Kevin:

The point is that the cross alone does not get us to the core or goal of the gospel.  You have to have it (which is the point you are right to make), but if one stops there, something crucial is missing. It is the core of the synecdoche because it all starts with the cross, but it does not end there. John shows us this by calling the cross the glorification of the Son, but the very reference to glorification pushes us toward resurrection-ascension and life. Remember I am not speaking of the cross and all it is in the NT but how we tend to portray it when we discuss it and highlight transaction. It is in that sense of making it sound like only a transaction that I am complaining about its use. I am comfortable with speaking about the cross as a part of the meal. My point in making it like the utensils was to say that a cross without reaching the goal of relationship (that is as transaction alone) is like sitting at the table and never getting to the food that is the point of sitting down to a meal. Please hear me, I am not saying that is what the Bible says about the cross. I am saying when we present the cross as if it were merely a transaction that is what we risk making it become. Does that make any more sense?