Why don’t Protestants like the Crucifix, and some the cross

[Brother-Mike]

From Wikipedia’s article on Latria, regarding Dulia:

—>

New Testament scholar James Dunn discusses the tradition of Catholic dulia in Augustine and Aquinas, mentioning that the new testament's use of δουλεία (pronounced dulia) is always used negatively. He states:

"douleia occurs only in the sense of 'slavery, servility', and always in a negative sense - the slavery to physical corruption (Rom. 8.21), slavery to the law (Gal. 5.1), slavery to the fear of death (Heb. 2.15)."[8]

Bill Mounce overviews New Testament use of δουλεία with the following chart:[9]

Romans 8:15	For you did not receive the spirit of slavery (douleias | δουλείας | gen sg fem) leading back to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption. By him we cry out, “Abba! Father!”
Romans 8:21	that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage (douleias | δουλείας | gen sg fem) to decay into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
Galatians 4:24	This may be interpreted allegorically, for these women represent two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children to be slaves (douleian | δουλείαν | acc sg fem); she is Hagar.
Galatians 5:1	For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery (douleias | δουλείας | gen sg fem).
Hebrews 2:15	and liberate those who throughout life were held in (douleias | δουλείας | gen sg fem) slavery (douleias | δουλείας | gen sg fem) by their fear of death.

<—

 

[dzheremi]

I don't know about the semantic range of δουλεία in the scriptures, so I guess I have to go with what has been presented, but I would add to it that the semantics of worship and religion more generally very easily lend themselves to extension or redefinition along the lines of what has already been presented. For example, in Coptic hymns, it is not uncommon to find the language of servitude positively self-applied, as in the last line of the hymn "Khen Efran" as sung for Holy Week: "Worthy, worthy, worthy, Thy servants, the Christians." (Axios, Axios, Axios, nekeviaik n-Christianos -- this line is a bit interesting because despite the obvious Greek, the one word that is distinctly Egyptian is the one used for "servants", which is etymologically related to that used for "slave", vok.)

The Latins likewise do the same, as in the Mozarabic hymn (at least that's where I know it from; it probably has much wider currency than that) "Per Gloria Nominis Tui", wherein they plea to God "auxiliare et miserere indignis servis tuis", to "help and have mercy upon Thy worthy servants." And I would think the prevalence of 'servant-based' names in Syriac and Ethiopic Christianity probably speak for themselves: 'Abdisho (Servant/Slave of Jesus), 'Abdalahad (Servant/Slave of the One [True God]), Gebremesqel (Servant of the Cross), Gebremariam (Servant of the Theotokos), etc.

Like it or not, there has basically always been this dimension within Christianity, wherein any misapprehensions vis-a-vis Romans 8:15 or similar verses are easily understood by emphasis on the adoption written of therein, not by fixation on the semantic range of δουλεία as though it could never possibly express something a Christian ought to do or a Christian's relation to his or her forefathers and foremothers of the faith.

We are proud to be slaves of Christ, and to reverently prostrate ourselves before His life-giving cross, and to give proper honor to those people and places and things He has blessed. If anyone is not, then I have to wonder why they cut themselves off from the living and continuing history of their own faith out of fidelity to an a priori principle regarding how the Bible (largely but not totally confined to proscriptions placed upon the Jews in the time before the incarnation of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ) is to be read and understood. Is that what following your religion most faithfully looks like to anyone, even to those who object to crosses or iconography? Did our Lord die and rise again in fulfillment of your hermeneutic?

(These two questions are hypothetical, by the way, to get people to think about what sort of alternative they are proposing to the normative and healthy Christian practice of veneration as it has been lived for 2,000 years. I already strongly suspect that the answer to them would be no for all but the most radical low church/no church Protestant, thanks be to God.)

 

[Clare73]

That is a good answer, and it is something no other religion has. However, crucifixion is a heavy topic, and you need a strong understanding of atonement with lots of help from the indwelling holy spirit.
Peter's first public sermon was very much a Christ Crucified sermon that resulted in 3000 experiencing a death blow to their hearts. But today we cannot go up to a nonbeliever and say: "you murdered the Messiah". That takes a lot of explaining. You might say: "My personal actions resulted in the torture, humiliation and cruel murder of Christ", but that takes lots of explaining also.

Problem?

 

[bling]

Problem?

Not sure what you are asking. How would you start a conversation with someone unfamiliar with the cross, who asked about the cross hanging from you neck?

 

[Clare73]

Not sure what you are asking. How would you start a conversation with someone unfamiliar with the cross, who asked about the cross hanging from you neck?

I'm a Christian and. . .

 

[GenemZ]

Many Protestants seem to dislike crucifixes, so they only use crosses. Now, it seems like the more modern Protestants don’t even like crosses in their churches either.

This makes no sense to me. In 1 Corinthians 1:23 Paul was very clear when he wrote, “we preach Christ crucified.”

