Lutherans and the Crucifix

Pastor Wesley Kan in Florida prepared the following article, I lifted it from Cyberbrethren:

Lutherans and the Crucifix

Protestants of all denominations seem to have one thing in common. They all love to make fun of Lutherans. One of my cousins, a Covenantal Calvinist, calls me "Catholic-light." Some of my friends call Lutherans, "the nuts that did not roll very far from the Roman tree." How odd that the very same Protestants do not hesitate to claim Martin Luther as their own by ignoring the embarrassing historical fact that their spiritual forefathers abandoned the Reformation to go off on their own and that the Luther they claim detested many of the heterodox beliefs they hold dear. The very term "Protestant Reformation" is oxymoronic, a result of historic revisionism. The truth is that there was "The Reformation" reluctantly led by Martin Luther and soon thereafter certain individuals abandoned and renounced the Reformation, thereby causing "the Protestant Schism." So successful has been the centuries old campaign waged in Saxony (Germany), Britain and the United States to blur the historical fact that the Anabaptists and Reformed left the Reformation, some while Luther was still alive, that most American Lutherans have been duped into believing they are "Protestant." Since most who claim to be Lutheran have departed from the Lutheran Confessions, Concordia of 1580, most of them are functionally Protestant. Their error is in continuing to call themselves "Lutheran" which they can no more truthfully assert than a gelding can claim to be a stallion.

So, are there any real Lutherans left, or have they gone the way of the paddlewheel steamer and nickel cigar. No, there are a few gnesio (Greek for genuine) orthodox, confessional Lutherans around just as there still are paddlewheel steamers on the Mississippi River (though I have yet to find a nickel cigar, and probably would not smoke it out of fear). What truly distinguishes gnesio-Lutherans are the doctrines of Christ that they believe, teach and confess in their fullness. However, the rest of the world finds it easier to point to external trappings as gnesio-Lutheranism’s distinguishing hallmarks rather than to its dogma that must be scrupulously studied and understood before they may be honestly criticized.

The one practice in which gnesio-Lutherans engage that drives Protestants up the wall is displaying the crucifix, the cross bearing the image of the dead or dying Christ. Most Protestants firmly (though erroneously) believe that displaying the crucifix is at worst a heresy that is at best a heterodox Roman Catholic superstition that every right minded born-again Christian ought to assiduously avoid. Below is a list of objections to crucifixes that I have heard. After each objection is the Reformation response to that objection.

Objection 1: Displaying the crucifix is a heretical Roman Catholic practice.

The crucifix is not a heresy. It depicts the greatest Christian truth: Christ’s death for the forgiveness of our sins. Neither is displaying the crucifix something exclusively Roman Catholic. They also appear in Eastern Orthodox liturgical art. Crucifixes predate the "Great Schism" that split the Church into the Western (Roman) and Eastern (Constantinopolitan-Byzantine) traditions about a thousand years ago. Crucifixes appeared in Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Lutheran churches and homes for nine hundred years of the Christian Church’s existence without opposition, resistance or objection. During that period the crucifix was in the truest sense "catholic," that is, "universal" in that the whole Christian church on earth accepted it. Opposition to the crucifix started only in the 16^th century with the birth of Protestantism when individuals like Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin broke with Lutherans. They were the first true iconoclasts ("image breakers," those who deliberately destroy images and physical symbols).

There is nothing heretical or heterodox about the crucifix. If one acknowledges the fact of Christ’s crucifixion, how can one object to the depiction of that event?

Objection 2: Jesus isn’t on the Cross anymore, He is risen!

Objecting to the crucifixion because Christ is no longer on the cross implies that those of us who use crucifixes are idiots who do not possess this knowledge. The objectors know Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Lutheran Christians celebrate the Lord’s resurrection on Easter and we can be certain that they deny that they ever intended to imply such an absurdity about us. Nevertheless, asserting such an argument without qualification or limitation makes the implication unavoidable.

The fact that the Redeemer is no longer nailed to the Cross does not make crucifixes wrong. If critics were to apply this reasoning behind this objection universally, it would be wrong to portray a Nativity scene, since Jesus is not a baby anymore. It would also be wrong to artistically depict the Lord teaching, healing, performing miracles, or to portray any Gospel event in His earthly life, since He is no longer doing these things in the flesh. Yet the very ones objecting to crucifixes because Christ is no longer hanging there have no problem with artistic portrayals of the life of Christ in art, Bibles, Sunday School classrooms, and Christmas cards. If those objecting on this basis were consistent they could not take or keep photographs or any depictions or pictorial representations whatsoever because photographs and all forms of graphic art depict persons, places and things as they no longer are. But this is the very reason we take photographs: to record how things were and no longer are. This is one of the reasons for displaying the Crucifix: to depict how Christ sacrificed Himself for fallen mankind.

Objection 3: The Early Church never used crucifixes.

This is true. The Church did not begin depicting Christ crucified until the sixth century. Crucifixion was the most shameful, painful and humiliating form of execution utilized by the Roman government. Although the early Christians reverenced the Cross as a symbol of Christ, they were reluctant to artistically portray the Lord’s death.

