Use of the cross as a symbol

In a recent forum discussion at the South African Theological Seminary a student expressed concern that: "There is an emerging theology discrediting the display of the cross as a symbol of the Christian faith..." He tackled the following four common objections to the use of the cross to symbolise Christianity:

1. that the cross had pagan and even occultist origins;
2. that the cross brings credit to Satan;
3. that a crucifix detracts from Jesus' victory over death by portraying him as defeated;
4. that salvation is in Christ, not the cross itself.

His answers to these arguments respectively were as follows:

1. true, but this does not detract from the fact that God's greatest work took place at the cross;
2. Jesus died in our place "not to Satan but to God";
3. don't use the crucifix [the cross with Jesus on it] to discredit an empty cross [without Jesus, because he is no longer on it!];
4. this is a mute point because evangelical Christians don't put their faith in the cross, but rather in Christ. If a pastor discovers people in his congregation trusting in the cross itself, then the solution is "exegetical teaching and preaching".

I think he got it right. The following was my own response:

It's all well that people are questioning, but it seems that many are not doing any real investigation, possibly for lack of time - but then they should reserve judgment till they have done so. ( ... There is a kind of apathy to first-hand investigation; it's easier to hear and pass on a rumour. This, I think, highlights the lack of true discipleship in the modern Church.)

I have been reviewing a lot of our traditions and came to similar conclusions as you on the cross as a Christian symbol. However, I am not enamoured of the symbol, and its use by the Church will always bear some risk of idolatory - yet if someone is inclined to idolatory then he will find an idol in anything, whether it's a cross or something else. Moreover, the cross is a symbol of death; the paradox of our faith is the life that comes from Christ's death - but not everyone sees that. A symbol of life might be more appealing! I can't say I see any need of the cross as a symbol; I can and do quite happily abide in the Vine without it. The reality of the indwelling Holy Spirit eclipses the need for a symbolic reminder.

The cross has been used as a symbol of Christianity since the 2nd century (see Wikipedia: 'Christian Cross'). That can't really be used to argue either way, since there were plenty of heresies around by then. But, as Dan Juster says so emphatically,

The meaning of a symbol is its use in the community that defines and practises it – not some deep dark secret. In logic, that is called the genetic fallacy, which means that you define the meaning of a practice from a deep, dark secret that nobody is thinking about when they do it!

I also noticed that Frank Viola, in his book Pagan Christianity, didn't mention the cross at all. That's significant, because Pagan Christianity questions and criticises (rightly or wrongly) practically every tradition of Christianity, from the pulpit to the usher. It is unthinkable that he did not investigate the possibility of the cross being a pagan symbol, so one has to conclude that he could not find such a link.

In summary, I think the use of the cross by the Church is acceptable; it should be unnecessary for our faith, but it can also be useful, e.g. as an explicit sign of Christianity that is recognised in every nation, language and form of writing.