Using broad research findings in various fields, Robin Jensen has postulated an evolving view of the creation and reception of imagery of the Christian cross over the centuries. Her conclusions will find diverse responses from readers with their own knowledge of and interests in her discussion points. The organization of the study is mostly chronological, overlaid with thematic categories that describe coeval developments of expression for thought and sentiment. The daunting challenge for the author has been met in a sweeping overview, with conclusions that are insightful but sometimes over-simplified or lacking sufficient depth for substantiation. The contentions about dearth of pre-Constantinian cross imagery should have been established as concomitant to the general lack of definitively Christian iconography prior to the era of toleration rather than simply to a particular reticence to accept cross depictions per se.

The predominant thread of iconographic inquiry is supported by some artworks used more to selectively illustrate ideas than to investigate the art issues they might present, which would have developed enhanced understanding and investigation points. Relationships of her lines of analysis to the images provided is not always clear, especially since reference numbers are not provided for images placed in proximity to discussion points, and many works are referenced without user-friendly indications of where the works might be viewed. Visual details to support argument points are often too small to examine.

A more thorough art historical methodology and analysis would yield deeper veins of interpretation, but the author did not fully commit to any such particular disciplinary approach, although this could also be said of the modes for historical, theological, cultural, spiritual, or other specific investigative lines. Despite the shortcomings of the study for any specific scholarly discipline, it nonetheless provides a valuable framework for identifying certain trends of the evolution of depictions and interpretations of cross and crucifix, which other scholars might use as foundation for further inquiry and commentary. Jensen's suggestions for deeper study of her categories may certainly be useful as starting places for additional scholarship, while the reader seeking a general understanding of the lines of iconographic and devotional expression will likely find certain perceptions and inspiration.