Replies

I know plenty of Reformists and Calvinists (including churches I've attended) that do no think the Crucifix is an appropriate symbol of Christianity because it denotes the suffering of Christ instead of the joy of the Resurrection. I view it as a symbol of atonement, yet I had a slew (9 or 10) Baptists at my former place of employment that objected to having a small 3 inch crucifix beside my computer because they felt it was glorifiying His suffering.

I also don't think the display of crosses is a good idea. But I think you have misunderstood the objections which so many people in the Reformation tradition have against displaying the cross (at least, in the way it is usually displayed).

It's not because of what it reminds us of in the death of Christ. ("God forbid that I should glory save in in the cross of Christ.") The problem is, visible objects are sometimes used in lieu of saving faith.

So, objecting to the use of crosses is based on a serious concern about idolatry. This is not really what the article is talking about.

(Protestants do object to the RC mass, too--and the reasons are related to what you mentioned--but more important, we object on the specific grounds that the sacrifice of the mass violates the Book of Hebrews, especially Hebrews 10.)

I know plenty of Reformists and Calvinists (including churches I've attended) that do no think the Crucifix is an appropriate symbol of Christianity because it denotes the suffering of Christ instead of the joy of the Resurrection.

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. Makes sense. I just assumed the only people with this view were liberals whose ultimate goal is to have Christianity slowly fade away.