In arguing for the removal of the "Mojave cross" from public land, ACLU attorney Peter Eliasberg argued before the Supreme Court that "It (the cross) signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins."  On the other hand, Justice Scalia seemed to defend the cross by arguing that it is just a secular symbol of death erected as a memorial for all fallen soldiers. (Story from the LA Times http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-cross8-2009oct08,0,2065193.story)

 

As far as what the cross is, the ACLU lawyer is right and Justice Scalia is wrong.  This leads me to two thoughts.

 

First, the problem with many is not that they don't "get it."  The opponents of Christ have always understood what He was saying.  They just haven't liked what He was saying.  They consider the cross and what it means foolishness and embrace instead the wisdom of men.

 

Second, the problem with others is that they seek to preserve the traditions of Christianity rather than promote true Christianity.  The traditions include symbols, holidays, etc.  True Christianity is about Jesus dying on the cross as the sole means of salvation for lost and sinful mankind.  The traditions could gain you enemies.  The truth could get you killed.

 

May we get it, believe it and promote it.  May the truth of the cross be our only boast.

 

But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. (Galatians 6:14)