(The Stainglass Windows posted here are from my local church.)
There has been an interesting conversation developing over at Kyle Borg’s Blog, Synod of Saints. Borg is describing his “spiritual journey” (or perhaps “ecclesiological journey”?) from being a “Free Evangelical” to a PCA Presbyterian. In the midst of discussion, the issue of stainglass window images and icons came up.
Is it legitimate to allow images of Jesus, second person of the Trinity, the God-Man in church and worship…or is it a violation of the second commandment, and therefore idolatry?
Let me make a few clarifications right away. I do not use icons or images in personal or congregational worship, so I’m not an all-out advocate of the practice. As I’ve said elsewhere, I come from a low-church diocese, heavily influenced by Sydney Anglicanism.
However, I admit that I have recently come to a point to where I have less problems with images than before. This doesn’t mean I support the superstitious practice of praying to Images, at all. I just don’t think that there’s neccesarily a problem with this kind of art, as long as its purpose is to glorify God, and to inspire faith. Here’s a summary my argument as posted in Kyle’s blog:
(1) They are meant (at least, originally) to inspire faith, not be the objects of faith (idolatry). I have personally never been tempted to pray “to” an image of these. If a Crucifix can inspire you to think of Jesus, why can’t an image?
(2) There is a problem with applying the 2nd commandment to Jesus. Jesus, unlike the Father, is not invisible/unseen. If a artist in the 1rst century had drawn a potrait of Jesus, would he have been sinful to draw an “image of God”? I don’t think so.
Also, the second commandment works within the context of a world were images and the gods they represented were one and the same, and where, if I’m not mistaken, an image of a god, implied possible manipulation of the same. I don’t think this is going on with stainglass windows.
Note the precise words of the second commandment (ESV) in Exodus 20:4-6:
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
Now I want to fear God in all this. The Lord’s warnings here are severe, so I do not want to take this subject lightly, and I am open to criticism and correction on this point. However, it seems to me that the whole point is that the images were the object of worship (“bow down to them“) and service.
Interestingly enough, the 7-8 century debates about images of Christ had little to do with Idolatry, and more to do with the doctrine of Incarnation. The questions we something to the effect of: If we say that Christ cannot be “drawn/painted/etc.” aren’t we denying his humanity? If he isn’t an ethereal being, but God become man, surely he can be depicted?
(3) I recognise that man, to paraphrase Calvin, is an “idol-machine”. Therefore, I recognise that there is a realy danger and ambiguity when it comes to this subject, and sometimes its better to play it safe. I live in Chile, South America, where Roman Catholicism is the major religion. In the context I admit that images may be a “stumbling block” for many, who may be tempted by there superstitions.
However, its important to remember that any kind of religious practice can (and often does) become idolatrous and superstitious. This week, a friend of mine told me she was going to a special “Marian Mass” every morning at 7am, hoping to do well academically in the coming weeks. She claimed it was her “faith”. It sounded to me, more like a “give n’ take” relationship, where grace wasn’t really understood.
(4) Is it one thing to “depict” the Father, and another, to “depict” the Son? I again forward the issue of an artist hypotetically sketching Jesus. Would he be sinning? Or is this kind of distinction unwarrented, taking into account the nature of the Trinity?
And finally (5) When we sing hymns/songs at church, we are often pressed to think about God/Jesus, His attributes and actions. If words (i.e.- Symbols that point to real objects, but aren’t the objects themselves) inspire to think of these things, why can’t images or pictures? If Jesus is Lord over all the Universe, and everything belongs to Him for His Glory, why can’t aesthetics be a part of this, too?
May the Lord be merciful.
Stain glass depection of the Second Coming of Christ, at the entrance of the church I attend.
Postcript: I’ll play it safe, enjoy stainglass windows and be reminded of and inspired by the Gospel, but not pray to them.
Hey Sam, interesting thoughts.
Packer has a bit to say on this in his book Knowing God (chapter 4). In which he says in response to the second command:
“… we are not to make use of visual or pictorial representations of the triune God, or any person of the Trinity, for the purposes of Christian worship. The commandment thus deals, not with the object of our worship, but with the manner of it…”
His two big arguments are that
1) “Images dishonour God, for they obscure his glory.” That is, any image we create is inadequate in representing God and even Jesus. E.g. a crucifix fails to represent Christ’s victory over death.
2) “Images mislead us. They convey false ideas about God.” That is, following a misrepresentation will lead to a misunderstanding.
So I still think we need to be careful about the use of images, even of Jesus.
But in regards to your argument of using words to describe God, I think we need to bare in mind that God himself chooses to use words to reveal himself in the bible. It would seem that language as a form for representing the character of God is a very different thing to using a statue, a painting or a stained glass window.
Caleb
Thanks for the comments Caleb!
Well, Packer is certainly a wiser man than I am, so I’m going to take his objections seriously (which is ok, because, again, this isn’t a practice that I’m personally commited to).
Having said that, I have 3 possible objections (or qualifications):
1.- The purpose of Images is a response TO God. Its intent isn’t to “reveal” anything about God, and so I don’t think it would “compete” or “replace” the function of the Word of God to reveal God Himself.
2.- Words are verbal images. The word “Jesus” isn’t Jesus, just as the visual image isn’t “Jesus”. Words (i.e.- “Signs”) point beyond themselves.
3.- If a crucifix is inadequate to “convey ideas about God”, what of the Burning Bush, The Pillar of Fire/Smoke, and so on? What about verbal metaphors such as “God is a Rock”? What about the sacraments? These are designed to make us think of these “images” in our head, in relationship to God… isn’t it problematic?
