A Question For Baptists, Reformed, Pentecostals, and the Like

[Albion]

We know who its supposed to represent, but who does it represent?

Jesus.

The second commandment, if it has any purpose at all, is a declaration that nothing man made can ever truthfully represent God. Any image of Christ, then, as I said, can only be a misrepresentation. Yes, even those beautiful paintings by Rembrandt.

Not exactly. If we take the commandment literally, we are not make any image at all, not just that we are not to make images that represent God. Do you have any such yourself? I think so.

 

[wondrousgnat]

When I was a Protestant the empty cross meant that Jesus won the victory. He conquered sin and death.

Now I am a Catholic. I have never heard any Catholic have a problem with the cross. And many do wear empty crosses (I have some myself). But to me the crucifix tells me why Jesus died: because of my sins. And pretty soon I will sin again. I need to be reminded before I sin again that it was me who put Jesus on that cross. If I was the only person in the world then Jesus still would have died for me alone.

And it is Jesus Himself whom I worship and not a piece of plastic or metal. I have a photo of my family but do not worship that photo.

 

[jax5434]

The difference is that you use a crucifix to commemorate his sacrifice. We use a cross to celebrate his victory. I don't see a problem with either.

God Bless
Jax

 

[jax5434]

An empty cross may suggest a risen Christ, but only to the extent that you think about that when viewing it. It could just as easily represent an unused cross. But the crucifix brings home, visually, the fact of what Christ went through for us.

But the cross was a common form of execution. When you look at a crucifix you have to assume that it is Jesus represented on it and not some anonymous victim.
Symbolism is a tricky thing, Live and let live.

God Bless
Jax

 

[Rhamiel]

for the OP

the difference between the first pic you posted and the second pic is that one is grand and the other is simple.

I think part of it has to do with foundations of Protestantism, a recoil against fiscal abuses by the clergy was something that the Reformers exploited to attract the common man
with the Radical Reformation going to the most extreme, but we can see similar strands throughout Anglicanism and Lutheranism as well (though less emphasized)

this is understandable, the Renaissance Church did have a lot of corruption in it.

I think that could be why a plastic nativity scene is accepted by all but a grand alter makes a few people queasy even if they might have problems articulating why or give other justifications for that unease

 

[Sketcher]

I'm not anti-crucifix, or anti-last-supper, for the record. Put them up in your home, wear the crucifixes any time you're not publicly sinning, whatever.

I will say though, that a Nativity scene outside is going to be different from such a scene inside the sanctuary, front and center on the stage. Why? Because humans are visual creatures, and when you combine that front-and-centered-ness of a religious image with religious music, it can lead to identifying your god with the image, as you worship him. That, last I checked, is idolatry. Pagan temples had images of their gods and goddesses front and center during their worship. Separate the image from the immediate setting of organized worship, and the risk of idolatry decreases significantly.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I attend a very conservative Baptist church, sometimes even a bit too right-wing for my own taste. I'm more moderate, although theologically I tend to lean toward conservative.

And the only thing I've ever heard the pastor say about crucifixes is that wearing or displaying them is not what makes you a Christian. He's right about that. I've worn crucifix jewelry to church, and no one has criticized. In fact, I've had some compliments. The church is not against the existence of the crucifix. They only want to make it plain that true Christianity is about accepting the Lord's work, not about your own work.

For the record, I agree, outlawing a crucifix on the grounds of the second commandment, and then doing a creche at Christmas time is inconsistent.

 

[wondrousgnat]

I do not see manger scenes, crosses or crucifixes as idolatry. I have never known anyone to worship them. What message they are sending is that the worship the Saviour that they represent.
I have both crosses and crucifixes. One represents the Saviour who conquered sin and death. The other represents the Saviour who died for the sins I have committed (and remember still commit).

 

[Albion]

I do not see manger scenes, crosses or crucifixes as idolatry. I have never known anyone to worship them. What message they are sending is that the worship the Saviour that they represent.
I have both crosses and crucifixes. One represents the Saviour who conquered sin and death. The other represents the Saviour who died for the sins I have committed (and remember still commit).

The point that is so hard to get people to understand is that to act towards such images as one would do if they were worshipping God could be wrongful in itself.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

The point that is so hard to get people to understand is that to act towards such images as one would do if they were worshipping God could be wrongful in itself.

