RSS
Home
Acceptable uses for religious art?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Presbyterians are known for, among other things, being against the use of religious art during corporate worship. Whereas you may find paintings, statues, or crucifixes in some churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, some Anglican and Lutheran, etc...), one seldom, if ever, encounters such things in the sanctuary of a Presbyterian Church. What is the reason behind this practice? Is it simply that Presbyterians dislike art or devalue the importance of artistic creativity?
Background of the Controversy
In reality, it is not a dislike of art that lies behind the practice. It is not art itself that is frowned upon, but more especially artistic representations of the Godhead, particularly in the context of a worship service. There's no concensus on the lawfulness of religious art in teaching contexts (Sunday School, Vacation Bible School, etc...)--some Reformed churches allow for religious art in this narrow context, whereas others would not. In 2004, when The Passion of the Christ was released in theatres, the campus of Reformed Theological Seminary was divided, with a good percentage of the faculty and student body supporting the movie, and a good percentage opposing it on the grounds that it violated the 2nd commandment.
Most Protestant denominations number the 10 Commandments in such a way that Number 2 reads, "Thou shalt not make a graven image." In Reformed circles, this command is interpreted as banning all artistic representations of the Godhead (and it would also, indirectly, prohibit the use of pictures or statues of Christian saints in worship). Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and the Orthodox (let's call these the "pro-religious art Christians") lump this phrase in as a continued elaboration of the first commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Hence, among these groups, the second commandment is, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." There are still 10, not nine, commandments in these churches, though, as Number Nine is listed as, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house," and Ten reads, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that belongs to thy neighbor."
The debate over "icons" dates back to the early church, centuries before the Great Schism of 1050, which divided Eastern and Western Christianity. In retrospect, the use of icons has largely prevailed in both the East and the West, with the only detractors being a minority of Protestant churches today.
The Case Made by Pro-Religious Art Christians
Pro-religious art Christians agree that it is wrong to bow down to idols, supposedly representing pagan deities, and pro-religious art Christians would also agree that it is wrong to use images of created things (birds, animals, stars, etc...) while attempting to worship Yahweh (as the ancient Israelites said their golden calf symbolized Yahweh). Most pro-relgious art Christians would likely also agree that it is unwise to attempt to depict God the Father or God the Spirit, since these members of the Godhead have no material body, and therefore any visual portrayal of them will mislead and fail to accurately present God's true attributes. Where pro-religious art Christians differ from the Reformed, most sharply, is that they believe it is proper to make use of artistic portrayals of God the Son, Jesus Christ, God made flesh. God did become visible in the person of Jesus Christ, they say, so how can it be wrong to artistically portray the God-Man?
In mideival times, crucifixes were called "books for the unlearned." An illiterate man who couldn't read about the passion of Christ could still wrap his mind around what Christ suffered by gazing upon a well-done likeness of the dying Messiah. The Reformed, however, would say that substituting pictures for the written Word of God is too liable to lead to misconceptions and distortions of God's true nature. A crucifix, the Reformed argue, shows the suffering of Christ, but it shows nothing of his resurrection and his exaltation, therefore it presents only a partially accurate portrayal of Jesus. Crucifixes, the Reformed say, actually obscure the glory of the risen God-Man, preoccupying the Church's attention with his humiliation.
In answer to this objection, though, the pro-religious art Christians could say that simply reading the chapters in the gospels devoted to Christ's passion, if one does not go on to read the resurrection narratives as well, will give one only a partially accurate picture of Christ. The point is, pro-religious art Christians say, is that crucifixes (and other portrayals of Christ suffering) are not intended to display the entirety of who Christ is--they are only intended to convey a certain aspect of Christ's experience while on earth. Insofar as the intention of a crucifix is to make more vivid the sufferings of Christ to men and women who have never themselves witnessed such executions take place and who, by nature, are visual learners, they fulfill their purpose.
Some Protestants have drawn the unwarranted conclusion that Roman Catholics disbelieve in the resurrection, due to their typically portraying Christ as remaining on the cross.However, a crucifix no more communicates that Christ remains dead any more than manger scenes (so common among Catholics and Protestants during the Advent season) communicate that Christ is still a baby.
Need for Caution
Pro-religious art Christians should be willing to learn from the brethren that oppose them by taking to heart the fact that it is possible to abuse religious art to the point where it does become idolatrous. The fundamental difference between the Reformed and pro-religious art Christians is that whereas one group concedes that religious art can be used idolatrously, the other group would say that religious art, used in worship, is inherently, by its very nature, idolatrous. The crucial, and perhaps sticky question pro-religious art Christians need to answer, during the debate is this: are the images I use during my devotional times pointing my attention towards the true God, or are they becoming substitutes for God?
The Case Against the Reformed Stance on Religious Art
The Westminster Catechism goes so far as to prohibit making any mental image of Christ, or any other member of the Godhead. The difficulty with this prohibition is that it is one that the disciples, those who actually had lived and walked with Christ while he was on earth, would've likely broken every day. No doubt, Peter, John, and the rest of the apostles retained a mental picture of what their Lord looked like throughout the remainder of their lives. Is the Westminster Catechism saying that the apostles would've had to erase from their mind the blessed face of their Lord in order to stay within the boundaries of the 2nd commandment? It would seem so, but it is easy to see how such logic breaks down.
If it was that important that believers have no mental image of what the 2nd person of the Godhead looks like, it would seem odd on one hand that the Incarnation would've happened in the first place. St. John emphasizes in chapter 1 of his epistle that the Word of Life, which he is preaching is "that which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at." Isn't one of the points of the Incarnation that the incomprehensible God, inconceivable to the human mind, has become a Man that can be seen with mortal eyes?
The Case Made by the Reformed
In their efforts to reform the Church, John Calvin and Martin Luther used two rather different approaches. Whereas Luther said that if Scripture didn't prohibit it explicitly, it was allowable, Calvin said if Scripture didn't command it explicitly, it was not allowable. In other words, Luther held that crucifixes were acceptable because Scripture nowhere prohibits them, but Calvin would've opposed them, largely on the grounds that Scripture nowhere commands them.
If one accepts the Reformed premise that only that which is explicitly commanded in Scripture is acceptable in corporate worship, then it's easy to see that the case against religious art is quickly sealed. From the Reformed mindset, using any means or methods of worshipping God that are not mandated by God's Word is, or at least quickly leads to, idolatry.
If forced to cite a proof text which prohibits praying to the Virgin Mary and other saints, Protestants would be hard pressed to find one. The case against the practice is based, instead, on the absence of any command to invoke the saints in Scripture. It would be uncharitable to assume that all Roman Catholics who recite the "Hail Mary" in the Rosary are, as a consequence, idolators. However, it's not uncharitable to point out that Yahweh is a jealous God and that anything that could tend towards idolatry had better be avoided by the conscientous Christian. It's dangerous to ask where the line between unlawful worship and lawful "veneration" is--it's safe to try and avoid getting anywhere near the line altogether.
Using similar logic, the Reformed say that trying to use images as aids to worship, while attempting to distinguish the images from God himself who is being worshipped, is a thin line of distinction to make--like walking a tight rope.
The Need for Caution
It's important that the Reformed articulate their position in a way that doesn't devalue art in itself. In the Old Testament, it wasn't that the nation of Israel could have no art--the Ark of the Covenant itself was adorned with sculptures of angelic beings, the cherubim and seraphim. The point was that Israel could have no art intended to depict God himself.
It is important that consistency is maintained. While saying that in worship the Reformed do only that which is expressly commanded in Scripture, there are a number of things in typical Presbyterian Churches that are not commanded explicitly in Scripture. Empty crosses (common on the steeples of so many Presbyterian Churches) are no more commanded in Scripture than are crucifixes. Other things could be mentioned, but hopefully the point is already clear.
The Case Against Using Religious Art in Worship
There are a number of other practical reasons why religious art can be dangerous for Christians. Most notably is the fact that Christians simply do not know what Jesus Christ looked like, and therefore any artistic portrayal of him is bound to be misleading. It cannot be known with complete certainty that even paintings patterned after the Shroud of Turin, believed by many Christian leaders to be the actual burial cloth of Christ, are accurate.
Furthermore, it cannot be proven that Christ had the skin tone of a typical caucasion (as he is generally portrayed), and so portraying him as white (or red, or yellow, or black, for that matter) can easily lead to racial pride, the idea that one's race is better than others because one's own skin tone most closely resembles the skin of Jesus. One cannot fathom a colorless human being, yet the moment we prescribe an alleged color to Christ, we run the risk of sanctioning racial prejedices on religious grounds.
Conclusion
It's important that the Reformed bear with pro-religious Christians in this matter. The fact is that religious art, such as Campus Crusade's Jesus film, has been used as an evangelistic tool around the world, winning many converts to Christ. The Passion of the Christ, mentioned earlier, was derided by a number of Presbyterian leaders, but one cannot deny that it did respectfully depict the agony Christ went through on behalf of his people. For example, modern people have no concept of what being flogged looks like--seeing a recreation of it onscreen is worth a dozen commentaries on the ancient practice.
On the flip side, pro-religious art Christians should bear with the Reformed. It's easy for their opponents to accuse the Reformed of being merely grouchy in their denouncement of religious art. However, the debate really has nothing to do with temprament--it is a matter of conscience, revolving around how to interpret God's Law itself. Those who spoke out against The Passion of the Christ (most of them, anyway) did so, not to be arbitrarily confrontational or contankerous, but rather because, from their point of view, such portrayals of Christ really are out of step with Scripture.
Those who are in the middle, who are undecided, should give the matter plenty of prayer and seek counsel from the Scripture. Regardless of where you eventually line up on this issue, be sure that your stance is determined, not by natural preference or sheer convenience, but rather by a firm and prayerful conviction about that which God has communicated in his Word.
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
