The Crucifix a Graven Image?

[jinc1019]

Hi All,

I've come even closer to Lutheranism, but one of the trouble areas I have had lately is with displaying Christ in worship. I think there are a number of problems with this, and I am hoping you all can provide me with some good reasons why we ought to do it. My major issues with it are this:

1. I worry that although people don't typically worship it per se, they do tend to show a higher level of respect toward than they would most other images, and this could be, in a sense, a minor form of worship. In the Greek OT, there is no distinction between levels of respect you can give within the context of worship. I guess I just worry that by having it, people could be drawn to it in a way that makes it a sort of idol.

2. We don't know what Jesus looked like, and if we display a picture of Christ and direct our attention to it, we are really directing our attention in worship to something that isn't even accurate. Not only isn't it accurate, it's someone else up there other than Christ...and this makes me feel uncomfortable in light of the Ten Commandments.

3. And this is the thing that makes me feel most uncomfortable: From the research I have done, it appears as though many early Christians were opposed to any images of humans in church at all and virtually all Christians of the first three centuries practiced Christianity without pictures of Christ. All the sources I can find addressing this issue indicate that Christians were totally opposed to the practice. Although tradition is not authoritative like scripture is, this issue is complicated because the Ten Commandments does warn us about worshipping or serving pictures and tells us not to make images of God...And then we see that the earliest Christians seemed to understand this as a prohibition against making images of Christ. Yet, today, Lutherans seem ok with the practice.

Let me be clear: I am not a believer in the Regulative Principle of Worship, but I do worry about this practice of displaying Christ in an inaccurate, 3-d form that could conflict with the prohibitions of the Bible and definitely seems to violate what most Christians believed in the first 300 years or so after Christ.

Help on this?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

To my knowledge, Lutherans have never had problems with religious art aside from some minor iconoclasm impulses in Denmark in the 1500's. Luther cautioned against veneration of statues but viewed images of Christ and the saints as "servants to the Gospel".

Most if not all Lutheran churches have crucifixes since we preach Christ Crucified and use Good Friday for the adoration of the holy Cross. We, of-course, do not worship the image but may kiss or show reverence to the Cross during the Good Friday liturgy.

Our churches can be as elaborate as a Roman Catholic church or as plain as a Protestant church.

 

[graceandpeace]

(Keeping in mind that I am a guest in this forum, I hope my Lutheran friends do not mind if I speak up.)

There were reasons in the very beginnings of Christianity for controversy around images & their scarcity (I.e. different streams of thought in Judaism, persecution of Christians, etc), but there are a few early surviving images of Jesus.

I would suggest a reading of the Second Council of Nicaea. Yes it's later than the first 300 years, but I think for most Christians this settles the matter.

 

[jinc1019]

To my knowledge, Lutherans have never had problems with religious art aside from some minor iconoclasm impulses in Denmark in the 1500's. Luther cautioned against veneration of statues but viewed images of Christ and the saints as "servants to the Gospel".

Most if not all Lutheran churches have crucifixes since we preach Christ Crucified and use Good Friday for the adoration of the holy Cross. We, of-course, do not worship the image but may kiss or show reverence to the Cross during the Good Friday liturgy.

Our churches can be as elaborate as a Roman Catholic church or as plain as a Protestant church.

I think some of the earliest German Lutherans did. If I recall, Karlstadt, who definitely had Lutheran tendencies, led a lot of German Lutherans toward the smashing of art, etc. This, however, was quite early on. After Luther spoke out about it, it did became quite unpopular in Germany to smash art.

I understand that Lutherans do not worship art or any depictions of Jesus. The concern I have, as I mentioned above, is precisely that the kissing of the cross, bowing to the cross, etc. is giving a higher degree of respect to an object than simply using it as a reminder. I love George Washington, but I would never bow down before his statue or kiss a picture of him, etc. I realize that Christ is God, thus the behavior is not quite as bad as it would be if it were done to any other person, but again, the crucifix is not really Jesus, nor does the figure on it look like Jesus. It's simply an imagined representation of him. So I find it very odd that we'd honor Jesus by kissing an image of Jesus that doesn't look anything like him.