Could you give an example of someone doing that? What about such things as shooing a cat away from sleeping in the manger? If done to keep the cat from soiling the hay, that seems reasonable. What if the thinking is, the cat will desecrate the manger just by its mere presence? Does it then become idolatry? I can understand wanting to keep the pieces clean because of Who and what they represent, but where does reverence for the symbolism become worshiping the item?

 

[saintandrew4life]

the nativity and the Cross both are Chirst

 

[JM]

Hi VDMA, I'm a little late getting in on the action, but I thought I could offer a Particular/Reformed Baptist view. Like you I am a confessional Christian holding to the London Baptist Confession of Faith published in 1689.

Upon talking to a few of my iconoclastic Christian friends, they tell me that the manger helps people remember the birth of Christ, and is not worshipped, and is thus not against the Second Commandment.

VDMA, if your friends were true iconoclasts they would probably avoid Christmas as well as images. Images are rejected for two reasons; firstly, they are viewed as breaking the 2nd commandment as you mentioned and secondly, the Bible doesn't command us to make images for use in/during/around/in association with worship. Lutherans and many modern evangelicals (conservatives included) hold to what is called the normative principle of worship which boils down to "what is not prohibited by scripture is permissible." Reformed, Anabaptists, other iconoclasts hold to the regulative principle which in essence breaks down to, "if it is not commanded in scripture it is not permissible." The regulative principle often extends to the idea of Christmas.

Now I do not mean to speak for my Catholic or Orthodox brethren, but among us Protestants who use the crucifix, we use the same reasoning.

The use of images, the crucifix, etc. was not a quick or easy decision. In fact it was a political decision forced upon Christians by State churches. I outline the political process in the Eastern Orthodox church here: the Controversy Over Images | Feileadh Mor

As long as it is not worshipped, and helps memorialize the death of Christ, it can be a useful and helpful aide.

I already have heard the argument that the empty cross signifies the Resurrection, but am more concerned with the argument that it is against the Second Commandment, as I can easily refute the Resurrection argument.

Your thoughts?

Pax Christi,

VDMA

I was asked a similar question through my blog so I'll include the answer belong.


JM – do you think they (icons and images) can be helpful for the faithful to enter into more pious prayer?

My answer:

The only aspiration for the Christian should be to exalt the Gospel, the free grace of God in salvation and declare this salvation through Jesus Christ alone. This was the practice of the early church before the so-called ‘Triumph of Orthodoxy.’ To enter into ‘more pious prayer’ we need to recognize our sinfulness and hopelessness for it is here that we experience God’s forgiveness and mercy. When we understand our helplessness in all our trials and earthly trouble we find Jesus Christ sweet, altogether lovely and our prayer is most pious (devout, dutiful, etc).

The better question is why not allow the revealed word of God to direct our worship? Baptists believe the Bible should dictate how Christians are to worship. When we deviate from scripture we invite superstition and idolatry into our church practices. Sacred and profane history has taught us that man manufactures idols out of the desires of his heart all of the time. The righteous man will make an idol of his righteousness and the religionist crafts an idol of his ceremony. To be pious and devout requires us to look to Christ and Him alone for all things.

I hope that helps.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

From the Westminster Larger Catechism:

Q. 107. Which is the second commandment?
A. The second commandment is, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Q. 108. What are the duties required in the second commandment?
A. The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto him: as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.

Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.

Q. 110. What are the reasons annexed to the second commandment, the more to enforce it?
A. The reasons annexed to the second commandment, the more to enforce it, contained in these words, For I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments; are, besides God's sovereignty over us, and propriety in us, his fervent zeal for his own worship, and his revengeful indignation against all false worship, as being a spiritual whoredom; accounting the breakers of this commandment such as hate him, and threatening to punish them unto divers generations; and esteeming the observers of it such as love him and keep his commandments, and promising mercy to them unto many generations.

 

[mafwons]

the nativity and the Cross both are Chirst

That is not only untrue, it makes the point about worship of objects.

 

[Albion]

Could you give an example of someone doing that? What about such things as shooing a cat away from sleeping in the manger? If done to keep the cat from soiling the hay, that seems reasonable. What if the thinking is, the cat will desecrate the manger just by its mere presence? Does it then become idolatry? I can understand wanting to keep the pieces clean because of Who and what they represent, but where does reverence for the symbolism become worshiping the item?

My apologies, LovebirdsFlying. This post of yours and the questions got by me and I just now noticed them.

