mentalgymnast wrote:Those of you who have heard of Robert Millet know that he is a respected scholar from BYU who has had a significant amount of experience in interfaith dialogue.
A couple months ago I emailed Millet inquiring him about his book, "What Happened to the Cross?" He seemed to be quite open and willing to converse with me until I started showing him specific problems in his book. Then, suddenly... he stopped emailing me back. Strange.
This is the last email that I sent him:
----------
Hello Dr. Millet. Having purchased and read your new book last week, I have another question for you... if you wouldn't mind. You wrote on page 102:
We should note that historically, in the first few Christian centuries, the cross was not considered a virtuous or admirable symbol but rather a terrifying reminder of what Jesus and many thousands of others had ignominiously suffered. In fact, some scholars report that the cross did not appear in churches as a symbol of veneration until A.D. 431.
No source is given for this underlined statement, and so I am wondering what the basis is for it.
I am well aware of the fact that archaeologists and art historians generally agree that the symbol of the cross (in reference to the passion event) cannot be found prior to the time of Constantine . But does this absence demand the conclusion that the cross therefore was not considered virtuous?
Literary evidence suggests the contrary, and also gives clues as to why the symbol (considered virtuous) was not depicted materially. My research leads me to believe that there were three factors contributing to this absence (I can provide the evidence if needed):
1) Christians, due to persecutions, were forced to worship inconspicuously.
2) The idea that Jesus was killed on the cross was not a good selling point for attracting converts. As Paul reported, it was a stumbling block to both Jew and Gentile; and as is evident by the Palatine graffiti, Christians were mocked because of it.
3) Many Christians avoided artistic depictions of the sacred for fear that they would be committing idolatry.
Christians were able to get around these reservations, and still revere the symbol, by actively looking for its manifestation all around them, whether it be in the form of man, sail of a ship, or the sacred Greek letter tau. Some early Christians also traced the cross/tau on their forehead... which also was a way to get around the three factors.
Since this behavior is not in harmony with the LDS view, and since the three factors are not relevant to the LDS church today... it therefore seems out of place for Latter-day Saints to use the archaeological absence as a justification for their own aversion. No doubt, many early Christians would have stood in objection to placing gold-leafed angels on top of their buildings, on grounds of factors one and three.
--Mike Reed