The power of symbols
Marks of faith are more than just signs
November 21, 2006
Sarah Endacott
Throughout the course of the American Midterm elections and all the tangled story lines and prospective change, I was struck by probably the least innocuous item of the event: the cross hanging around Hilary Rodham Clinton’s neck.
According to commentators, this gesture was not intended to reflect Hilary’s personal convictions, but rather was a blatant grab for the largely religious American Heartland. While much could be said about the ethics behind Hilary’s dealing of the “God Card,” what captured me was the manner in which the most prominent Christian symbol was being represented: as a tool for winning votes.
Rodham Clinton’s necklace stands in stark contrast to one I was familiar with from childhood. This necklace was my Grandfathers heavy silver cross, intentionally roughened on one side to irritate the skin. He wore it, in the tradition of Francis Assisi, as a constant reminder of the suffering procured by Jesus while on the cross. True, the suffering of chafed skin does not even deserve mention in the same sentence as death by crucifixion, but it was enough to serve as a remembrance throughout the day of Jesus’ sacrifice.
The interesting juxtaposition by these two examples is the way in which Christian symbols can be, and are, used. As in the case of my Grandfather’s cross, such an item was designed to distinctly represent Jesus’ suffering. Similarly, throughout the Catholic tradition, symbols receive positions of high importance. From the attention given to the Eucharist to the Rosary and its connection to confession, such concrete actions mean more than can be placed into words. In fact, they are vital to the faith, not because of what they are, but from what they stand for and how they serve to facilitate belief and understanding.
On the other hand, evangelicals do not seem to have this same room for symbolic representation throughout their tradition. Rather than basing anything on repeatable actions, there seems to be a greater desire to “let the Spirit lead.” I’m as big of fan of this notion as the next person. However, the problem with this plan of action is that it does not give anything to return to. In times when the Spirit seems to be absent, rather than having something concrete to reflect upon that has worked in the past, all that is left is a vain attempt to bring back some abstract feeling.
Returning to Hilary and her campaign tactics, perhaps it is not her hollow reference to Christianity that I found disconcerting. Rather, I think it is the reminder her cross serves of how far symbols have fallen from prominence in many Christian practices. I wonder if Christians are not offended by such irreverence because they are not aware that they should be. After all, since symbols are not given places of importance in the Church, when they are degraded as such in society, it’s no surprise that it would go largely unnoticed. My fear is that Christian symbols may one day – maybe they already do – share the same position of meaninglessness as any other symbol.
Now you go...
Got something to say?