This last week the Supreme Court ruled that a monument in Maryland could remain. The controversial monument is the Peace Cross, a World War I memorial in the shape of a large Latin cross intended to memorialize the 49 men from Prince George's County who died during the war. The American Legion commissioned it and the formal dedication took place in 1925. Not quite but almost a hundred years later (2017) the American Humanist Association sued to have it removed as a violation of the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court ruled against them.
This may seem like a win for us. I think that the ruling is legally correct; it is not a case of establishment of religion. But if you ask me if I think it's a good thing, I would argue otherwise. The court ruled 7-2 that the monument meant nothing religious anymore. The monument didn't push Christianity as a State religion even though the cross is clearly a Christian symbol. It had been there so long that it didn't say "Christian" anymore. Familiarity, they said, made it neutral.
I say, then, that this isn't a win for us for that reason. We've arrived at a point of saturation in this country where the symbol of the cross and even the message behind it have become so familiar that it is now meaningless. "Nice cross. Nice jewelry. Whatever. Yeah, yeah, Jesus died for my sins. Whatever. Care for a cup of coffee?" So far have we come that even Christians don't see it as really significant. You wear a cross? So what? Doesn't mean anything anymore. More to the point, many who take the name of Christ these days find that of mild interest for themselves. "Yes, I'm a Christian. Aren't we all?" Studies suggest that a majority of Americans bear the name "Christian" (~75%) but an extreme minority (~5%) think that it makes any difference in their lives. Familiarity has bred contempt.
Don't let that be you. Don't be one that wonders, "What's the big deal?" Don't be one that is a casual Christian. The life of the believer is not casual; it is radical. And if, in your experience, it is not, you might want to reexamine that relationship, because Jesus came to change lives, not mummify them. The Supreme Court ruled in this case that the cross is not connected to Christ. We must not concur, especially in our everyday lives.
9 comments:
I hadn't thought about it quite this way before. I agree, but I'd also say that it's unrealistic to expect non Christians ( or progressive christians) to give the same amount of respect and honor to the cross and Christians.
No, of course not. I am suggesting that we've made the cross so inoffensive that they no longer see it as relevant or religious. I would have loved to have seen the argument, "Yes! It is a Christian symbol with great meaning, but nothing here is useful for or intended to establish Christianity as a state religion." That wasn't what the Court concluded. They concluded it didn't mean anything religious anymore.
I agree that the offensiveness of the cross has been greatly diminished and that Christians have failed to maintain the it’s true nature. I’m just saying that if the cross is going to regain its rightful meaning, it’s not going to be non/progressive Christians who do it. It’s got to be us.
Which means that we’ll be targeted for all kinds of difficulties.
Absolutely. It is indeed the Christians to whom I address this. And Christians that stay true have been and will be targeted. (That's not paranoia talking (2 Tim 3:12).)
I've often considered wearing a cross myself, aware that it seems little more than a fashion accessory to many who already do, as well as to others who see it worn. It's impossible to know the intentions of those who wear the symbol, but the routine behavior of many suggests it has little meaning beyond fashion. Worse, it may be intended to project goodness and devotion their behavior does not, as in "Nevermind all that...I'm really a Christian." I would much more fear being regarded as one of these than as a fashionista, and it's hard enough modeling Christianity without further failing in that endeavor given the obligation to do so enhanced by wearing the symbol of the Faith.
Yet wearing a cross would indeed compel me more than not to make the effort to BE more Christian because the symbol DOES have meaning to me in that regard.
I agree that the court decision was lame and likely a cop-out. They should have exhibited more spine.
It just stinks to be targeted by folx who claim to be Christians.
After thinking about the legal part of this, it seems like having the courts recognize the innate religious meaning might be a a problem as well. If they find that then I just opens the doors until someone can find the right case and start tearing these things down.
Prior to the last decade or so no one thought that an actual Christian cross on public land was some sort of "Establishment" issue. It is only now with the growing hostility to all things religious (read "Christianity") that the actual recognition that it actually is the cross of Christ being represented there becomes a problem.
Christian teachings just gets in the way, these days, of so much so many want to do. I've always likened those teachings, as well as those who truly exemplify them, to be as mirrors to those who wish to live contrary to those teachings. When faced with any reminder of true morality, they're forced to see their own wickedness. Thus, any Christian symbol does the same. Remove the symbols, stifle the teachings and all can believe they're A-OK. It's kinda like choosing to believe a zygote/embyro/fetus is not a person.
There is coming a day when the only safe place for the Cross to reside, is in our hearts.
Post a Comment