Question for Lutherans/Protestants

[ProScribe]

Hello, I was skimming through the Book of Concord and was considering when Lutherans or Protestants began to use the plain wooden cross as compared to a Roman Catholic crucifix. Does anybody know the specifics for using the plain wooden cross as compared to the Roman Catholic crucifix? . .

Thanks. W.P.M.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I could not say this with 100% accuracy, that is, I have never read or encountered anything that claims this specifically, but if I were a betting man I would bet on this:

The issue really did not come out of Lutheranism but out of the reformation, more radical reformers used a different numbering of the 10 commandments, which was no small change. One one isolates "you shall not make unto me a graven image" from "you shall have no other gods" immediately this draws into question Christian art depicting Christ. Thus you only have a cross and not the crucifix because it is one thing to rally behind a cross and use it as a symbol of a church, it is another to put Jesus on it, because that would be a graven image. This is why in many protestant churches you will not only notice that the cross is plain and "empty", but there are no pictures of Jesus in stain glass.
A historical reference that would support this could be seen in the English Reformation and the violent anti-Catholic revolutions that would desecrate grave stones and vandalize churches to remove any "graven images" (along with any false gods such as statues of saints).
In America, many Lutherans have been highly influenced in practice and architecture by Protestants. There is no theology in Lutheranism that forbids crucifixes or stain glass images of Jesus. Churches that avoid this do so either unintentionally by accident or inherited American Protestant tradition, or as a means to connect with the greater American religious culture, that has been protestant by nature.

 

[Lost Squirrel]

Excellent points. It is also my understanding as relating to the theology of cross vs. glory thing. While the RCC focuses on the death and sacrifice of Christ (as you mentioned with graven image), we affiliate ourselves more closely with the resurrection and grace. He is not there; He has risen - for us, for our sins.
Not seeing a crucifix is something that is taking me a while to "get over" - as I understand all above mentioned points, it proves to be just an emotional barrier which keeps me from attaining a closer relationship with our Risen Lord in that sense, when we get caught up in the "logistics" of the death, not the reason and resurrection.

 

[alexnbethmom]

we have crucifixes in our church - there are crucifixes in my home church - an "empty cross" is not the only cross you will find in a Lutheran church - we have both - because without Christ's sacrifice and Him dying on the Cross, we have absolutely nothing.

 

[DaRev]

Lutherans preach Christ and Him crucified. The plain cross is not a Lutheran thing, although some Lutheran churches have unfortunately picked this up out of the evangelical protestant tradition.

 

[LilLamb219]

We have both at my church but my old church only had the plain cross.

 

[Aibrean]

We only have crucifix's in the sanctuary.

 

[MDIVGRAD]

I remember when I was 14 and confirmed, I received a crucifix from one of my dad's cousins who was RCC. I still have it somewhere. I left the Lutheran Church for about 15 years and during that time I saw churches that had no crosses as well as ones that did. Those that did were empty and the idea behind that whole thing is this, He died and was taken off the cross and resurrected therefore we should not show him still on the cross.

Since coming back to the Lutheran Church and then going through Seminary in Fort Wayne, I appreciate so much more the crucifix because I know that is where I can take my sins. To the foot of the cross where he died for them.

Crosses are not the first symbol of Christianity, the fish or Ichythus was. Too many people wear crosses for the wrong reasons. I see some wear them just as decoration and not as a confession of their beliefs.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

In the Chapel of the Christ at Martin Luther College, we have a cross that will have two different poses of Jesus on it. Christ the King and Christ the Lamb. During Lent, it is Christ the Lamb, as a crucifix. After Easter, it is Christ the King who has risen triumphant. This is Christ the King. Not a great picture, but it's the only one I could find. I'll have to take pictures next time I'm there...

Often in many churches that have plain crosses they may drape it with a cloth as a reminder as well.

I have a crucifix necklace that I wear during Lent. Otherwise, the crosses I wear are plain.

 

[Albion]

In the Chapel of the Christ at Martin Luther College, we have a cross that will have two different poses of Jesus on it. Christ the King and Christ the Lamb. During Lent, it is Christ the Lamb, as a crucifix. After Easter, it is Christ the King who has risen triumphant. This is Christ the King. Not a great picture, but it's the only one I could find. I'll have to take pictures next time I'm there...

This (above) is actually the "Risen Christ" crucifix, not the "Christus Rex" AKA Christ the King crucifix which pictures Christ in eucharistic vestments with his arms stretched sideways at a 90 degree angle to his body. The appeal of the Christus Rex for some people is that it seems to parallel the shape of the cross, almost blend into it, whereas the Risen Christ crucifix is a more lifelike figure superimposed upon the cross or, you might say, placed in front of the cross.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

This (above) is actually the "Risen Christ" crucifix, not the "Christus Rex" AKA Christ the King crucifix which pictures Christ in eucharistic vestments with his arms stretched sideways at a 90 degree angle to his body. The appeal of the Christus Rex for some people is that it seems to parallel the shape of the cross, almost blend into it, whereas the Risen Christ crucifix is a more lifelike figure superimposed upon the cross or, you might say, placed in front of the cross.

