The leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, has called upon Christians to "wear proudly a symbol of the cross of Christ" every day. This is in the background of a case going to the European Court to allow employees to wear crosses at work. Some argue that as long as it does not interfere with one's work then people should be allowed to wear a simple symbol of their religion if they so choose.
Whilst the Cross is often associated with Christianity it is in fact an ancient symbol that pre-dates the time of Jesus or Yeshua. It comes from the latin, crux, and was a Roman symbol of death and torture. So how does a symbol of death, torture and suffering come to be representative of The Christ - which is the energy of pure love that was embodied by Jesus/Yeshua?? Something about that just doesn't feel true to me...
From a Christian perspective, it is put forward that the Cross does represent the love of God as he gave his only Son to die on the Cross that we may have our sins forgiven and be saved. But what if, that is simply not true? What if, that is a mis-understanding, mis-interpretation or even a bastardisation of the true teachings of Jesus and The Christ? What if Jesus was crucified not because of God or being given by God, but because of Godlessness, Lovelessness in those who did not recognise him as the Soulful Master that he was, who did not recognise him as the embodiment of The Christ? What if Jesus was not the Only Son of God but that every human being on the planet is a Son of God who has the potential to embody and express the Love of The Christ as Jesus did? What if the only way to be 'saved' from suffering is to know that one is a Son of God and to embody and live that love on a daily basis?
Of course some do use the symbol of the Cross to remind them of the suffering of Jesus, that suffering is a part of life that cannot be escaped by anyone, that they believe it can make it easier to accept their own suffering, knowing that Jesus also suffered, as the story goes. But what if this again is simply not true?? What if suffering is a necessary part of life only because we live in ignornance of our true nature, contained in a prison of our own making until such time that we come to a deeper truth? A deeper truth regarding our true nature, who we really are and how to live from there in such a way that what once would have caused suffering, no longer does. I know for myself, that even the experience of losing a loved one, something that for most is associated with a great deal of suffering, can be totally transformed, when we live from our essence of love and all that that brings. It has shown me that there is a different way to live and understand life rather than the somewhat limited perceptions I previously held. Of course, as always it is a work in progress for me such that when I slip into old ways of being, or am suffering in some way, I know that I am not living from my essence and can take steps to choose again.
Thus the Cross can have many meanings and interpretations even within Christianity and for some it has none of those meanings. Indeed for many years I wore a variety of cross shaped necklaces with no religious or spiritual meaning whatsoever - it was just a piece of jewellery I wore and I didn't give it too much thought. However, knowing now that it was orginally used to mean death and torture, that that was the initial energetic imprint or seed of the Cross, I no longer feel to wear those necklaces. I will now often wear a heart shaped necklace instead - as for me that is symbolic of love. I could even say that that is symbolic of my religion, the religion of love, the religion of the soul. However, I do not need to wear a heart or symbol of the soul or argue that I should be allowed to wear it at work at all times as that is a symbol of my religion - far from it! To argue that the wearing of any symbol is required for one's religion is to miss the point altogether if we are talking about religion as being that which concerns one's relationship with God, rather than the man-made institutionalised versions we have today. Much more is revealed about one's religion through our relationships and way of relating and being with others than it is by any symbol. Thus, if I am wearing a heart necklace, but being angry, rude or judgmental towards others - it is the latter that truly reveals how I live my religion rather than the necklace! Rather than encouraging people to wear a cross every day as a way to portray their religion, how much more effective might it have been, if Cardinal O'Brien had asked people to be gentle and caring each day, both to themselves and each other?? To bring the love and gentleness of Christ into everyday activities and expressions - rather than putting the Cross around one's neck and arguing with one's employer??
The point is this, the wearing of a cross or a heart or a symbol of the soul or any other symbol of one's religion is not what it's about. And thus any argument or court case to insist upon it is equally fallicious. Anyone who knows the Christ, who knows the Love of God, knows that 'by their fruits ye shall know them,' not by their symbols and adornments. In other words, what matters is not the wearing of a cross or 20 crosses, a heart or 20 hearts, or any other symbol, but the purity and quality of the love and gentleness expressed through one's eyes, one's hands, one's words, thoughts and deeds.
Feel free to discuss or share your views re the cross or other religious symbols or any of the points raised in the blog.