Answering an iconoclast

[MissingtheMark]

As many of you know, Martin Luther's views on icons varied throughout his ministry, from virtual iconoclast to, “It was a good practice to hold a wooden crucifix before the eyes of the dying or to press it into their hands. This brought the suffering and death of Christ to mind and comforted the dying. (LW 23)”

I have a family member who agrees with much of Lutheran doctrine, but sees crucifixes (graven image) as a huge stumbling block. Personally, I consider crucifixes and other carvings and symbols as adiaphoron in nature and have no strong reaction either way.

Does anyone have any ideas on how I can help him with these concerns? Thanks!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Hi,

God has given many gifts to mankind. One of them is art, and an appreciation of things of beauty, things that inspire, things that cause us to pause, think and reflect, even things that may inspire faith and repentance.

Scripture does this, and Scripture was given to us directly by God. One would need to have no imagination at all not to picture that which the Bible describes to us in words. Some are gifted that they not only visualize but can create representations of that which the Bible only speaks.

The Altar with it's Cross or Crucifix and possibly statuary are not holy in and of them selves, but what they represent is. We keep photos of our loved ones, we do not love the photos, but we do love those whose representations are in these photos. Likewise, we do not worship the crucifix, but He, Whose representation Whom we see.

 

[Moses Medina]

Oh Mark, he who answers well. Nothing much to say here except... I agree with Mark.

 

[MissingtheMark]

I completely agree as well, but I'm hoping there's a way to really answer his objections. Though I disagree with my family member on his conclusion, his cited verses of Exodus 20:3-6 and Acts 17:29 seem to be in agreement.

He seems to be confusing the existence of a graven image or symbol with worship thereof and there are countless OT verses relating to destruction of idols. That is the tack I plan to take on this with him, but any other insight would be appreciated.

 

[Tangible]

This picture is prominently displayed in many Baptist and baptistic churches. In the little Baptist church I grew up in it was hung in the very front of the church so that it was visible above the pastor's head when he stood at the pulpit.

It's an icon. It's a representation of Jesus, and there are significant representational elements presented. Meditating on the picture and its elements reaffirms their decision theology.

It's a Baptist icon.

You might also mention Nativity scenes and baby Jesus figures.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I completely agree as well, but I'm hoping there's a way to really answer his objections. Though I disagree with my family member on his conclusion, his cited verses of Exodus 20:3-6 and Acts 17:29 seem to be in agreement.

He seems to be confusing the existence of a graven image or symbol with worship thereof and there are countless OT verses relating to destruction of idols. That is the tack I plan to take on this with him, but any other insight would be appreciated.

He needs to be mindful that the graven images that are condemned are those of false gods; the one true God commanded images be made to adorn his house of worship.

 

[FireDragon76]

It seems to me that Lutherans, even moreso than Anglicanism, have a strong tradition of religious art and even veneration (obviously many Christians venerate the Cross, it has a prominent place in our worship spaces and in our hymns). So I don't see being an iconoclast as compatible with Lutheranism. One can't read Luther's catechism without seeing that he believed in an embodied approach to the Christian faith, that you believe with your whole body (such as the sign of the cross).

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It seems to me that Lutherans, even moreso than Anglicanism, have a strong tradition of religious art and even veneration (obviously many Christians venerate the Cross, it has a prominent place in our worship spaces and in our hymns). So I don't see being an iconoclast as compatible with Lutheranism. One can't read Luther's catechism without seeing that he believed in an embodied approach to the Christian faith, that you believe with your whole body (such as the sign of the cross).

It's true!

 

[The Conductor]

It seems to me that Lutherans, even moreso than Anglicanism, have a strong tradition of religious art and even veneration (obviously many Christians venerate the Cross, it has a prominent place in our worship spaces and in our hymns). So I don't see being an iconoclast as compatible with Lutheranism. One can't read Luther's catechism without seeing that he believed in an embodied approach to the Christian faith, that you believe with your whole body (such as the sign of the cross).

That being said, it wouldn't be impossible for a church to decide together (for the sake of church order, although I can't really envision it) not to use any images. The issue would be if they said it was necessary.

 

[Cappadocious]

That being said, it wouldn't be impossible for a church to decide together (for the sake of church order, although I can't really envision it) not to use any images. The issue would be if they said it was necessary.

Hard to think of a motive (behind 'church order') that wouldn't involve Monophysitism, Nestorianism or Judaizing, though.

 

[The Conductor]

Hard to think of a motive (behind 'church order') that wouldn't involve Monophysitism, Nestorianism or Judaizing, though.

Yeah, I can only think of a few, and they're all really reaching:
1) They are a poor church, and believe they have better ways of spending money.
2) To avoid offense. (To whom? I don't know.)
3) Secret house church.

 

[Edouard]

I have seen churches literally split over images such as a picture being taken down during a service or a flag removed from the sanctuary. The question would be how much importance do you place upon these things. Even the Pharisee in the NT held to "tradition."

In today's churches we have "glorified" the cross I think. I would recommend people watch Ben Hur/Spartacus (old version) then watch "The Passion" - compare the two.

The "Passion" for the most part did the time/language/ culture and Jesus not being pictured as white justice.

I find in some of these paintings Christ is depicted as person who is "white" not out of symbolic reasons - but more with racial underlying tones.

You might be surprised. Just some thoughts.

 

[Cappadocious]

In today's churches we have "glorified" the cross I think.

I would hope so!