I'll have to find my information on the two figures, since I'm pretty sure there's an extensive history written as to this being Christ the King. I've personally not heard of what you describe here, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong. I just know what the two figures are referred to in Chapel history.

 

[Albion]

I'll have to find my information on the two figures, since I'm pretty sure there's an extensive history written as to this being Christ the King. I've personally not heard of what you describe here, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong. I just know what the two figures are referred to in Chapel history.

I own examples of both. Interestingly enough, a friend gave me the Risen Christ crucifix, having mistaken it for a Christus Rex crucifix that I'd been heard to say I have a fondness for. The Risen Christ crucifix is what we'd call lifelike, while the Christus Rex is fanciful both in the way the figure is dressed and "posed", but it does make him look kingly (which we might expect, given that name).

 

[Doublemint]

The main one that we have is a plain one.

The small one on the altar is the crucifix.

 

[Doublemint]

So this one is basically the same idea as plain cross - risen Christ.

 

[Albion]

So this one is basically the same idea as plain cross - risen Christ.

A point here that probably relates to the exchange between Preacher's Wife and me about the Risen Christ cross and the Christus Rex crucifixes is that there's a middle ground possible between a bare cross and the typical crucifix. Both have their strengths. The plain cross refers to Christ having risen and gone from the cross; the typical crucifix reminds the viewer of what suffering Christ went through for us. But some who are favorable to crucifixes still don't care for the grotesquely tortured look of the body on some of the crucifixes that many Catholics, for example, take for granted. For such people, the Risen Christ and Christus Rex crosses split the difference. They are not literally accurate as they don't show how a crucifixion would look, but they aren't terrifying figures either. Both are, on the contrary, rather triumphant in style. Incidentally, it took about seven centuries before crucifixes with bodies on them became standard Christian emblems, so the bare cross might be preferable to those who are inclined towards that which is more ancient.

 

[Doublemint]

A point here that probably relates to the exchange between Preacher's Wife and me about the Risen Christ cross and the Christus Rex crucifixes is that there's a middle ground possible between a bare cross and the typical crucifix. Both have their strengths. The plain cross refers to Christ having risen and gone from the cross; the typical crucifix reminds the viewer of what suffering Christ went through for us. But some who are favorable to crucifixes still don't care for the grotesquely tortured look of the body on some of the crucifixes that many Catholics, for example, take for granted. For such people, the Risen Christ and Christus Rex crosses split the difference. They are not literally accurate as they don't show how a crucifixion would look, but they aren't terrifying figures either. Both are, on the contrary, rather triumphant in style. Incidentally, it took about seven centuries before crucifixes with bodies on them became standard Christian emblems, so the bare cross might be preferable to those who are inclined towards that which is more ancient.

Some of them (in my opinion) are really made to look especially grotesque for a purpose of simply playing on worshipers' emotions and collecting more money.
I saw some in some of the movies the way they had it in South America - this is made really grotesque apparently to make money.
Nothing new.

But there are also the ones which are properly shaped with proper somber mood.

But I know what you are saying ...

 

[QuiltAngel]

Albion,
While it may be the crosses are named the way that you state they are does not mean that this particular chapel has named it that way. In that respect, you and PW are probably both right.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Albion,
While it may be the crosses are named the way that you state they are does not mean that this particular chapel has named it that way. In that respect, you and PW are probably both right.

That's kinda the route I'm heading towards. I still can't find my booklet on the chapel - they just completed it in the last year - but I know for a fact they call it Christ the King.

 

[Albion]

Albion,
While it may be the crosses are named the way that you state they are does not mean that this particular chapel has named it that way. In that respect, you and PW are probably both right.

Of course. The chapel is apparently named the Chapel of the Christ, not Risen Christ or Christ the King, so that isn't at issue. If you are referring to what the pictured crucifix is called in that particular church, I would have no way of knowing. But yes, I was just saying--for no reason other than general linformation--that the design that is normally and customarily called a Christus Rex (ie, Christ the King) crucifix looks a bit different from the Risen Christ design which is exactly as shown in the picture.

 

[WildStrawberry]

We have an empty cross at my home Church. At one point, someone donated a Crucifix. This was carried in before each service, set next to the pulpit during the service except for during the Gospel lesson where it would proceed Pastor to the middle of the sanctuary (ours is an octagon) where Pastor would read the Lesson. Then it would be processed back to the pulpit until the end of the service where it would go out.

This just suddenly started to happen one Sunday and, needless to say, it incited a STORM of controversy. Some people swore if the Crucifix stayed, they'd leave. Others swore if the Crucifix left, so would they. Sadly, the Crucifix silently went away.