The Cross, that most powerful and pervasive symbol of Christianity, has been painted in oils, carved into woodwork and furniture, perched prominently on the tops of thousands of buildings, cried upon, prayed to, kissed fervently, worn as a necklace, embroidered into clothing and carved into mountainsides. Poems have been written about it, hymns have been sung about it, and people trace out its shape by touching forehead, chest and shoulders whenever the name of a dearly departed is even mentioned.

This is some symbol.

A question immediately presents itself here. Aren't Christians aware that The Cross was an instrument devised for human torture and death? How can such an ugly symbol ever be regarded as something holy and worthy of reverence? A crucifix symbolizes the worst thing we can possibly do to each other—inflict constant torture until death arrives. (If there is something worse we can do to one another, I’m hard pressed to think of what it might be.) The entire concept is revolting and sickens even the less compassionate among us.

As Christians wax eloquent about salvation and eternally rapturous joy, it's easy to forget the actual physical events that supposedly made such rapture possible. The events consisted of a trial without jury, a scourging with a whip, a death by torture, followed by a 3-day stay in a tomb for the deceased, during which time he somehow descended into Hell, followed by the supposed resurrection of the dead body. There's a lot of terrible stuff going on in this incredible scenario.

(It should be noted that there were many pre-Christian savior-gods who were born of virgins, died for the sins of humankind, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, making it highly unlikely that the Jesus story is true.)

But even if Christians were correct in their assertions that Jesus truly walked this Earth as a human being, and then truly died as they say he did, this story demands a close scrutiny of "The Old Rugged Cross."

First there is the unavoidable problem of explaining just why the all-merciful God of Creation felt the need to ask for a human sacrifice in the first place. I've dealt with this topic elsewhere, but it always bears repeating. We know from history that the practice of sacrificing to the gods is an ancient and primitive one. Early humans sacrificed animals, plants and each other, in the sensible-to-them attempt to placate the blood-thirsty gods they believed were controlling their lives.

We have the horrific example of the Aztecs who ripped the hearts out of living human victims, as blood splattered everywhere, and deities were presumed to be placated by such carnage. (Hopefully you're not eating lunch while you're reading this.) Modern Christians look at such primitive sacrifices with condescension and disdain, failing to recognize the darkly humorous irony of their position. At the very heart of their own religion is a bloody death-by-torture. I'm not sure which is worse—having your heart cut out or being nailed to a tree until you die. I'd say it's too close to call.

But Christian disdain for the Aztecs is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. Death is death. Torture is torture. Pain is pain. Trying to present such barbaric practices as having some glorious higher purpose does not change the original act of human blood-letting. Assigning to God the blame for the barbarism does not help the Christians' case here. It simply renders their own god barbaric.

The idea of one god-like human taking the rap, so to speak, for all of humanity's evil-doings, by dying somehow, is not only incomprehensible and illogical, but contradicts the Christian concept of Heaven and Hell. If humankind's sins were all washed away with Jesus' death, how can Hell await anyone? If Hell awaits, what was the point of Jesus' sacrificial death? And again, it must be explained why a loving God would want anyone to suffer, die or go to Hell. This theological tangle has to be left to molder on its own. Logical minds can never unravel it.

So, getting back to The Cross, please try a mental exercise. Clear your mind of all preconceived images of crosses and crucifixes. Forget the majestic crosses towering over huge cathedrals. Forget the stained glass windows. Forget the 24K-gold necklaces with diamond studded crosses. Forget the beautifully crafted crosses inlaid with ivory and jade. Forget the Vatican's priceless art collection. Wipe it all from your mind and picture, instead, two roughly-hewn, small-to-medium sized tree trunks or branches. Now picture someone nailing these two pieces of wood together to form a crude cross. Assume it's a slave working under the direction of a Roman soldier.

(Purportedly the condemned prisoners were forced to carry their own crosses to their places of death. You can't help but wonder what would have happened if they had simply refused. What sort of threats could conceivably have been used to force those unfortunate individuals to carry their own crosses? Could things possibly have been made worse for them? "You'd better pick up those crosses, you guys, or you're in big trouble." Well, it's just a thought.)

Now, imagine someone, slave or soldier, physically nailing a human being onto this cross. He would have to drive nails through the hands and feet of the condemned prisoner, causing, one may assume, a great deal of pain accompanied by a great deal of screaming. Blood would either run or spurt, perhaps staining the person doing the nailing. (Let's definitely hope you're not eating your lunch now.) Some sort of ropes or cloths would undoubtedly be used to tie the victim's arms to the cross, since the writhing body might otherwise rip the nails straight through the hands, causing the sufferer to fall off of the cross. And this wouldn't do. (Romans didn’t use nails, but let’s not quibble. It’s what Christians think happened so we’re going with that.)

Next, with the help of able-bodied individuals, the cross, with its screaming attachment, will be hoisted into the air, its base firmly planted in the ground, so that cross and condemned can either bake in the sun or be drenched with rain, depending on the weather. Then, the victim will hang for days, in anguished torment, until he dies. That's all there is to it. This is your basic crucifixion.

If a soldier were to feel some sympathy for a victim or just got tired of listening to the screams, he might take his sword and dispatch the victim early, hastening death and ending the noise. But other than that, it's really just a matter of agonized suffering until you die.

This nauseating scenario is presented, unbelievably, as proof of God's boundless mercy. Murder your own son, gruesomely, and then inform mortals that now their sins have all been washed away with Jesus' copiously-spilled blood. However, everyone still runs the risk of going to Hell if they cheat on their income taxes. What is wrong with this picture?

If this has been terribly offensive, it was not intended to be. This story of the crucifixion belongs to the Christians, not to me. But only by recognizing The Cross for what it really was, an obscene instrument of torture and death, can anyone properly evaluate the religion known as Christianity. There is not now, nor was there ever, anything wondrous, rapturous or beautiful about that horrifying instrument of torture known as The Old Rugged Cross.

 © 1994 by Judith Hayes