Other articles from this issue | Version in English | Version in French
Reflections on the Cross as the Sign of Christian Identity
Jean Dujardin
Among the most painful and critical of the questions raised by the conflict about the Carmelite convent in the Auschwitz concentration camp, is that of the Cross which has been erected there. For the Christian the Cross is the very heart of faith. For the Jew it evokes the torture of his people in a Christian milieu. How can the Christian conscience face the demand that this cross be removed — or at least be made less prominent?
No Christian can deny that the Cross is central for Christianity. Paul writes to the Corinthians ... I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (I Cor. 2:1-2). The Christian is marked with this sign in Baptism, the daily Eucharist is a communion in the death and resurrection of Christ. No wonder that the Cross as an object has become an important sign in Christian life. It expresses the meaning of death, the acceptance of the rupture that opens the way to resurrection. For this reason Christians plant the Cross on the graves of their dead, on church steeples and wherever "the mystery that saves" can be shown forth.
But is the real question about removing a Cross? Is it not rather what meaning is given to the proclamation of the Cross as symbol, what link is made between the exterior sign and Christian identity? To pass from the event "Jesus died on the Cross" to the cross as the sign of Christian identity, to be recognised and venerated, adored in the liturgy (especially on Good Friday) requires an explanation of the meaning attached to the object as such. There is a risk, of which we need to be aware, of a change of significance which betrays or falsifies the true meaning of the event of which the Cross is the symbol. For example the Cross can become a sword, an emblem on a flag or banner, even, as history shows an instrument of torture. Moreover in a non Christian milieu the Cross is worn as a fetish or ornament. These are serious deviations.
In order to discern the right action in the present situation, and at the same time not undervalue the significance of the Cross for salvation, we must recall that the sign of the Cross depends on the human witness and therefore on the use Christians make of the Cross. It is necessary to recall the history of the development of the Cross in Christian communities.
History of the Cross as a Symbol
In the first three Centuries:
Dr. Thoby (1) shows that in the first three centuries of Christianity the Cross as a sign that could evoke Christ crucified is virtually absent. No trace is found in the first century, and nothing that can be certainly dated in the second century. Only in the third century are there some marble or terracotta epitaphs of a Cross engraved inconspicuously among other letters. However, according to Tertullian in his Apologia, Christians were called Crucis religiosi. He further says, referring to the Liturgy: "At each movement coming or going, let us mark our foreheads with the mark of the Cross". This does not contradict the earlier statement. Clearly in the first three centuries, the Cross was never externalised. Dr. Thoby writes on p. Il: "Nowhere is it to be seen, neither in private houses, nor meeting halls which served as Churches, nor in the catacomba, the last refuge against persecution".
Three explanations are offered for this absence: Firstly persecution necessitated discretion; secondly the immorality of pagan art and its pictorial representations were feared. Clement of Alexandria at the end of the second century in his Discourse to the Gentiles recalls the prohibition of making an image in the Decalogue. In the Stromata the same author says "The true image of God exists only in the soul of the just". Dom Leclercq at the end of the article cited in Dictionnaire d'archeologie Chrčtienne et de Liturgie says:
"The main reason for this silence is perhaps that the Cross remained an object of horror for Christians themselves. It brought to mind the frightful suffering to which they were exposed, the most cruel torment... al-so the most degrading, reserved for slaves and brigands... so while the catechumens easily accepted the idea of a God made man, they hesitated to accept the image of Christ adored in shameful torment. For them there was a contradiction between these two realities: to be God and to be crucified... No doubt it was to spare neophytes and catechumens the shocking spectacle of this contradiction that Christian art did not yet represent the crucifixion. The tendency of the Church in those first three centuries was "aniconic". Other symbols however were freely used, the symbol of the shepherd carrying the sheep, the peacock, the phoenix, the dove and especially the fish traced in sand with the monogram Jesus Christos Theou Uios Soter (ICTUS).
It is true that there were some similar signs. For example there was what was called the crux dissimulata (hidden cross) of the Greek T used in the first two centuries in the catacomb of St. Callixtus, and the well known "magic square" of St. Irenaeus. The absence of the image of the Cross does not indicate any Jack of fidelity to the mystery of the cross. The first Christians witnessed to the death and resurrection of Christ by the very gift of their lives in martyrdom. They lived the mystery of the Cross but did not feel the need, whatever their true reasons were, of presenting it externally. What was essential was the witness of their life.
The Fourth Century
At the beginning of the fourth century there is a fundamental change. According to Eusebius of Caesarea, writing about 340 in The Life of Constantine, the emperor was at war with his rival Maxentius. During the decisive battle he turned to God to ask for victory. Eusebius writes:
"As the sun was declining towards the horizon, a cross of light appeared in the sky above the sun with this inscription 'In this sign you will conquer'. This vision caused profound astonishment to him and all with him... He wondered, so he told me, what it meant... Night fell; then the Christ of God appeared to him while he slept, with the sa-me sign as had appeared in the sky. He instructed him to make a military standard like the heavenly sign, and to carry it into battle, where it would be a pledge of protection".