Further, it seems to me that whenever we direct our attention to a manmade thing within a religious context. You can argue of course that it's permissible so long as we don't actually worship the item itself, but this is the opposite of how Jews treated art all the way up to the time of Christ and for hundreds of years later. Many of the earliest Christians also believed we should not be representing Christ in physical form in Art. The famous church historian Eusebius, for instance, said this:

And since you have written about some supposed
likeness or other of Christ, what and what kind of likeness of Christ is there?...Such images are forbidden by the second commandment. They are not to be found in churches, and are forbidden among Christians alone

 

[jinc1019]

Eusebius goes on to explain that we can't possibly capture Christ's Divine nature, and thus, we shouldn't depict his human nature alone.

 

[jinc1019]

(Keeping in mind that I am a guest in this forum, I hope my Lutheran friends do not mind if I speak up.)

There were reasons in the very beginnings of Christianity for controversy around images & their scarcity (I.e. different streams of thought in Judaism, persecution of Christians, etc), but there are a few early surviving images of Jesus.

I would suggest a reading of the Second Council of Nicaea. Yes it's later than the first 300 years, but I think for most Christians this settles the matter.

Yes, but the Second Council of Nicea was some 800 years after Christ. The Council of Elvira, a regional council, ruled decidedly against images in the third century.

I understand that eventually, everyone stopped having a problem with it save a few relatively small movements. Only the Reformed (Presbyterian and continental) fully rejected it as part of a major movement once it had become popular.

But my goal isn't to get to whatever the "consensus" is. If that's the goal, everyone should be Catholic. There are more Catholics in the world than any other group of Christians. Yet, I don't believe what they teach is apostolic.

I'm very Lutheran in my theological views, but it's hard to understand the position of Lutherans on this one. There's really no good reason for having images of Christ in church, where they become a focus of worship in some way, even if its very small.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Christianity is fundamentally the religion of the Incarnation; that God became man, that He was born, that He lived, that He suffered, died, was buried, raised again, ascended into heaven, and is coming again.

The very concept of Icon is embedded in the very fabric of Christian thought; the material world is fundamentally good, and serves to glorify the Creator. Which is why historically Christian worship has been very "sensual"--all the smells and bells. Christian worship has involved sounds, smells, taste, touch, and sights.

When used rightly, images are for our benefit. We don't look upon the crucifix in order to worship it, but because it compels us to look to the reality it represents: The crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ who took upon Himself the sins of the world and has delivered us to God the Father in His mercy, becoming the peace between us and God.

A proper understanding of a crucifix is that it is a visible declaration of the Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[EvangelCatholic]

There are many better equipped posters who can address the historic understanding of sacred images in the Early Church; perhaps Mark Rohfrietsch can jump in.

When the processional cross is carried into the church it is common for Lutherans to bow to that image of holy Cross, bow to the altar and in some parishes where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved we may also genuflect. We kneel for holy Communion and may cross ourselves when taking the Body and Blood of Christ.

Lutherans believe that Christ is Present and that the altar, in particular, represents Christ. Many of our altars have 5 small crosses engraved in the altar table to remind us of the Five Holy Wounds. I think if Christians believe in the Real Presence that they are more likely to drop to their knees in adoration and thanksgiving.

Having a cross/ crucifix or icon of Christ, the Madonna and Child, holy Apostles in the home is also common among Lutherans as reminders of our faith.

Wonder if the OP also has an image of Christ [picture, cross, statue]. I have seen photos of Presbyterian churches that appear quite ornate.

 

[graceandpeace]

Yes, but the Second Council of Nicea was some 800 years after Christ. The Council of Elvira, a regional council, ruled decidedly against images in the third century.

1) Why would you give more weight to a regional council than a conciliar, ecumenical council? Yes, the regional council is earlier, but it was not conciliar.

2) There is a possibility that only the first 21 canons or so of Elvira are authentic, which would exclude the canon about images.

I understand that eventually, everyone stopped having a problem with it save a few relatively small movements. Only the Reformed (Presbyterian and continental) fully rejected it as part of a major movement once it had become popular.

But my goal isn't to get to whatever the "consensus" is. If that's the goal, everyone should be Catholic. There are more Catholics in the world than any other group of Christians. Yet, I don't believe what they teach is apostolic.

