sikhs and Muslims are able to override the dress code in order to express their religious identity, it doesn't make sense not to allow different (and admittedly mainstream) varieties of Christians the same leeway, even if it's not a freedom I'd want to take advantage of personally. Is that a consistent position to hold?
The Barnabas Fund is one group who have pointed out the inconsistency in BA's policy - they disallow visible crosses since there's no biblical requirement to wear one, whereas hijabs are acceptable, even though not all Muslims themselves are agreed as to whether it should actually be compulsory.
The Barnabas article also gives examples of crosses as targets for violence and destruction in some parts of the world, saying that 'those who persecute Christians are very aware of the significance of the cross as symbolising the Christian faith,' and that 'in the Christian faith the cross is a symbol of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, God incarnate, and his resurrection, to take away the sins of the world, that is, a symbol of the most central doctrines of Christianity.'
This might well have something to do with my personal background, but, although the cross is indeed a symbol of Christ's sacrificial death, I don't think I'd feel very comfortable wearing a physical representation of it. Crucifixes are out of the question for other reasons, but I've always understood crosses to somehow trivialise what actually took place at Calvary, and, in spite of the Barnabas claim that they symbolise his resurrection as well as his death, they seem to focus too much attention on the Redeemer's state of humiliation, without being able to convey either the success of his work on the cross or what you might call the glory of his humiliation, even at its lowest point.
The obvious response to what I've just said would be that we're meant to boast in the cross, and little silver crosses around your neck (and large wooden crosses inside churches) are one way of doing that. But there's a quote at the back of my mind by some Reformed writer to the effect that you wouldn't want to wear something that symbolised the Saviour's greatest shame and disgrace, and the cruelty and wickedness of the people responsible for killing him - like celebrating the pistol that was used to murder one of your closest family members. It's not his sufferings in themselves that constitute his atoning sacrifice, it's what he was doing when he suffered, which is what you run the risk of overlooking, I think, when a cross is the symbol for your Christianity.
Having said all that, in the situation with BA and their employee, I think I'd still want to come down on the side of the employee - if Sikhs and Muslims are able to override the dress code in order to express their religious identity, it doesn't make sense not to allow different (and admittedly mainstream) varieties of Christians the same leeway, even if it's not a freedom I'd want to take advantage of personally. Is that a consistent position to hold?
posted by cath at
10:58 pm
7 Comments:
I thought that the non-use of the cross by Scottish Presbyterians was more to do with not using symbols at all for fear of idolatry - i.e. they were all removed after the Reformation (when did the "Burning Bush" come in? - I note the FPs of Scotland don't use it). Later also came the knowledge that the cross was a pre-Christian idolatrous symbol, and also the suggestion that the cross was not used as a visual symbol by the earliest Christians.
By the way, with regard to non-use of symbols, I remember years ago asking one of the MacAskill brothers about the early APC logo which had an arc above the letters APC. I asked whether it represented a sunrise or something and he said "Oh no it's just a shape, our denomination doesn't use religious symbols", or something to that effect. Not having spent much time around FPs in my growing up years I hadn't really thought about this before.
By
PeterinScotland, at 12:09 pm
Hey peter, i think you're right, i should have mentioned the idolatry issue at some point.
i have no idea about the burning bush, it puzzles me i have to admit.
do you have any thoughts on the fish symbol?
sorry i haven't replied any sooner btw - communions this weekend and it's been pretty busy.
If richard is reading this, i'll try and get back to you once i've had another wee think.
By
cath, at 11:55 am
I think the burning bush is meant to be an emblem of the Church - and would be less likely therefore to have significance that could become superstitious. I don't think it's necessary or a particularly good idea to overuse it though. There is a fairly helpful article on its history at
http://www.presbyterianireland.org/about/bush1.html
Probably the best contemporary article I have seen opposing the use of the symbol of the cross is by Maclolm Watts at www.emmanuel-salisbury.corg.uk. They used to have a huge cross above the pulpit but it was removed so he obviously had to come to a real conviction on it. Here it is (sorry for the length)
INAPPROPRIATE USE OF THE CROSS OF CHRIST
By Malcolm H. Watts.
In the New Testament, the word 'cross' invariably refers to the instrument on which Jesus Christ suffered death. The Greek word properly signifies a stake, or upright pole; but the Romans modified this form of punishment and scholars have therefore found it difficult to determine the precise form of our Lord's cross. It is possible that he was nailed to a simple stake (the crux simplex), but it is more likely that he died on a stake with a transverse beam near its top (the crux immissa). There is nothing in the Gospels to enable us to determine this matter with certainty, although Christ's 'accusation' fixed 'over his head' may suggest a projection above the horizontal beam (Matt 27:37). What we do know is that the more elaborate cross, consisting of two pieces of wood, was in general use in the first century and, certainly, the ancient voice of tradition is in favour of it. Justin Martyr (Ad 110-165), one of the earliest of our Christian writers, testifies to the fact that this was the form employed. In a description of Christ's crucifixion, he says: 'the one beam is placed upright...the other beam is fitted on to it'.
The idolatrous Church of Rome has made a sacred symbol of the Cross. In Romish churches, crosses are set up and the faithful are encouraged to kiss them and to bow the head and bend the knee before them. Historically, Protestants have shunned all use of material crosses; but nowadays it not uncommon to find them on Protestant church buildings and even within those buildings, set up before the congregation. It is also becoming increasingly fashionable to wear a cross on a badge, broach, or necklace. This is to be deplored and for the following reasons:
First of all, crosses are images and the Law of God strictly forbids the use of images: 'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image...' (Exodus 20:4). Accordingly, the images of the Canaanites were destroyed by fire and even the silver and gold from them was not kept because it would prove a snare to God's people and lead to their destruction (Deut 7:25-26). 'Little children, keep yourselves from idols' (1 Jn 5:21).
