Crucifix: Symbol of Power or Powerlessnes?

During a recent conversation, a prominent seminary professor made to me what seemed to be an outlandish claim: that the many problems plaguing the Roman Catholic Church could be traced back to their use of the crucifix -- a symbol of a powerless Christ for a powerless church.  Such rhetoric was shocking to me -- the likes of which I haven't encountered since the Catholic-bashing that was common among evangelicals during the 70's and 80's.

My personal view concerning the crucifix and it's appropriateness is certainly different.  Although I concede that the message conveyed by an empty cross (i.e.post-resurrection) is powerful and important, evangelicals have long distanced themselves from the suffering and cost inextricably connected to the cross of Christ. The crucifix therefore represents a helpful corrective in this sense.

Apart from this, I have noticed in recent years, a growing appreciation among evangelical believers for the crucifix.  It's as if they recognize that Protestant representations of Jesus have lacked something that the image of our crucified Savior seems to fill-in.

I'd love hearing your thoughts on this topic.  Is the crucifix a powerful and helpful symbol of our faith?  Or is my professor friend correct in asserting that the image of the crucifix amounts to a clever ploy of the Enemy -- one designed to keep an enormous segment of the Church relatively powerless?

Comments

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

Seraphim,

I agree with most of what you have said, including the Trinity being implicit in the crucifix. It wasn't an absolute point of contention, just a concern (as I said, one of many).

My larger point, however, was that I do not think it is helpful trying to decide on a singular, central symbol. Orthodox tradition has always shown wisdom in this regards.

Beyond that, I agree with you about the importance of the crucifix.

Peace,
Jamie

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

Chris,

Regardless of whether you believe in subsitutional atonement or that Christ suffering and death were defeating tyranny of Satan (or both or neither), the fullness of said suffering and death should inspire within us awe, reverence and humility before the magnitude of, not only what our sin resulted in, but the willingness of God to lower and sacrifice Himself for us.

I am not trying to distance God from us, but rather to instill in us a sense of wonder and trembling before the Creator God.

Make sense? Not my best explanation.

Peace,
Jamie

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

Another thought, brought up in discussion with an Orthodox friend of mine. In Orthodox iconography, Mary is only seen as Theotokos when Christ is also pictured. When He is not, she is not referred to as such. She is still a saint.

In the same way, the presence of Christ on the Cross is a more explicit symbol of its greater meaning. It is Christ that gives it the authority. Without Christ, it is still an important symbol, but not as explicitly.

Therefore, it is not about which is more important or more... anything- but rather, it is about nature of the symbol.

Peace,
Jamie

[Gina]

The good professor was way out of line. A powerless church, eh? I hope he was watching at JPII's funeral, or during coverage of the World Youth Day. He obviously wants to conjure out of a misplaced criticism a reality that doesn't exist.

The Orthodox don't depict Christ in statue form, so you don't see Orthodox cross necklaces or figures with Jesus on them. Probably the most common way we bring the power of the cross to remembrance is by making the sign of the cross- when we pray, enter or leave a church, over our beds at night.

The cross is a moment that exists in eternity as well as in time and space. Jesus is both Yahweh and the Son of Man, the Alpha Omega and the Nazarene. I personally think that the icons of the crucifixion more accurately portray these paradoxes than the crucifix statues. But it's ridiculous to suggest that meditating on Christ's death excludes from our minds his glory and power. Especially when the Bible itself chooses a slain lamb to represent him.

[pavel/addai]

quote
do our Orthodox brethren embrace both symbols equally, or one over the other?
quote

We use both, but I think the plain cross (which is often stylized) is used more.

And actually this talk or concern over the Crufix is largely over some aspects of Western artistic style and genre.

Specifically speaking the use of realism, in religious art. Orthodox iconography is not realistic but idealistic in its presentation.

Much of the objection to the cruccific I think is over some of the vivid portrayals of anguish and suffering. While I think, it has some value, it does seem to some to be keeping Christ, pyschologically speaking in a kind of state of perpetual torture. And from an Orthodox idea of religious art, that kind of thing can be thought of as counter productive. Reinforcing the aspects of brutality over the notion of triumph etc.

I do think however the western art does fit in well with the Instutional narrative for the Eucharist.

[Seraphim]

Seraphim, do our Orthodox brethren embrace both symbols equally, or one over the other?

Actually I seem to see both, however the Orthodox of course have a 3rd (read different) cross, weather Crucifix or cross see here & here:

and the one I wear is a smaller version of the 2nd.

LYB

Seraphim

[Seraphim]

sigh. Your blog blocked the images. Here are the links:

Here and here

LYB

Seraphim

[Seraphim]

And so, what do you think -- is the scholar I mentioned an unknowing instument of Satan, by means of his criticism for the crucifix?

well, even Peter was not immune to prelest. One moment Christ was praising him for his ability to get revelation from God... The next he was rebuking him for being a mouth piece for the Evil One. So it is entirely possible that his ideas, even if not the scholar would be used for bad purposes.

LYB

Seraphim

[Seraphim]

a final thought. my reasons for liking or thinking the crucifix is superior to an 'empty cross' have more to do with my personal beliefs in the victory of Christ, his work to redeem, heal & deliver mankind on the Cross. His death was the Victory.

while this belief may be orthodox, it may not be Orthodox if you get my drift. To me an empty cross lacks meaning. But one with Christ on it reminds me that we preach "..Christ and him crucified"

LYB

Seraphim

[Wanderer]

Now, I don't think that the Resurrection is un-important. But it was Christ Death that was the Main Act of His life.

This seems contrary to Christian teaching. Anybody can die on a cross. Only one could rise again. Isn't the defeat of death the significant act? Isn't, then, the resurrection the prominent issue, and the death a footnote, merely a requirement for the latter to take place?

[Seraphim]

This seems contrary to Christian teaching. Anybody can die on a cross. Only one could rise again. Isn't the defeat of death the significant act?

But Christ (according to the Scriptures) didn't defeat Death by His Resurrection, but by His Death! And actually what you are proposing that it is the resurrection and not the death, is what is contrary to Christian teaching.

God's Peace

Seraphim

[Seraphim]

more food for thought. Christ, without the stain of Original Sin, didn't have to die. Death already had no Dominion over Him.

As He said, "No man takes my life from me"