Crucifixion appeared in Church art only after it ceased to be a prevalent form of execution. Coincidentally, crucifixes began to appear at about the time the church was engaged in battling the Monophysite. These heretics, like the Eutychians who preceded them, denied the human nature of Christ. Depicting Christ Crucified appears to have been one way in which the Church strove to defend the orthodox doctrine concerning Christ Incarnate. Crucifixes therefore served an apologetic function: physical depictions affirming that God came in human flesh to die and save us.

It is ironic that those who reject crucifixes for the reason that the Ancient Church did not use them tend to be the very ones who completely ignore the traditions and practices of the ancient (historic) church as irrelevant because they are "not Scriptural." They seem to argue this point only because those who cherish the crucifix also respect and generally practice the church’s traditions.

No Christian can argue against the use of crucifixes on the ground that the Ancient Church did not use them without engaging in hypocrisy and academic dishonesty unless his or her own church practices follow those of the Ancient Church. This means one’s church service must be based on a Latin or Byzantine Greek or other ancient tradition, must be chanted and led by a pastor (males only) dressed in an alb or a cassock. This would also mean no electronic keyboards, drums, amplifiers or video monitors.. Many of those who argue against crucifixes because the Early Church did not use them are the very ones who have embraced innovations that were totally unknown to the church until the 19^th century. One example is the altar call that is so central to decision theology evangelists such as Billy Graham. This practice did not exist prior to 1800. In answering their criticism that the Early Church did not use crucifixes, one may ask them to point out where in the Bible the Lord ever made or authorized an "altar call." As an aside, I have always wondered how they can be an "altar" calls when they have abandoned the use of the altar.

Objection 4: An empty cross represents the Resurrection.

Many objectors prefer to display the empty cross (cross, no corpus) in their churches. They argue that a naked cross is better than a crucifix because it symbolizes the Resurrection. This is a specious assertion. Calvary’s cross was empty with the Deposition (the moment the Lord’s lifeless body was taken down). At that moment, and for the next thirty or so hours, our Lord was physically dead. The symbol of the Resurrection is empty tomb, not the empty cross. The empty cross is ambiguous because it more immediately and logically represents Christ deceased.

Objection 5: A crucifix that bears the Lord’s image is idol worship.

The sentiment expressed in this argument betrays a gross misunderstanding of the commandment (singular, not plural) prohibiting idol worship (Exodus 20:4-6). Many Protestant denominations divide up the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) so that "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image," and "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them" was split into two commandments. Early Protestants altered the Commandments to advance their iconoclastic agenda. Until then all Christians and Jews considered "making" and "bowing down" as part of the same commandment. For three thousand years, from Moses until the Protestant iconoclasts’ scriptural revisionism, making and bowing down to graven images constituted one commandment. Iconoclasm required the Reformed to change the meaning of Holy Scripture as reflected in the Reformed Church’s Westminster Larger Catechism of 1647. The answer to Question 109 therein includes the following among the things forbidden in the second commandment: "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 worship of it." (Emphasis added.) The emphasized portion that does not have any basis in Holy Scripture clearly shows an anti-corporeal tendency running through Reformed theology. Prohibiting meditation on the mental image of Christ dying on Calvary’s cross is almost indistinguishable from outright heretical Gnosticism. Such an extreme position can not be justified unless the Commandment itself was altered to become two prohibitions that would cause it to appear as if God prohibited the making of graven images.

In attempting to alter Divine Law to say what they wished it to say instead of what God actually said, the Protestants did an incomplete job. They ignore the Lord’s command that the Israelites adorn the Tabernacle and Temple with liturgical furnishings laden with carvings (graven images) of created beings. The most sacred Ark of the Testimony (Covenant) had two sculpted gold cherubim on its cover (Exodus 25:10). The Temple’s water basin rested upon the statues of twelve bulls (1 Kings 7:25). The movable stands for the portable water basins were covered with bronze friezes of lions, bulls and cherubim (1 Kings 7:29).. The 6^th chapter of 1 Kings discloses that the Holy of Holies in the Solomonic Temple contained a pair of identical fifteen feet tall gold covered cherubim statues. Hebrews 9:5 in the New Testament confirms this. Additionally, more cherubim relief carvings decorated the inner and outer rooms and the Temple’s doors.

Cherubim are created angelic beings and bulls and lions are created earthly beasts whose graven images adorned the Tabernacle and Temple in obedience to God’s command as attested to by God’s Holy Scripture. The statues and friezes of created beings were not themselves worshiped or adored. The existence of so many graven images of created beings in the Temple does not at all contradict the three thousand five hundred year traditional and historic (Jewish-Eastern Orthodox-Roman Catholic-Lutheran) reading of the Decalogue. However, according to Protestant theology the Temple images should not have even existed. If a graven image is sinful per se as Protestant theology insists, the necessary and inescapable conclusion is that God must be schizophrenic, prohibiting the making of graven images in the Ten Commandments and then ordering the Israelites in Exodus and 1 Kings to make graven images for the most sacred premises, the Tabernacle and Temple. Clearly, God is not psychotic but speaks with one consistent message. Don’t worship the graven images you make. The conclusion to which God’s sanity points is that Protestant iconoclasm and Scripture twisting are erroneous.