Shooing a cat away from a manger scene doesn't seem to have anything to do with worship, not even the appearance of such.

But what if we speak of a worshipper kneeling in front of a statue of a saint, praying to that saint and saying "You can give me what I am asking. You are given that authority by God. Please answer my prayer. I praise you for your many miracles and saving souls (etc. etc.)"?

The Roman Catholic Church calls this a form of worship. I think it is exactly that--worship, even if the person involved has been primed to say it's not. It is what it is.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

My apologies, LovebirdsFlying. This post of yours and the questions got by me and I just now noticed them.

Shooing a cat away from a manger scene doesn't seem to have anything to do with worship, not even the appearance of such.

But what if we speak of a worshipper kneeling in front of a statue of a saint, praying to that saint and saying "You can give me what I am asking. You are given that authority by God. Please answer my prayer. I praise you for your many miracles and saving souls (etc. etc.)"?

The Roman Catholic Church calls this a form of worship. I think it is exactly that--worship, even if the person involved has been primed to say it's not. It is what it is.

Thank you for that. I was wondering because, in the past, I have been questioned about reluctance to do things like place a Bible on the floor, or set an object on top of one. Speaking of cats, I saw one of mine curled up asleep on top of a Bible, and it felt desecrating to me. At one point, after a house fire, I had difficulty bringing myself to throw one away that had been damaged. I could get a replacement, but it just didn't feel right to throw away a Bible.

There are also guidelines concerning the US flag, such as not flying one that is torn, bringing it off the flagpole in stormy weather, not using it for a table cloth (thereby putting things on top of it) not letting it touch the ground, etc. Some people consider those attitudes worshiping the flag, and I was once told I was worshiping the Bible. It's just reverence for God's holy Word, others say, and the taboos and ceremonies surrounding the flag are just respect for the country. But at what point do reverence and respect turn to worship? Does one actually have to pray to the flag, or to the Bible, before it is worship?

 

[Exodus20]

The problem I have with the crucifix i that Christ is no longer on the cross, so why are we keeping him up there? The whole point is we preach the Gospel which is that Christ was crucified and on the 3rd day he rose again, all you are showing with crucifix is the death of Christ, but much more important is that he rose again, because it shows his sacrifice as being acceptable to God. I serve a risen saviour, not one still on the cross.

To the O.P. --- I am amazed that you being a Lutheran wear a crucifix , and that you posted a photo of a "Lutheran" church in Norway --- a place that looks just like an R.C. place would look like. It has been years since I went to the 'Marriage Class" ( basic Bible highlights class ) at the WELS church , but I do NOT recall ever reading in the Lutheran catechism(s) about having a crucifix in a Lutheran church.

I was 'hitched' in a WELS church and there was NO crucifix in the building at all. I have attended other WELS churches & LCMS churches for usually Christmas Eve services or to keep peace with in-laws...

... and not once have I seen a crucifix nor have I ever seen a Lutheran Pastor wear one. I would urge you ( well , if you are over 18 you can do whatcha want ) get to a Lutheran Church that uses a plain cross , a pulpit / lectern with a Bible and a communion table with only the bread and cup on it. Otherwise ( IMO ) the place is heading to Rome.

Christ is risen !

I think a Christian chapel should have a cross on it and in it. The cross tells the public that we believe something. Cultists do not like a cross , and some of the diehard / super-dooper wannabe puritan types. At my former 1689 R.B. church ( I was a member for about 15 years ), some folks wanted the cross removed from the wall behind the pulpit area. Some thought it was too 'Romish" . Thankfully the Pastor said 'No' to them and the cross stayed.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

My personal opinion only, I don't see the crucifix as a statement that He is still on the cross, but a reminder that He was once there, and suffered greatly.

I, too, serve a risen Lord.

 

[Winchester]

I am a Pentecostal and I do wear a crucifix - an antonius cross with a corpus. Necklace and cross are made of pure gold. It is a gift from my mother when I was still a Catholic. I see no problem to wear such things. It is a symbol for me that I belong to Christ and nothing I worship. The Pentecostals in my church never said anything negative about it. Most of them are wearing a necklace with a cross in different forms, colors and compositions.

With Regards
Winchester

 

[nick garai]

I have to agree with those who state that Jesus came off of the cross. He was resurrected and left the cross behind. I think that the crucifix is offensive to behold.