Archive: The Beauty of the Cross

By Alister E. McGrath

Corporations spend huge sums of money on designing logos. Advertising agencies are hired to conceive a logo which will express the qualities that the corporation wants to be associated with it in the public mind. These are usually qualities such as stability, reliability, progressiveness, or aggressiveness. This design will appear on their letterheads, on their products, and be prominently displayed at their national and local headquarters. In the 1980s the British Labour party, anxious to shake off its associations with an increasingly unpopular socialism, abandoned its traditional logo—a red banner—in favor of a red rose. A red banner conjured up now unacceptable images of such things as military parades in Red Square, Moscow. A rose evoked more tender and sensitive associations for the British people (traditionally noted for their love of gardening in general, and roses in particular). Militant associations were being rejected in favor of more compassionate and gentle ones, designed to project the image of a caring party. A logo tells us a lot about a corporation or organization—or, at least, about how they would like us to see them.

An organization which chose as its logo a hangman’s noose, a firing squad, a gas chamber or an electric chair would accordingly seem to have taken leave of its senses. It would be sheer madness to choose an instrument of execution as a symbol of an organization. Its members would instantly be regarded as perverted, sick, having a morbid obsession with death, or having a nauseating interest in human suffering. It would be an advertising agency’s nightmare. Only an organization determined to fail as quickly and spectacularly as possible would be mad enough to choose such a symbol.

And yet exactly such a symbol is universally recognized as the logo of Christianity. Christians are baptized with the sign of the cross. Churches and other Christian places of meeting do not merely include a cross; they are often built in the shape of a cross. Many Christians make the sign of the cross in times of danger or anxiety. The graves of Christians are marked with crosses. Careful studies of the origins and development of Christian symbolism have made it clear that the cross was seen as the symbol of the Christian gospel from the earliest of times.

But why? Why choose such a shocking and offensive symbol? Why not choose something more caring and compassionate? Throughout history, people have been scandalized by the cross. Many of its critics have argued that Christianity would have a much more favorable public image if it abandoned this absurdity. Even at the time of the New Testament, the bad press received by the cross was fully appreciated. Paul had no doubts that the Christian emphasis upon the cross was regarded as outrageous by two very significant groups of people. The Jews regarded it as scandalous, and the Greeks saw it as sheer madness (I Corinthians 1:23).

So, given this widespread hostility in the world towards the cross, why not abandon it? Why not allow public relations and advertising agencies to come up with some new symbol of the gospel, which would be far more attractive to the general public? There has never been a shortage of people urging that this should be done. It would, we are told, be much easier to sell the gospel in the marketplace of life if it was more attractively packaged. Get rid of these unpleasant associations with death, suffering and execution. These are barbarous ideas, which needlessly offend the sensibilities of intelligent and cultured people. Then the Christian faith could achieve new heights of influence and acceptability.

But the cross has a relevance of its own, which must not be lost. It is a potent symbol of Christian realism. It declares that any outlook on life which cannot cope with the grim realities of suffering and death does not deserve to get a hearing. This symbol of suffering and death affirms that Christianity faces up to the grim, ultimate realities of life. It reminds us of something we must never be allowed to forget. God entered into our suffering and dying world in order to bring it newness of life. Those outside Christianity need to Learn—need to be told about—its relevance and power for the tragic situation of humanity. It is a sign of a glory which is concealed. It confronts the worst which the world can offer, and points to—and makes possible—a better way. It stands as a symbol of hope which transfigures, in a world which is too often tinged with sadness and tears.

So consider the cross. A symbol of death? No. A symbol of suffering? No. A symbol of a world of death and suffering? Not quite. A symbol of hope in the midst of a world of death and suffering? Yes! A symbol of a God who is with us in this dark world, and beyond? Yes! In short, the cross stands for a hope that is for real, in a world that is for real. But that world will pass away, while that hope will remain for eternity.

Alister E. McGrath is a member Oxford University Faculty of Theology and is lecturer in Christian doctrine at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. This article is taken from one of his numerous book, What Was God Doing on the Cross? Copyright© 1992 by Alister McGrath. Used by permission o Zondervan Publishing House.

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Join Our Mailing List!

Click here to sign up to our email lists:

•Perspective Newsletter (weekly)
• Transforming Congregations Newsletter (monthly)
• Renew Newsletter (monthly)

Make a Gift

Global Methodist Church

Is God Calling You For More?

Blogs

Latest Articles: