# Seeking advice: Local church has large painting of "Jesus Christ" in the sanctuary.



## TheElk (Sep 19, 2010)

*Seeking advice: My church has large painting of "Jesus Christ" in the sanctuary.*

My church has a large painting of "Jesus Christ" hanging in the sanctuary that is about 4x4 ft big.

I feel that I should say something about this. How would I go about it? Should I speak to a deacon? Request a meeting with the elders? Or talk to the Pastor?

Thanks,
Brent

*Update*
I e-mailed an Elder and he would like to bring this up at the Elder meeting this upcoming Monday...

*Another Update*
I got an e-mail back from one of my Elders and they have decided that the Second Commandment deals with worshipping idols and not images of God. He went on to say "The pictures we have in the church are there to enhance our worship of God, we are in no way bowing down to or worshipping the pictures themselves."

Of course I don't agree. What am I to do now? Any advice?


----------



## Scottish Lass (Sep 19, 2010)

Is it your church or just one in your community?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Sep 19, 2010)

Personally, I would ask an elder. There could be a well thought of reason for the painting to still be there. You never know until you ask. I would advise that you pray before talking though. The last thing you want to do is come off confrontational or arrogant. I am not saying you would, just that with a few badly constructed sentences it could be perceived that way.


----------



## Edward (Sep 19, 2010)

While you are theologically correct about the image, I think I'd look for problems to solve in my church before I start stirring up things at someone else's church.


----------



## TheElk (Sep 19, 2010)

Edward said:


> While you are theologically correct about the image, I think I'd look for problems to solve in my church before I start stirring up things at someone else's church.


 
This local church is my church. I would like to handle it internally before broadcasting it on the www...


----------



## Wayne (Sep 19, 2010)

First of all, where do your elders stand in regards to the Reformed faith? Are they conscientious in their concern for and expression of biblical truths?
In other words, are they serious about Scripture and what it teaches?

If so, then I'd suggest trying to educate them first. You might go to them with a carefully selected pamphlet on the subject of the 2d commandment. I'm sure someone here can recommend a particularly good treatment available at low cost. Then ask for time to appear before the elders and present the pamphlets, asking them to read and stating that you'd like to hear their take on the material. Pray for the Holy Spirit to lead and convict.

But if you are not blessed with a church where the elders truly care about obedience to the Word of God, then you've got another battle altogether. Addressing violations of the 2d commandment should probably not be your first concern. If you are going to remain in a situation like that, you first need yourself to have a great deal of maturity in the faith, and then you need to pray long and hard for reformation and revival, looking for others in the church to quietly join you in praying for the church, looking to the Lord, that He would bring repentance and a turning to Christ as their Savior.

Edit: Since you are at an RCA church, I would urge you to look into some of the books by Kevin De Young, an RCA pastor just over in East Lansing, MI (how far would that be from you?). In particular, he has one book titled _The Good News We Almost Forgot_. You might even try to contact Kevin and get his wisdom on the situation, both in general and in specific to this particular problem.

Another way to begin gently educating the congregation and elders would be to start a book club, starting with a couple of De Young's books.


----------



## Theoretical (Sep 19, 2010)

The Westminster Larger Catechism is helpful on this, as is Vos's commentary on this section.



> Q. 108. What are the duties required in the second commandment?
> A. The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto him: as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship*; and, according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.*



J.G. Vos's Commentary on the Larger Catechism has this to say:



> How are the "monuments of idolatry" to be removed?
> 
> The "monuments of idolatry" are to be removed from any nation or social organism, not by indiscriminate action on the part of the public in general, nor by mob violence such as often took place in the days of the Reformation, but in an orderly manner "according to each one's place and calling." *That is to say, the work of removing "monuments of idolatry" is to be left in the hands of those persons in family, church, and state who have the legitimate authority to carry out such a task.* A private citizen who by reason of his Protestant convictions believes that the Roman Catholic Mass is idolatrous not have the right to walk into a Roman Catholic church and smash the altar with an ax. *The head of a family may remove "monuments of idolatry from his own house but not from his neighbor's house.* In a heathen country, Christian people should hope, pray, and work fro the removal of all "monuments of idolatry," but they have no right to undertake the removal by direct action, except where the "monuments of idolatry" exist in their own homes or on their own property. On the other hand, when a family is converted from idolatry to Christianity, is is prober that the "monuments of idolatry" in that household be remove, and other Christians may of course be requested to assist in such an undertaking.