Christianity is a conciliar religion. Do you accept the Nicene Creed? There was a strong Arian voice in the early religion, & that voice was silenced by the conciliar voice - the consensus - of the Church.

I disagree with aspects of Roman Catholicism, but the RCC is not the only Catholic Church. Episcopalians & Lutherans are reformed Catholics. The EOC & OOC are Catholic, too.

Just something to consider. I will end my input here & let Lutherans respond, since this is their forum.

 

[Tangible]

God has presented himself to man in visible form in the person of Jesus Christ. He said "if you have seen me you have seen the father." God wants us to visualize him as Jesus and to not use images of Jesus in worship would be to break the first commandment.

 

[jinc1019]

Christianity is fundamentally the religion of the Incarnation; that God became man, that He was born, that He lived, that He suffered, died, was buried, raised again, ascended into heaven, and is coming again.

The very concept of Icon is embedded in the very fabric of Christian thought; the material world is fundamentally good, and serves to glorify the Creator. Which is why historically Christian worship has been very "sensual"--all the smells and bells. Christian worship has involved sounds, smells, taste, touch, and sights.

When used rightly, images are for our benefit. We don't look upon the crucifix in order to worship it, but because it compels us to look to the reality it represents: The crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ who took upon Himself the sins of the world and has delivered us to God the Father in His mercy, becoming the peace between us and God.

A proper understanding of a crucifix is that it is a visible declaration of the Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

I can certainly understand that and sympathize with the reasoning of the argument, but none of that is evidence from either history or the Bible. It's simply a theological theory based on your interpretation of the Bible. I think, for me, that's the problem. Without the evidence, I don't know how we could have the practice.

 

[jinc1019]

There are many better equipped posters who can address the historic understanding of sacred images in the Early Church; perhaps Mark Rohfrietsch can jump in.

When the processional cross is carried into the church it is common for Lutherans to bow to that image of holy Cross, bow to the altar and in some parishes where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved we may also genuflect. We kneel for holy Communion and may cross ourselves when taking the Body and Blood of Christ.

Lutherans believe that Christ is Present and that the altar, in particular, represents Christ. Many of our altars have 5 small crosses engraved in the altar table to remind us of the Five Holy Wounds. I think if Christians believe in the Real Presence that they are more likely to drop to their knees in adoration and thanksgiving.

Having a cross/ crucifix or icon of Christ, the Madonna and Child, holy Apostles in the home is also common among Lutherans as reminders of our faith.

Wonder if the OP also has an image of Christ [picture, cross, statue]. I have seen photos of Presbyterian churches that appear quite ornate.

All great points.

Let me be clear...I'm not a Puritan. I don't have any problems with the crosses in Church, stained glass windows depicting the apostles and biblical scenes, etc. I have no problem with kneeling before the Eucharist, especially, since that really is Christ.

I also don't have a problem with having pictures of Mary or other biblical figures at home, so long as they are not treated in a worshipful manner. What my issue is is the high treatment of an inaccurate depiction of Christ in human form in a worship setting. We shouldn't be worshiping images; we all agree on that. However, I think the biblical understanding of "worship" and "serving" images is more broad than believing the images are in and of themselves God. I also believe it's treating them in a manner that's higher than any other images we may have. That's not right in my opinion. As soon as we elevate images above all other images, especially when we are talking about Christ, we are now, in some limited way, serving the image and treating the image as an object of worship, however limited it may be. This, by the way, is why Jews always forbid the use of images in worship and often in general! And again, the earliest Christians, at least many of them, also held these views. It's not like John Calvin came along and no one had ever thought of this.

 

[jinc1019]

1) Why would you give more weight to a regional council than a conciliar, ecumenical council? Yes, the regional council is earlier, but it was not conciliar.

2) There is a possibility that only the first 21 canons or so of Elvira are authentic, which would exclude the canon about images.



Christianity is a conciliar religion. Do you accept the Nicene Creed? There was a strong Arian voice in the early religion, & that voice was silenced by the conciliar voice - the consensus - of the Church.

I disagree with aspects of Roman Catholicism, but the RCC is not the only Catholic Church. Episcopalians & Lutherans are reformed Catholics. The EOC & OOC are Catholic, too.

Just something to consider. I will end my input here & let Lutherans respond, since this is their forum.

I think you're missing my point about the RCC. You said, and have now repeated, that Christianity is a conciliar religion, meaning decisions are made by councils of Christians who come together to determine how to deal with controversies. This system allows the majority opinion, whatever it may be, to stand.

Lutherans, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox are decidedly NOT in the majority. Combined, they don't even come close to the number of priests, theologians, and bishops of the Catholic Church, which means if we were to have a true ecumenical council today that everyone agreed to abide by, everyone would be Roman Catholic. Your view of the councils is deeply flawed for that reason.

Christianity is NOT a religion of "majority goes." It's a religion of "truth." What is true? That's the big question. I base it off of the historical evidence, not based on what councils said hundreds of years later. If the goal is to get as close to the teachings of Christ as possible, why would I care what a council said 800 years later? That isn't evidence of what the apostles believed. That's why Elvira is more important. It's the earliest council I am aware of that even dealt with this issue at all, and guess what, they fell on the other side of the issue!

 

[jinc1019]

God has presented himself to man in visible form in the person of Jesus Christ. He said "if you have seen me you have seen the father." God wants us to visualize him as Jesus and to not use images of Jesus in worship would be to break the first commandment.

You are making an extremely large assumption here: You are assuming what I see when I look at a modern picture of Jesus is actually Jesus...and it's not. It's some artist's fabrication based on nothing. Most pictures of Jesus today aren't even depicting a Jewish man in terms of his appearance! If this idea that we must be depicting Christ or else we would be violating the First Commandment makes no sense in light of the evidence. What I mean is this: Where is there a description of Christ's appearance in the Gospels? Where is a description of his appearance in the early church? Where is there any evidence of a picture of Christ in the first 200 years of Christianity? You won't find any of that. If what you are saying is true, there would be pictures of Jesus everywhere and the Apostles would have been sure to describe his appearance! Yet, they didn't. I think that speaks volumes.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

All great points.

Let me be clear...I'm not a Puritan. I don't have any problems with the crosses in Church, stained glass windows depicting the apostles and biblical scenes, etc. I have no problem with kneeling before the Eucharist, especially, since that really is Christ.

I also don't have a problem with having pictures of Mary or other biblical figures at home, so long as they are not treated in a worshipful manner. What my issue is is the high treatment of an inaccurate depiction of Christ in human form in a worship setting. We shouldn't be worshiping images; we all agree on that. However, I think the biblical understanding of "worship" and "serving" images is more broad than believing the images are in and of themselves God. I also believe it's treating them in a manner that's higher than any other images we may have. That's not right in my opinion. As soon as we elevate images above all other images, especially when we are talking about Christ, we are now, in some limited way, serving the image and treating the image as an object of worship, however limited it may be. This, by the way, is why Jews always forbid the use of images in worship and often in general! And again, the earliest Christians, at least many of them, also held these views. It's not like John Calvin came along and no one had ever thought of this.

I was just thinking how you might get traumatized by incense in worship!

During Lent the altar crucifix is veiled and using a thurible, the pastor incenses it 3 times for the holy Trinity.

Outward gestures just like Baptists waving their hands over their heads in worship. We express ourselves in different ways; none any better than the other.

 

[jinc1019]

I was just thinking how you might get traumatized by incense in worship!

During Lent the altar crucifix is veiled and using a thurible, the pastor incenses it 3 times for the holy Trinity.

Outward gestures just like Baptists waving their hands over their heads in worship. We express ourselves in different ways; none any better than the other.

Haha...Actually, I come from a Catholic background and have spent a lot of time in High-Church Anglican churches, so it certainly wouldn't traumatize me!

 

[Systematiker]

I think you're missing my point about the RCC. You said, and have now repeated, that Christianity is a conciliar religion, meaning decisions are made by councils of Christians who come together to determine how to deal with controversies. This system allows the majority opinion, whatever it may be, to stand.

Lutherans, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox are decidedly NOT in the majority. Combined, they don't even come close to the number of priests, theologians, and bishops of the Catholic Church, which means if we were to have a true ecumenical council today that everyone agreed to abide by, everyone would be Roman Catholic. Your view of the councils is deeply flawed for that reason.

Christianity is NOT a religion of "majority goes." It's a religion of "truth." What is true? That's the big question. I base it off of the historical evidence, not based on what councils said hundreds of years later. If the goal is to get as close to the teachings of Christ as possible, why would I care what a council said 800 years later? That isn't evidence of what the apostles believed. That's why Elvira is more important. It's the earliest council I am aware of that even dealt with this issue at all, and guess what, they fell on the other side of the issue!

So, with respect, you may be missing the point on the idea of conciliar. Accepting a certain number of the ecumenical councils is pretty much part of being a Christian, the question is which ones and what bits. Disagree? Nicaea. Canon formation. Etc.

The thing is, you have consensus with someone based on your convictions. Unless, of course, you're the only member of your church, and you hold that only you can properly interpret Scripture (nota bene: I am not accusing you of this!). The idea is to interpret Scripture in community, and we've all got certain lenses through which we read it. You can't do away with tradition entirely.

Asserting that Elvira is more important because it is older is unfortunately a fallacy- it's the appeal to antiquity.

It's not a matter of majority opinion, either. If that were the case, we'd all be Arians. Even regarding the formation of the canon - you've pretty much got to have some view of the role of the Holy Spirit in doctrinal developments.

As for what the apostles believed, we certainly hope that we've got a decent idea of oral apostolic tradition as well as the written records. Early church representations of Christ were a controversy, true. The earliest surviving was in the early 200s, I think, and the famous Good Shepherd one is also, I think, 3rd century. So you are really only a few generations away. The point is, if you believe that the Holy Spirit is at work preserving right doctrine, then it turned out the way it did for a reason (conversely, staunch Reformed would argue that the return of the prohibition is the work of the Spirit. I grant that).

What matters is who we are in community with, and why, because that goes a long way toward determining our hermeneutic - Luther's catechism treats the Ten Commandments, to be sure. I get how certain ways of looking at things can make one pull up short when transitioning traditions. The issue is a change in how we interpret Scripture, and well, everything, really. Everybody does it, we just become really aware of it when we bump up against each other like this.

Oh, and there can't be another "ecumenical council" with everyone involved because the RCC wouldn't let people play - no apostolic succession of bishops. And we'd probably all be RCC anyway, if they hadn't tied their hands with Trent (seriously, this is a huge problem for the RCC, they'd really like to go back on some of that).

I hope this doesn't come off as aggressive, it's not meant to be - I'm just trying to pack a lot in a small space.

 

[Basil the Great]

To my knowledge, Lutherans have never had problems with religious art aside from some minor iconoclasm impulses in Denmark in the 1500's. Luther cautioned against veneration of statues but viewed images of Christ and the saints as "servants to the Gospel".

Most if not all Lutheran churches have crucifixes since we preach Christ Crucified and use Good Friday for the adoration of the holy Cross. We, of-course, do not worship the image but may kiss or show reverence to the Cross during the Good Friday liturgy.

Our churches can be as elaborate as a Roman Catholic church or as plain as a Protestant church.

While I am no expert on the subject, I have been in at least 7 or 8 Lutheran churches and none of them had a crucifix. Having said that, all of them were ALC or LCA or ELCA churches. None of them were LCMS or WELS, if that matters.

 

[SalusaSecundus]

While I am no expert on the subject, I have been in at least 7 or 8 Lutheran churches and none of them had a crucifix. Having said that, all of them were ALC or LCA or ELCA churches. None of them were LCMS or WELS, if that matters.

The LCMS churches I have been to all had one. But my current church WELS doesn't have one at the back of the altar, it has a plain cross. But we do have a portable crucifix that's kind of like on a stand or something.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

While I am no expert on the subject, I have been in at least 7 or 8 Lutheran churches and none of them had a crucifix. Having said that, all of them were ALC or LCA or ELCA churches. None of them were LCMS or WELS, if that matters.

Yes, there are modern Lutheran churches that may not have a crucifix. But in general, a crucifix/ christus rex is behind or overhead of the altar; sometimes a crucifix is set next to the pulpit or in an adjoining chapel or the processional cross. Often a small flat crucifix lays on free-standing altars so the celebrant can look into the cross.

Both plain and ornate parishes. Can you guess my favorite?