The Youth of Garland Speak Up on the Crucifix Issue

 Dominic Joseph

(A high school student and member of Garland Syro-Malabar parish)

By now, it isn’t news that we’re planning on building a new church for the St. Thomas Catholic community, and it certainly isn’t news that plans for the cross have been the subject of much dispute.
In the course of traditional church politics, it is only natural that certain issues would require the arbitration of a higher power over two disagreeing factions in order to settle the matter in question. Unfortunately, the bishop has already made his mind about the matter at hand, and subsequently, the vast majority of the church is being forced to endure the Mar Thoma cross. In a case where two parts of a denomination that preaches its universality and unity choose to war against each other, we must remember that “if a house is divided against itself, it cannot stand” (Mk. 3:25), but when the authority of the bishop shows a clearly biased nature, we must take into account the will of the community. And let us remember that the youth of St. Thomas is as equally part of the community as any adult.

I know the church general body is usually subject to the will of adult members of the church, and I realize that the voice of a child is not exactly customary in a time of argument. In order to validate my opinions, however, it is necessary to remind the general body of the place of children in the community. In the Old Testament, particularly during the Passover (Ex. 12:26) and during the formation and renewal of God’s covenant with the Israelites (Dt. 29:11 and Jos. 8:35), children take equal place in these rituals as the rest of the adult community. Also, let us remember that our Lord values and welcomes the youth of the community, for he explicitly commands, “Let the children come to me” (Mt. 19:14). As a youth and a member of the St. Thomas the Apostle community, I support the placement of the Crucifix –and the Crucifix alone – in the new church building, and I greatly abhor the usage of the curtain to veil the Crucifix.

The bishop and his band of misled disciples argue that the Mar Thoma cross is a symbol of Christ’s resurrection and victory over sin. Let me be the first to say that, looking at this monstrosity as any spectator would, there is absolutely no reference, artistic allegory, or symbolism of any type of resurrection. It is simply a cross with an upside-down dove at the top and what appears to be a lotus at the bottom. The message of Christ’s resurrection can only be found in the twisted interpretations of its biased followers. 

For the sake of argument, however, let us pretend that the Mar Thoma cross bears some sort of semblance that depicts Christ’s resurrection. Even with the meaning of the resurrection, the Mar Thoma cross is still meaningless and unnecessary to our community. As members of the Catholic Church, we “proclaim Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 1:23) because “by [Christ’s] death, he might break the power of him who holds the power of death” (Heb. 2:14). If we, as Catholics, are called to preach the death of Christ, what better image is there to exhibit than the Crucifix, which explicitly depicts the ultimate sacrifice that our Savior made by His death? It certainly is not the Mar Thoma cross, the depiction of nothing but a number of perverse understandings. Moreover, our Crucifix is more than just a proclamation, but rather, “to us who are being saved, it is the very power of God, Himself” (1 Cor. 1:18). Our Crucifix, as biblically supported, is the power of God and the proclamation that we, as Catholics, should pledge ourselves to preaching. The Mar Thoma cross is simply a piece of art that is not even a pleasure to look at. I think from here, it is only a matter of common sense to know which cross is the clear victor.
Now, there are those among the bishop’s factions that call for a compromise; they wish for the placement of both the Mar Thoma AND the Crucifix. To this, I only state my utter disapproval. Why should the Mar Thoma Cross be placed in the church at all? The Apostle Paul “resolved to know nothing… except Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2), and like Paul, we should be wise enough to realize that the Crucifix is ALL that we need in our place of worship. We are further taught to “never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified” (Gal. 6:14). We are to rally behind the Crucifix alone in our faith, for nowhere in the Bible does it permit the placement of a meaningless imitation in the place of worship. According to the teachings of Biblical epistles, the Crucifix alone is more than sufficient for our faith. The Mar Thoma Cross, however, is only useful for collecting dust.
Then, of course, there is the issue of the curtain. One of the greatest merits of the Christian faith that separates it from other religions is that, unlike the gods of other people, our God revealed Himself to us by coming to Earth and teaching us about the Father, Himself. While the followers of Islam and Hinduism pray to deities that hide in the heavens, Christians can boast that they have had the chance to experience the revelation of their God through the Son that was sent to earth, according to John 1:18, which states that “the begotten Son, who is God and is at the Father’s side, has revealed God the Father”. If we have been given the privilege of having our Father revealed to us, is it really necessary to veil Him once more with a physical curtain? At the death of Christ, “the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom” (Mt. 27:51), making the situation as literal as it could possibly be. The temple, which housed the Lord, employed the use of a curtain to separate the Jews from God. Through the death of Jesus, however, the Lord has been revealed to us and the need for a physical separation has been rendered obsolete. By choosing to use a curtain in our church and separate ourselves from the Lord that saved us, we are losing one of the greatest things that make our faith unique. By hiding God from the people, we are no better than the Jews and Muslims that have not had the opportunity to even know their gods.

Respected readers, just as the bronze serpent was lifted in the desert, we must not hesitate to raise the depiction of our Lord in our church (Jn. 3:14). Moreover, Jesus is the “way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), and “that life was the light of all men” (John 1:4). Because of this, we must remember that “no one lights a lamp and puts it in a place where it will be hidden” (Lk. 11:33), not even behind a curtain. The bishop may choose to support an image that is unnecessary and meaningless, but the fact of the matter is that we have Scriptural evidence to support the Crucifix. Therefore, by choosing to deny us the symbol of our faith, the bishop chooses to deny the word of God. To this, I say to the bishop, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above” (Jn. 19:11). If the bishop fights against the word of the very God that gave him his authority, so be it. Let him bear that hypocrisy on his conscience. To those who choose to rally behind the symbol of the cross, we join you. The symbol of our faith is the Crucifix, not the Mar Thoma Cross, and we gladly proclaim it as our Scripture commands instead of sheltering it behind a veil.

If the supporters of the Mar Thoma Cross choose to refute the above arguments for the Crucifix, the very best I can do is to simply snicker at their strange sense of humor inherent in their meaningless and illogical claims for support of the Mar Thoma Cross.