----------



## Wayne (Sep 19, 2010)

Thanks, Scott. Vos makes an excellent point: Obedience to the Law must be from the heart, or it is legalism. And legalism can be self-imposed or it can be imposed by others.


----------



## Herald (Sep 19, 2010)

Joshua said:


> A little late for that now, don't ya think, Friend?




Exactly what I was thinking. Hard to put the horse back in the barn on this one.


----------



## TheElk (Sep 19, 2010)

Joshua said:


> TheElk said:
> 
> 
> > This local church is my church. I would like to handle it internally before broadcasting it on the www...
> ...



At first I wanted to be discrete, but since someone asked if it was indeed my church I figured that that could be an important bit of info in order to receive good counsel. I only ask that I be able to address this appropriately and not have anyone contact the church on my behalf.


----------



## Edward (Sep 19, 2010)

TheElk said:


> This local church is my church.



That's a material fact that certainly changes things a bit. 

And Wayne put it better than I could.


----------



## TheElk (Sep 19, 2010)

I think I will e-mail an Elder and ask in a non-confrontational way how they feel about the paintings vs. 2nd Commandment and see what comes of it.


----------



## lynnie (Sep 19, 2010)

Let me guess. The sweet wimpy longhaired Jesus, not the resurrected one, right?

The average Christian thinks the 2nd command only means worship, and as long as you don't worship it anything goes.

If it was me, I think I'd show them this scripture:

_son of man, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. _

Maybe casually ask them why they want a picture that does not even represent what Jesus looks like right now. Ask them if they ever saw a picture of Jesus like this passage in Revelation. Can we even convey on canvas eyes blazing and the glory He shines with? ( no, of course not). Maybe talk about how glorious Jesus is now and how sad it is to you to see him conveyed in a way that detracts from his true glory? You feel grieved just to look at that picture?

What really gets me is angels at Christmas. In the bible they manifest as awesome mighty men, but so many Christians stick up angels- or mail cards- with those sappy little girls with fat cheeks and blond curls and wings. Oh I could gag. I think I even prefer the wimpy Jesus pictures to the fat little angels...at least he is presented as a guy. Oh well, thread drift. Prayers for you.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Sep 19, 2010)

Lynnie,

You remind me of a sermon I heard once (I do not remember the pastor or title or anything right now just the line). In it the pastor mentioned that angels are not the little harp playing babies that we see around Christmas, but rather powerful beings that cause you to change your pants after an encounter with one.


----------



## Jack K (Sep 19, 2010)

Wayne said:


> First of all, where do your elders stand in regards to the Reformed faith? Are they conscientious in their concern for and expression of biblical truths?
> In other words, are they serious about Scripture and what it teaches?
> 
> If so, then I'd suggest trying to educate them first. You might go to them with a carefully selected pamphlet on the subject of the 2d commandment. I'm sure someone here can recommend a particularly good treatment available at low cost. Then ask for time to appear before the elders and present the pamphlets, asking them to read and stating that you'd like to hear their take on the material. Pray for the Holy Spirit to lead and convict.
> ...



I very much like DeYoung but you should be aware that his position on pictures of Jesus, which he takes in _The Good News We Almost Forgot_, is that we should be cautious in our use of them but they are not completely forbidden by the Second Commandment. 

Although the confessions would say they _are_ completely forbidden, I actually think the track DeYoung takes makes a better argument in many circumstances. He says that when we see a certain image of Jesus it has the effect of limiting our thoughts of him to that image. Very true. This is something that can be understood and appreciated even in a church that may not have a strong appreciation for the confessions.

I've convinced people in non-confessional churches to refrain from posting "Jesus" images on the premise that no picture can possibly do justice to the written account of Christ revealed to us in the Scriptures, and so such pictures inevitably limit our appreciation of him. People readily buy into that argument. But if I were to go around quoting confessions, or trying to prove that the Second Commandment applies to Jesus and to non-worship situations (which, let's be honest, is debated even within reformed confessional circles), I would not get far.