Besides which the proof text the Reformed theologians cite, Deuteronomy 4:15–19, prohibits the act of worshiping idols that have been made, and not merely making idols. Additionally, the rationale upon which their prohibition is based is that they, "... saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to [them] at Horeb out of the midst of the fire." This is no longer the case. We have now seen God the Son. "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14, emphasis added.) Because Moses (under divine inspiration) stated the image prohibition in Deuteronomy was based on not seeing God, that prohibition no longer applies because we have beheld God incarnate. To continue the prohibition after the scripturally stated rational has been negated would amount to nothing short of pharisaic pietism. It should never be forgotten that Christ condemned the imposition of law where God requires none.

Objection 6: A crucifix is morbid, the empty cross is life affirming.

This objection is human sentimentality, not theology. Everyone agrees that Christ’s crucifixion deals with innocent death intentionally inflicted and is morbid, but that is unavoidable. The focus of the whole Bible, and therefore of Christian doctrine, is the crucifixion.. This is best reflected in the Lutheran Confessions. Christianity’s cardinal doctrine is justification, which is salvation by grace (alone) through faith (alone) in Christ’s atoning death on Calvary’s cross, the Crucifixion. The depiction of that event is nothing less than the crucifix itself.

As important as the Resurrection is to Christianity, it is secondary to the event which precipitated, preceded and caused it, namely, Christ’s death for the forgiveness of our sins. Those who focus on the Resurrection to the exclusion or diminution of the Crucifixion miss the whole point of Christianity. The Resurrection does not save us; only the Crucifixion saves.

Let us not misunderstand: Christ’s resurrection is necessary for salvation, but it does not save us. Had our Lord’s fail to rise from the grave no sinner could be saved. It would have meant His sacrifice was not acceptable to the Father to atone for our sins and we would continue to be mired in sin without hope of forgiveness. Again, the Resurrection is necessary for our salvation but only the Crucifixion actually saves us.

Scripture itself emphasizes Christ’s death rather than His resurrection. St. Paul wrote, "For I am determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." (1 Cor. 2:2). The Apostle DID NOT WRITE, "…Jesus Christ and Him crucified and risen." He also wrote, "Far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world" (Gal 6:14). Here also St. Paul mentioned or referred to the Crucifixion, twice, not only once, and both times he omitted any mention of the Resurrection. The blessed Apostle was simply expressing the absolute indispensability of the Crucifixion to the Gospel message, as he repeats in I Cor 1:23-24. "But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God".

Conclusion

Two millennia after it occurred, "Christ crucified" is still a stumbling block for skeptics. Unfortunately, the Lord’s crucifixion has also become a profound embarrassment to estaurophobic (crucifix fearing) Christians. These doctrinally handicapped persons are easily identified by the extraordinary efforts they exert to avoid speaking about the Lord’s gruesome death. When they must mention Christ’s death, their language becomes particularly euphemistic. They shun words like "blood" and "death," always emphasizing God’s "love" for us by His "sacrifice of love." In avoiding the crucifixion these particular Christians run the risk dodging salvation altogether. God has always loved us, but if His love had not moved God the Son to die for us, God would be no less loving but we would be doomed to eternal damnation. The very love God possessed compelled Him to pay the horrifying price for our sake. Speaking of God’s love is not wrong but it is vague, and vagueness leaves enough wiggle room so someone can wiggle right out of salvation.

The Greek grammar the Holy Spirit through St. John used to write Revelation clearly admonishes Christians to overcome their squeamishness over Christ’s excruciating death and mangled body. Revelation 5:12 most dramatic indicates that Christ’s crucifixion is the subject of the angelic song in heaven and shall be our song throughout eternity. The NIV, ESV, NKJV and many other English translations all have the hundred million plus angels singing, "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain..." These translations render the Greek perfect passive participle as a past tense verb, "was slain." The Greek ¦σφαγμένον St. John wrote could mean "the one who was slain." However, σφάζω, the root of ¦σφαγμένον also means "slaughter" and "butchered." What the angels actually sing to Christ in Revelation 5:12 is closer to "Worthy is the Lamb, the Slaughtered [or Butchered] One." Any who claim to be "Bible believing" Christians ought to consider the context of the song. It is being sung in heaven, by the sinless and perfect Four Living Creatures, Elders, hundred million (or more) angels to Christ who is in their midst and who does not correct them. This song was revealed to St. John to be recorded so that you, one claiming to belong to Christ, may join in the angelic song while you yet remain on earth.

At the very least what avoiding Christ’s crucifixion does is to obscure and compromise the Gospel message. For example, many Christians quote John 3:16 as if that verse by itself will insure salvation. That verse does not give the reason how or why God gave His Son and so it cannot by itself serve as a self-sufficient basis for salvation. In contrast, there is nothing vague about a crucifix. First, everyone knows what it is. Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims may detest the crucifix, they may deny the Atonement purchased by it but they know exactly who is depicted, and what happened (Christ died). The crucifix is unambiguous and uncompromising in showing saved and unsaved alike exactly what God’s love looks like.