On 27th October, Maxentius was defeated at the Milvian Bridge. In March 313 Constantine published the Edict of Milan which gave the Church the role of state religion in a society where the distinction between the religious and the political was meaningless. The Cross of the Milvian Bridge became a military emblem, although also a religious pledge of protection. As M. Cazelles says (2) "From the time of Constantin's Labarum up to and beyond the time of the Crusades which annihilated the Jewish Community of Jerusalem the Cross was a sign of the victory of the Christian community and not only victory over sin. What for Paul was a sign of shame (I Cor. 1:3) became a sign of triumph with worldly resonances". Thus a radical change of meaning has come about, the Cross is a symbol of temporal triumph, a flag to head the battle.
After the Fourth Century:
The following centuries show cases of reticence and some resistance to this meaning of the Cross. Did the influence of the first three centuries live on, perhaps in the unconscious? It is difficult to be precise. We can cite, among the various protests, that of the Council 'in Trullo' in 692, a Council which was not ratified by the Pope and the Church of the West. The iconoclastic crucis is another example. The fears, hesitations and rejections expressed in these episodes undoubtedly account for the wisdom of the decisions of the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 and of the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 869-870. A passage from one of the decisions of the Council of Nicaea reads:
"We define... that... the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross [should be set up] in the holy churches of God... in houses and by the roadsides... For the more continually these are observed... so much the more will the beholders be aroused to recollect the originals and to long after them, and to pay to the images the tribute of embrace and a reverence of honour, (not to pay them the actual worship which is, according to our faith, and which is proper only to the divine nature)... For the honour paid to the image passes to its original, and he that adores an image adores in it the person depicted thereby".
Gradually, however, the practice of representing the Cross increased. In the churches of the East definite rules for depicting Christ on the Cross were established. He is the Risen Christ, clothed and with eyes open. In the West, from the fourth century onwards, probably under the pressure of events and in response to different expectations, the agonizing, suffering Christ became more and more accented. It would be interesting to show that the way Christ is depicted on the Cross, and even the very shape of the crucifix, are not independent of the general evolution of art, culture and the current religious thinking.
Some conclusions:
This short survey suggests that the Cross has not always served as the dominant symbol of Christian identity. This is not to minimise its role. The relation to the Cross is not dependent on its visible symbol. History also shows that the meaning of the Cross can be warped. In addition, as the Eastern tradition emphasizes, the Cross must not be detached from the Resurrection. The worship of the Cross is not a cult of suffering and death for their own sake. If the representation of the human figure is legitimate (cf. the Councils mentioned above), it is in order to lead the believer to another reality. And finally other symbols that have been used have not disappeared and are still available.
The use of the symbol of the Cross whatever its expression must always be finked with the life of a Christian community in a particular time and place. During the first three centuries the Christian community was suffering. The Cross was lived not exhibited. From the fourth century, the Church was victorious in society; the Cross was displayed as a sign of triumph, but, as we have seen, this carried a grave risk of falsifying its meaning. In the fourteenth century when death reigned everywhere, the Cross signifiied this.
Can the Cross be used as a sign of Christian identity? The answer has to be qualified. Undoubtedly the Cross is related to Christian identity. Christians are marked by it. They recognise in it the folly of God's love, they see in it the necessity for a radical break with worldly values. But in order for it to be so perceived, to be presented to the gale of everyone, an explanation is needed, a message of life. And that suggests that it must not be imposed, that would be to make of it an emblem and to forget its aspect of humility. History shows the dangers of deviations of meaning. Does not this suggest that the Cross is above all a sign for Christians themselves, an invitation to put this sign into their lives, so that Christian life itself becomes a sign of God's love for all. Indeed it is only when the Cross is lived in a human life that the sign can be seen in all its truth.
[Note: This is a somewhat shortened form of an article translated from the French. It can be found in full in the French edition of SIDIC (Vol. XXIV: 1, 1991). The extracts omitted are mostly concerned with the theology of the Cross. We refer readers to the article by Rev. E. Flannery on pp. 5-11 of this issue, which contains a similar reflection].
Notes
(1) Thoby, Le Crucifix des Origines au Conche de Trente, edition Bellanger; cited at length by Dom Leclercq in Dietionnaire d'Archeologie Chrčtienne et de Liturgie.
(2) Unpublished reflections communicated to the author.
Pere Jean Dujardin Is Secretary of the Committee for ewish-Christian Relations of the French Episcopal Conference.