So instead of making the argument a negative ("Don't break that commandment!"), the stronger play may be to present a positive ("We can gain a bigger appreciation for Jesus if we move beyond pictures").


----------



## Andres (Sep 20, 2010)

lynnie said:


> If it was me, I think I'd show them this scripture:
> 
> son of man, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
> 
> Maybe casually ask them why they want a picture that does not even represent what Jesus looks like right now. Ask them if they ever saw a picture of Jesus like this passage in Revelation.



Sorry if  but you do realize the above passage has nothing to do with our Lord's physical appearance, but rather it is symbolic of who He is.


----------



## Jack K (Sep 20, 2010)

Andres said:


> lynnie said:
> 
> 
> > If it was me, I think I'd show them this scripture:
> ...



Agreed. The description in Revelation is a symbolic one and should not be taken to be how Jesus looks, physically, today. Interesting that the only detailed physical description the Bible provides is not really a physical description at all, and is pretty much impossible to draw or sculpt if you were to try.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 20, 2010)

Is this your church? Are you a member of this church? People get very emotional about these kinds of things, so I would want to make sure that the church knows you well before mentioning it, i. e. being a long-time member. A gentle approach would probably be best, for example recommending a book or article on the subject to the elders and then using that as a catalyst for discussion on it. It will take time for them to come to understand your position, let alone embrace it. So be patient.

Is it directly in the front of the sanctuary. I. E. are you forced to stare at it while you are worshipping? I would find this very distracting.


----------



## lynnie (Sep 20, 2010)

Entirely disagreed. John is writing what he saw. Jesus is in heaven with a glorified body and God allowed John to see him.

I looked it up in Ladd's commentary on Revelation just now, and Ladd says he was having an ecstatic trance, like Paul in the third heaven and goes on to describe what John saw, which apart from the two edged sword which he thinks refers to the Word seems to be what he really saw. Of course what he saw can symbolize more than just the physical, but he saw the real Jesus in heaven with his real body and his real eyes and feet and face.

Anyway, it wasn't really my point. What John saw, whatever it was, made him fall down as though dead. If people at the Elks church look at the picture and fall down as though dead, then I am OK with it  If they don't, then I strongly suspect it limits the truth of the glory of the resurrected Lord.

By the way Jack, I think you are correct that "I've convinced people in non-confessional churches to refrain from posting "Jesus" images on the premise that no picture can possibly do justice to the written account of Christ revealed to us in the Scriptures, and so such pictures inevitably limit our appreciation of him. People readily buy into that argument. But if I were to go around quoting confessions, or trying to prove that the Second Commandment applies to Jesus and to non-worship situations (which, let's be honest, is debated even within reformed confessional circles), I would not get far."

This is something honored in confessional churches, but not outside them. Outside them you need to use a different approach than the confessions.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 20, 2010)

It's a stretch to suggest that a large picture in a "sanctuary" can be considered a "non-worship situation."


----------



## Jack K (Sep 20, 2010)

lynnie said:


> Anyway, it wasn't really my point. What John saw, whatever it was, made him fall down as though dead. If people at the Elks church look at the picture and fall down as though dead, then I am OK with it If they don't, then I strongly suspect it limits the truth of the glory of the resurrected Lord.



The issue of what exactly John saw and what it means doesn't really apply (though it might make a nice topic on another thread). But I do think you have a cute line here that could make a effective point with some people—easier than basing an argument on the commandment.




Willem van Oranje said:


> It's a stretch to suggest that a large picture in a "sanctuary" can be considered a "non-worship situation."



Yup. Clearly a worship situation in my mind. Some might disagree, though. After all, we manage to have pews in the sanctuary without worshipping them. I'm only suggesting it's best to begin a discussion of these issues by appealling to points where we already have broad agreement.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 20, 2010)

Jack K said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> > It's a stretch to suggest that a large picture in a "sanctuary" can be considered a "non-worship situation."
> ...


 
I know why the pews are there. If the picture isn't there for worship, what's it there for?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Sep 20, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > Willem van Oranje said:
> ...


 
To cover the hole in the wall from the last Youth sleep over. DUH!


----------



## Edward (Sep 20, 2010)

Jack K said:


> He says that when we see a certain image of Jesus it has the effect of limiting our thoughts of him to that image.