I’m not say we don’t need to preach Jesus risen, but I think we should do both.

Paul was very clear when he wrote, “we preach Christ crucified.”

Crucified? = past tense.

Its not written... "we preach and display Christ always enduring being crucified."

For He is no longer being crucified. He was crucified to end misery.

He is now glorified and seated in Heaven, reigning over all creation.
That is what people need to be shown after understanding he had been crucified.

He was crucified to get us to become by God even seated with right now in heaven! That is how God sees us!

​

And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him
in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus."

Ephesians 2:6​

How many churches teach that today?

How many believers can accept it by faith and be blessed?

grace and truth .........

 

[Jonaitis]

Many Protestants seem to dislike crucifixes, so they only use crosses. Now, it seems like the more modern Protestants don’t even like crosses in their churches either.

This makes no sense to me. In 1 Corinthians 1:23 Paul was very clear when he wrote, “we preach Christ crucified.”

I’m not say we don’t need to preach Jesus risen, but I think we should do both.

How do you get the use of a crucifix from 1 Corinthians 1:23?

It is another invented and pointless distraction.

 

[ozso]

I'm not against Catholsim, except not agreeing with the strong emphasis on what I consider to be superfluous additions that seem rather eisegetically based on scripture. For me it's enough of a discipline focus on Christ, without adding in Mary, Michael, umpteen Saints, sybols, icons, relics, rituals etc.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Paul was very clear when he wrote, “we preach Christ crucified.”

Crucified? = past tense.

Its not written... "we preach and display Christ always enduring being crucified."

For He is no longer being crucified. He was crucified to end misery.

He is now glorified and seated in Heaven, reigning over all creation.
That is what people need to be shown after understanding he had been crucified.

He was crucified to get us to become by God even seated with right now in heaven! That is how God sees us!

​

And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him
in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus."

Ephesians 2:6​

How many churches teach that today?

How many believers can accept it by faith and be blessed?

grace and truth .........

That over emphasis is a little too "prosperity Gospel". Is Christ with us in our suffering at all?

 

[Clare73]

Paul was very clear when he wrote, “we preach Christ crucified.”

Crucified? = past tense.

Its not written... "we preach and display Christ always enduring being crucified."

For He is no longer being crucified. He was crucified to end misery.

He is now glorified and seated in Heaven, reigning over all creation.
That is what people need to be shown after understanding he had been crucified.

He was crucified to get us to become by God even seated with right now in heaven! That is how God sees us!

​

And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him
in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus."

Ephesians 2:6​

How many churches teach that today?

How many believers can accept it by faith and be blessed?

grace and truth .........

All based on his sacrificial death, which is worthy of memorialization, as we memorialize our fallen who have given their lives for the sake of our national well-being.

 

[GenemZ]

That over emphasis is a little too "prosperity Gospel". Is Christ with us in our suffering at all?

Prosperity Gospel? That is insulting. They are spiritual drop outs. Cowards who act brave in their ignorance.

Part of His comforting us when we suffer wishes to cause us to know rejoicing in our suffering. Rejoicing is knowing what Christ became AFTER his being crucified. Not while being crucified, For what Jesus experienced while bearing our sins is a suffering we could never handle and live.

He is not here groaning in pain with us as we groan. He is here being sympathetic and encouraging us by showing us what He promises is to be ours. What He won for us to have.

What He is now experiencing in His post-crucified, ascended glory, is not suffering as we know it. It says He is able to identify with us because of what He had suffered (past tense).

"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses,
but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin."

Hebrews 4:15​

Note: In the areas of temptation, Jesus never succumbed to sin. So even though He had all the temptations we had, the one thing Jesus can NOT say is 'I know what it is like to sin!' - He never did sin.


grace and peace .........

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Prosperity Gospel? That is insulting. They are spiritual drop outs. Cowards who act brave in their ignorance.

Part of His comforting us when we suffer wishes to cause us to know rejoicing in our suffering. Rejoicing is knowing what Christ became AFTER his being crucified. Not while being crucified, For what Jesus experienced while bearing our sins is a suffering we could never handle and live.

He is not here groaning in pain with us as we groan. He is here being sympathetic and encouraging us by showing us what He promises is to be ours. What He won for us to have.

What He is now experiencing in His post-crucified, ascended glory, is not suffering as we know it. It says He is able to identify with us because of what He had suffered (past tense).

"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses,
but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin."

Hebrews 4:15​

Note: In the areas of temptation, Jesus never succumbed to sin. So even though He had all the temptations we had, the one thing Jesus can NOT say is 'I know what it is like to sin!' - He never did sin.


grace and peace .........

No insult intended, of course. And I think when we speak of Christ we must acknowledge a depth of mystery in his being that we can only seem to point to.

But recall:
Matthew 25:40 ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Acts 9:4-5 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied.