Secondly, the cross as a symbol has its origin in Paganism, not Christianity. Long before the coming of Christ, it was a common Heathen symbol almost universally adored. It is to be found among Egyptian and Assyrian remains; and, perhaps even more significantly, it is known to have been venerated by the Babylonians as the initial T of Tammuz, one of their gods. In Pagan Rome, it appeared on standards and coins, and the Vestal Virgins of Rome wore it suspended from their necklaces. 'Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen' (Jer 10:2).
Thirdly, even if claimed as a specially Christian sign, there are inherent dangers with a material cross. Remember the Brazen Serpent. It too had sacred associations; but because the people regarded it superstitiously, Hezekiah 'brake (it) in pieces' (2 Kgs 18:4).
Fourthly, when the apostle refers to 'the cross', he clearly means the doctrine of the Gospel (1 Cor 1:18; Gal 6:14). A visible cross is a poor substitute for the glorious Gospel of the blessed God. As Calvin correctly states, 'Paul testifies that by the true preaching of the gospel "Christ is depicted before our eyes as crucified" (Gal 3:1). What purpose does it serve for so many crosses - of wood, stone silver, and gold - to be erected here and there in churches?' Should some urge the need of a visible sign, we already have Baptism and the Lord's Supper, both of which represent to us Christ and the benefits of the New Covenant (1 Pet 3:21; 1 Cor 11:26). The Word and the Symbolic Ordinances: these are all we need.
Fifthly, it is significant that nowhere in the New Testament is the sign of the cross referred to. Therefore, any use of it in worship must spring from human ingenuity, not divine authority. This is precisely what Paul reprobates as 'will worship' (Col 2:23).
Sixthly, the early Christians avoided the use of this symbol. Dean Burgon writes: 'I question whether a cross occurs in any Christian monument of the first four centuries'. Eventually, of course, reproductions of the cross did appear and it was an easy transition from the sign of the cross to the form of the crucifix.
Seventhly, and lastly, we observe that the Reformers were united in their determination to rid the Church of both crosses and crucifixes, and so successful were they that, in 1574, Archbishop Whitgift was able to say: 'As for the papists, we are far enough off from them; for they pictured the sign of the cross and did worship it; so do not we: they used it to drive away spirits and devils; so do not we; they attributed power and virtue unto it; so do not we; they had it in their churches; so have not we'.
In the last century Charles Spurgeon wrote: 'There are some who can adore a cross of wood or stone or gold; but I cannot conceive of a greater wounding of the heart of Christ than to pay reverence to anything in the shape of a cross. Methinks the Saviour must say, What! What! I am the Son of God, and do they make even Me into an idol!...We have nothing to do with these outward symbols now'.
As Protestants and Evangelicals, we should allow no material cross in our church buildings and we should oppose the trend to restore it as some kind of ornament. A relic of idolatry, it can only be an offence to almighty God.
By
MAV, at 1:38 pm
Thanks Matthew. I agree the burning bush is meant to be the church (I've seen people arguing that it's a representation of God, but i think that's a mistake). Is it true that it's been used for a long time, eg in covenanting times?
I'm a bit uncertain about Malcolm Watt's first point tho ... wouldn't it be safer to say images *for religous purposes* are disallowed, rather than images per se? (otherwise wouldn't it rule out sculptures etc?)
His fourth point and the seventh point about the historical precedent would be stronger arguments, i would think ...
By
cath, at 10:36 pm
On another subject: I found a very clean copy (no underlining, marker marks, etc.) of Gurnall's "Complete Armour". It's selling for $38.50. If you're interested, I could buy it, ship it to you, and you could reimburse me.
I'm letting you know in this way since you don't post an email address.
By
richard zuelch, at 3:08 am
thanks Cath
It seems that the burning bush was used unofficially in 1691 as an emblem - a bit like a coat of arms. It's quite common in the Free Church for people to argue for pictures of Christ because of the burning bush e.g. David Robertson: "Firstly the second commandment says nothing about pictures of Christ. It forbids us making images to worship. If a picture of Christ was used for that purpose then it would be wrong. But does that mean that all symbols and images are banned? If that is the case then virtually every Presbyterian church I know in Scotland is guilty of idolatry. Most of us have the symbol of the burning bush somewhere in our churches - I know that we say it speaks of the church not being consumed in the midst of persecution – but it was God who was in the bush – the God who revealed himself as Yahweh – the I AM. The burning bush was holy ground. Churches which have it as a symbol can hardly claim that they allow no symbols/images or pictorial representations of God." http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2004/march04.htm
I don't think the argument works though.
By
MAV, at 1:35 pm
Going by the regulative principle, by adding to what the Bible prescribes for us in religious matters has surely got to be wrong.
Another thing; you hear people defending/explaining their wearing of crosses or wristbands etc. by saying it is a constant reminder to them of their faith. When i wore a chain round my neck, (in my school days!) after a short while i'd forget it was there. and also is that not a sign of faith not as strong as it could be... trying not to be too harsh there!
And then you get non-christians and chritians-in-name-only, wearing them and by their behavior bringing a reproach on Christ's name.
so yeh i think they're bad :)
By
Anonymous, at 8:40 pm
Post a Comment
<< Home