Malcolm X dealt with something similar his Autobiography - the picture on the wall of a blond, blue-eyed Jesus sent him into the arms of the Black Muslims.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 20, 2010)

Edward said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > He says that when we see a certain image of Jesus it has the effect of limiting our thoughts of him to that image.
> ...



Oy vey. The insinuation - that if the church hadn't had a literal picture of Jesus, that he wouldn't have become a Muslim - is absurd. He hated white people. All the "white Jesus" did was reinforce in his mind the notion that Christianity is a white man's religion. But a picture itself - or lack thereof - wouldn't have changed his sentiments.


----------



## TheElk (Sep 23, 2010)

*Update first post.*


----------



## TheElk (Oct 6, 2010)

Received an e-mail back from an Elder, I updated to the first post.


----------



## TheElk (Oct 6, 2010)

Joshua said:


> From what I can tell, your church's statement of faith doesn't say anything pertaining to images. Ergo, it seems that other than discussion with the session, you are without recourse _locally_. However, you say the church is a part of the RCA and, if so, the RCA touts the Heidelberg as one of its Confessional standards. I have no idea how much "subscriptionism" is required, but the Heidelberg condemns the use of images:
> 
> *96 Q.* *What is God's will for us
> in the second commandment?*  *A.* That we in no way make any image of God1
> ...



I did bring up Lord's Day 35 of the Heidelberg Catechism with the Elder and the Pastor... My Pastor says that confessions, whether reformed or not, are not infallible and inspired and is more of a tradition...


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Oct 6, 2010)

This is taking a turn for the worse. The second commandment is not about worshipping a false god. That's what the first commandment is for. The second commandment is about worshipping the true God according to his commandments, in particular without the "enhancement" or aid of a visual representation. This includes not only statues but "any likeness."

Exodus 20:4 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, *or any likeness* of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 

I am even more worried now that the elder has allegedly stated that the purpose of this picture is to "enhance [your] worship of God." If this is not a second commandment violation as described, I don't know what is.


----------



## raekwon (Oct 6, 2010)

Two words (or one compound word): flamethrower.


----------



## Jack K (Oct 6, 2010)

Be patient, my friend. Change seldom happens quickly in churches. Nor does it typically happen by someone quoting a Bible verse or a line from a confession so that the leadership says "Oh, lookie there, we were wrong."

If this is important to you, continue to press your point firmly but respectfully. Study the issue until you become the best informed person in your church on this particular matter. Study all viewpoints. Understand and appreciate whatever good intentions are behind the practice you dissapprove of, even if those intentions are ultimately wrong. Ask to meet personally with your consistory to discuss it. Buy your pastor lunch just to talk more about it. Be able to present your case from many angles. Have multiple good arguments. Don't just be accusatory ("That picture is wrong because..."), also be positive ("Our appreciation of Jesus could grow if..."). Be respectful—yes, I already said that—but persistent, and if your case is correct you are likely to win same adherents eventually. The fact that it didn't happen with a single mention to a single elder and one talk with the pastor is no surprise, and should not be a reason to despair.

If you believe this church can grow and your goal is to try to help that happen, rather than just deciding you have to quit and leave, you will need much patience and prayer. Reformation efforts seldom "take" on the first try. They also cost the reformer dearly, in terms of time and trouble if nothing else. But in the end they are great service to the church.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Oct 6, 2010)

raekwon said:


> Two words (or one compound word): flamethrower.


 
It would probably be wise to take the painting down and remove to a safe location before turning on your flamethrower. That way, you won't damage the wall and ceiling.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Oct 16, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> This is taking a turn for the worse. The second commandment is not about worshipping a false god. That's what the first commandment is for. The second commandment is about worshipping the true God according to his commandments, in particular without the "enhancement" or aid of a visual representation. This includes not only statues but "any likeness."
> 
> Exodus 20:4 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, *or any likeness* of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:



So, according to what you quoted the Heidleberg is in direct confrontation with Scripture when it says that "Although creatures may be portrayed". Although the next verse mentions worship this one forbids any likeness of anything. If you are going to use this verse to say that pictures of "Jesus" are sinful then you must say that any likeness of anything is sinful as well.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Oct 16, 2010)

O.K. This is way off topic; suppose someone in the first century had invented a camera. Would it have been wrong to take a picture of Jesus?


----------