His suffering is not just about being able to sympathize with our suffering from on high somewhere. We are part of the Body of Christ. Right?
He is intimate to our own inner most being. He still suffers with and in us even as he is exalted far above any suffering.

It sounds paradoxical. But that is how we know there is some truth to it.

John 20:20-23
“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.


To shun the crucifix is to overlook the significance and meaning of our own suffering which he has dignified.

 

[GenemZ]

No insult intended, of course. And I think when we speak of Christ we must acknowledge a depth of mystery in his being that we can only seem to point to.

But recall:
Matthew 25:40 ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Acts 9:4-5 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied.

His suffering is not just about being able to sympathize with our suffering from on high somewhere. We are part of the Body of Christ. Right?
He is intimate to our own inner most being. He still suffers with and in us even as he is exalted far above any suffering.

It sounds paradoxical. But that is how we know there is some truth to it.

John 20:20-23
“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.


To shun the crucifix is to overlook the significance and meaning of our own suffering which he has dignified.

No one is shunning the Crucifix. God does everything decently and in order.

Seeing Jesus always having to be hanging on the Cross is no good unless we also know we can not lose our salvation. Nor, that we must do works to be remain being saved. Those lies are an insult to the Work of Christ on the Cross. To make those things just as important as the Cross? Is blasphemy. Ironically, those who always keep Jesus hanging on the Cross tend to have those other traits thrown in as well. That is a "good news- bad news" gospel.

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me,
but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son
and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

John 6:39-40​

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

No one is shunning the Crucifix. God does everything decently and in order.

Seeing Jesus always having to be hanging on the Cross is no good unless we also know we can not lose our salvation. Nor, that we must do works to be remain being saved. Those lies are an insult to the Work of Christ on the Cross. To make those things just as important as the Cross? Is blasphemy. Ironically, those who always keep Jesus hanging on the Cross tend to have those other traits thrown in as well. That is a "good news- bad news" gospel.

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me,
but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son
and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

John 6:39-40​

You are confusing issues. "lose our salvation", "must do works to remain being saved". Not what I am talking about at all.

 

[GenemZ]

You are confusing issues. "lose our salvation", "must do works to remain being saved". Not what I am talking about at all.

But I am talking about it.

Why? For it mocks the agony of the Cross that Jesus bore when we see him yet hanging on his Cross.

"Why don’t Protestants like the Crucifix, and some the cross."

Apparently, that was asked by a non-protestant. I responded to the topic as addressing certain non-Protestants.

grace and peace ........

 

[DragonFox91]

I’ve been to several denomination Protestant churches over the years. Most have an empty cross in the sanctuary. I understand we don’t have Christ on the cross b/c he’s not on it anymore. I suspect it’s also b/c we don’t want to get into idol territory.



I think it’s a small detail, a minor difference, & Christ on it wouldn’t bother me. Nor s/ it bother Catholics ours is empty.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Why? For it mocks the agony of the Cross that Jesus bore when we see him yet hanging on his Cross.

How could you think that? It makes no sense. The crucifix memorializes that agony and reminds us all that he is with us in the depths of our pain as members of his mystical body.

 

[GenemZ]

How could you think that? It makes no sense. The crucifix memorializes that agony and reminds us all that he is with us in the depths of our pain as members of his mystical body.

Yes.. We are supposed to have knowledge of the suffering of the Cross. We are to learn how Jesus paid the price for all our sins. Yes! But?

Unfortunately, most Christians only know of the physical torment of Jesus, but too many fail to know about the horrendous spiritual torments suffered by Jesus while bearing our sins. For his screams only began when our sins were poured on his body, causing Jesus to become forsaken by the Father and Holy Spirit.. He was "forsaken." Being cut off from his fellowship with the Godhead was absolute agony for Jesus. He never cried out while being hurt physically.


As for what we are told Christians should be concentrating upon for now?

Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above,
where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above,
not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God."

Col 3:1-3
​

grace and peace!

 

[ViaCrucis]

How do you get the use of a crucifix from 1 Corinthians 1:23?

It is another invented and pointless distraction.

The crucifix boldly declares the Crucified Lord who rose from the dead.

That said, if someone doesn't want to have a crucifix on their walls or on a necklace, then don't. But those of us who treasure the crucifix as a symbol of the bold truth of the Cross and our Lord's precious sacrifice for us are doing nothing other than living within the truth of 1 Corinthians 1:23--we preach Christ crucified.

It would be wrong to say one has to have a crucifix.
But it's just as wrong to deny us the freedom in Christ to proclaim our faith through the crucifix.

I will cling to that old rugged cross.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RileyG]

Some Lutherans and Anglicans revere the crucifix. I think the bare cross, in Protestant traditions, emphasis on the resurrection rather than Christ's sacrifice.

Christ is indeed risen, and the RCC has always taught that. The crucifix is a visual reminder of his sacrifice for us.

Blessings