Also, when we talk about “images”, we’re talking about the “other” end of our relationship to God: our response in worship, not God’s Self-Revelation. If our language (in both talk, prayer, sermon and song) is imperfect in describing God, why is an imperfect image so terrible? either way, when we worship God, we unavoidably have some sort of image of God in our head that is imperfect…
…but maybe that just speaks of the unavoidability of our sin in worship and the boundless mercies of our God!
Again, keep in mind that this post is me, musing, rambling, and posing hypotheticals. Its my space to be a little heretical. I have enough fear of God as to not use images in worship up to this point!
I really enjoy this conversation so I’m going to keep it going.
First, you say that images “inspire” faith or are a response in worshiping God. I guess it would be good if that could be qualified. Is there a biblical way to “inspire” faith and a Biblical way to respond in worship? This is at the root of the question. For images may inspire faith but that could be a counterfeit inspiring if it is an unbiblical way to do things. So before we can defend the use of images to inspire faith we first need to figure out if the Bible condones the use of pictures of Jesus (perhaps this hinges on the regulative principle..well, not perhaps, it does).
Secondly, I think Caleb brought up a strong point. God has chosen to reveal Himself through language, especially through the medium of the written and spoken Word. God Himself chose to reveal Himself in the burning bush, in the Pillar of smoke/fire, and in the Holy Sacraments. But non sequirtur that God has “chosen” to reveal Himself in the Popish crucifix or in images of Jesus. The other things were initiated *by* God to *reveal* God. Images are initiated *by* man to *reveal* God. There’s a big difference. (I project this could be countered by saying images aren’t meant to “reveal” God but to respond to God. However, it is virtually impossible to say an image wouldn’t “reveal” something about God to us; whether that’s the intent or not, they would and do For instance, I remember as a child I watched the “harmless” cartoons about Jesus. I am sure the intent was not inspire in me an avid worship of images, but it did reveal to me an image of Jesus. Since then, I have never been able to break my mind from the idea that Jesus is a man with long flowing brown hair who walks around in a white robe with a purple sash and has soft brown eyes. It did reveal something to me).
Anyway, those are just some continued thoughts.
Grace.
“First, you say that images “inspire” faith or are a response in worshiping God. I guess it would be good if that could be qualified.”
Inspire in the same way the tune of an ol’ hymn might inspire you, or a sunset. These things can arouse or strengthen or edify or encourage, I think, without being idolatrous.
“So before we can defend the use of images to inspire faith we first need to figure out if the Bible condones the use of pictures of Jesus (perhaps this hinges on the regulative principle..well, not perhaps, it does).”
Well, the “regulative principle” has become, I’m afraid, a difficult term to pin down. In principle I’d agree with it (or something like it). However, I’ve heard of people using the “regulative principle” to denounce “woman’s Bible study groups” because they don’t appear in the NT! I disagree with this flat reading (and application) of Scripture. The church, for example, clearly has to preach the Gospel. But mustit do this only through sermons? Can we preach the through the arts (theatre, for example)?
“Secondly, I think Caleb brought up a strong point. But non sequirtur that God has “chosen” to reveal Himself in the Popish crucifix or in images of Jesus. The other things were initiated *by* God to *reveal* God. Images are initiated *by* man to *reveal* God.”
A few problems. (1)I never said God revealed Himself through images (such as stainglass). (2) I don’t know at what you’re getting at by the adjective “popish”. (3) The cross has been a symbol used in relation to Christ since… well, Paul. When Paul writes “cross”, can you really read it without imaging a “cross” in your head? What’s wrong with visually depicting it? (4) I don’t know why you automatically asume that ‘ Images are initiated *by* man to *reveal* God.’
“For instance, I remember as a child I watched the “harmless” cartoons about Jesus. I am sure the intent was not inspire in me an avid worship of images, but it did reveal to me an image of Jesus. Since then, I have never been able to break my mind from the idea that Jesus is a man with long flowing brown hair who walks around in a white robe with a purple sash and has soft brown eyes. It did reveal something to me).”
Again, several problems. (1) You yourself pointed to the description of Jesus in Revelation 1. Can you honestly read that without developing some sort of image that correlates to th description in your head? Are you automatically commiting idolatry? Seems wierd that God would set us up in the trap.
(2) Where the early witnesses sinful in remembering Jesus afterwards when they told their story? I know we haven’t seen Him, but what’s wrong with having some sort of imagined idea of what he looked like. He WAS a 1rst century Jew, not an etheral ghost (as in some branches of gnosticism).
This does NOT automatically asume that one is worhsipping an icon/image. I am not defending the prayers to images themselves. I’m asking questionings concerning how strict we have to be concerning the use of images in worship. By this I’m not saying that they are the objects of worship. But if I’m singing to God and casually glance at a stainglass window, and am reminded about Jesus in some way or even encouraged/inspired, is that automatically sinful?
You are correct to draw note to the second commandment. It is essential that we understand this commandment correctly.
The underlying principle upon which this commandment rests is that God alone has the right to determine how he is to be worshipped, but in case this is not immediately apparent it is also taught by the very words of the command – “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness”.
(a) The verb (doing word) “to make” could also be translated as “to appoint” or “to constitute”.
(b) The phrase “unto thee” means “for yourself”.
(c) Therefore: “You shall not appoint for yourself…“
The meaning is quite clear, we are forbidden from devising worship of our own invention for by the terms “graven image” and “likeness” we find the forbidding of all contrary means of worship by means of a synecdoche (putting a part for the whole).
The Westminster Larger Catechism says “The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; 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 worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense: Whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God has appointed.”
The Heidelberg Catechism writes “God cannot and may not be visibly portrayed in any way. Creatures may be portrayed, but God forbids us to make or have any images of them in order to worship them or to serve God through them” using Exo 34:13, 14, 17; Num 33:52; 2 Ki 18:4-5; Isa 40:25 as proofs.