# Crosses in Worship?



## kevin.carroll (Mar 16, 2010)

Can anyone point me towards some resources regarding the presence of a cross in a sanctuary/worship service. I've noticed them in many Reformed churches and, of course, they were all over at GA last year. I also know that a few generations ago, they would not be found.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## earl40 (Mar 16, 2010)

Now as a former RC the one thing I do miss is the look of the church buildings which includes crosses.


----------



## jrdnoland (Mar 16, 2010)

I was wondering that myself. I was also just listening to a John MacArthur sermon and he was talking about when they remodeled his church. He said the reason he chose to put a cross in his chapel was based on Galatians 6:!4

American King James Version

But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 16, 2010)

They're not commanded in Scripture. So, depending on your particular interpretation of the RPW, a cross may or may not be acceptable.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 16, 2010)

Yes, Jonathan, that is at the heart of the question. Could it be that a cross is _adiaphora,_ a circumstance of worship? Like I said, just looking for resources. It came up at our church recently. One had been in the sanctuary for a long time. It was takem down during a remodel of the sanctuary and never put back up. Recently our custodian did put it back up and one of our deacons promptly took it down, believing it to violate the RPW. He admitted to his inconsistency, however. He actually repaired a cross on top of our baptismal font when it broke a few weeks back!


----------



## Philip (Mar 16, 2010)

It would depend on how far you think the RPW goes in regulating the architecture of Church buildings. I wouldn't have a problem with it for the following reason: the RPW _can't_ apply to church architecture. If it did, then we would get this:

1) Whatever is not commanded in Scripture for worship (including Church architecture) is forbidden.
2) Nowhere in Scripture are special places of assembly commanded to be built for worship outside the sacrificial system.
3) A Church building is a special place of assembly built for worship outside the sacrificial system.
4) Therefore Church buildings are forbidden.

Now, since I think few of us (and none of the Puritans) would say that Church buildings are forbidden, we can safely say that architecture is not covered under the RPW. Now, whether a cross on the wall violates some other part of the 2nd Commandment is up for debate, but it does not violate the RPW as a wall decoration any more than a banner with John 3:16 written on it would.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 16, 2010)

A cross is not an idol by definition but it has been terribly abused to superstition. It is unwise given that to put them prominently in the sanctuary in my opinion. See George Gillespie's distinctions in his_ English Popish Ceremonies_ (Naphtali Press, 1993). I had some correspondence many years ago on this subject with a PCA pastor who was designing his congregations new building. I think in that case the question was whether they should have one on the exterior not right in front of all the worshipers.


----------



## MW (Mar 16, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> 2) Nowhere in Scripture are special places of assembly commanded to be built for worship outside the sacrificial system.



"Place" is a circumstance of worship. Requiring a prescription as if it were an element of worship misapplies the RPW.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Philip (Mar 16, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > 2) Nowhere in Scripture are special places of assembly commanded to be built for worship outside the sacrificial system.
> ...


 
Which is sort of my point.


----------



## MW (Mar 16, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Which is sort of my point.


 
You were trying to make the point that church architecture cannot fall under the RPW. Religiously significant aspects of church architecture like "crosses" would still fall under the RPW. Merely circumstantial aspects would be a matter of prudence.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 16, 2010)

How do you define "religiously significant" and why?


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 16, 2010)

Good question? Of course, where I once Pastored, someone believed it to be an icon, so he (elder) took them off of the communion containers (or whatever you call them). 

Question: is a pulpit commanded in Scripture or baptismal font? No, but they are needed to aide in an element of worship (I am ready to be corrected about the pulpit, I have never researched that). Just as a piano (not an EP debate) could be said to be a help with the congregation's singing. So the communion furniture, the pews, etc.

What is the purpose of a cross? Is it to help us worship? Does it need to be there, to help the preacher? To help in baptism, communion, singing, giving? My answer is no, it doesn't help us. If you say yes it does help us, it reminds of of the death of Christ, isn't that what the Word read/preached is for, and the sacraments, and the prayers and the singing? If a cross is reminding you of Christ? Then is it an icon? 

Did I come full circle? Just some questions. I am ready to see some sources listed, not just good debate. Sorry if I derailed (not my intention).


----------



## MW (Mar 16, 2010)

Skyler said:


> How do you define "religiously significant" and why?


 
A person, thing, or action, which exists to point to a religious belief. Why do I define it this way? Because that is the natural import of the word "significant." Why do I speak of things that are religiously significant? Because persons, things, and actions being used for religious purposes is presupposed in the very idea of the regulative principle of "worship."


----------



## Skyler (Mar 16, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > How do you define "religiously significant" and why?
> ...


 
Okay. Would you categorize banners with Scripture references in the same class as crosses, then?


----------



## MW (Mar 16, 2010)

Skyler said:


> Okay. Would you categorize banners with Scripture references in the same class as crosses, then?


 
Pointing to a religious belief? Yes. That seems evident.


----------



## Philip (Mar 16, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > Which is sort of my point.
> ...


 
All aspects of church architecture are religiously significant--it is only the postmodern evangelical church that denies this. Do you think that the Puritans favored simple architecture because it was somehow cheaper or aesthetically pleasing? No--they favored it because the circumstances of worship are always religiously significant. A Puritan meetinghouse, a modern stadium-like design, and a Gothic cathedral all communicate a message about the church that uses it.

Just why, do you think, were older churches (regardless of nation) so often built in the shape of a cross? All elements of architecture are circumstantial and all are significant (ok, carpet color might be pushing it).


----------



## MW (Mar 16, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> All aspects of church architecture are religiously significant--it is only the postmodern evangelical church that denies this. Do you think that the Puritans favored simple architecture because it was somehow cheaper or aesthetically pleasing? No--they favored it because the circumstances of worship are always religiously significant. A Puritan meetinghouse, a modern stadium-like design, and a Gothic cathedral all communicate a message about the church that uses it.


 
Of course, those who have actually studied the Puritans know very well that simple design was employed in order to avoid religiously significant architecture and to ensure it only contained circumstantially necessary things.


----------



## Philip (Mar 16, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > All aspects of church architecture are religiously significant--it is only the postmodern evangelical church that denies this. Do you think that the Puritans favored simple architecture because it was somehow cheaper or aesthetically pleasing? No--they favored it because the circumstances of worship are always religiously significant. A Puritan meetinghouse, a modern stadium-like design, and a Gothic cathedral all communicate a message about the church that uses it.
> ...


 
Avoidance of religiously significant architecture is ironic because it is itself a religious statement in architecture. All architecture communicates because all architecture is art--even utilitarian architecture.


----------



## MW (Mar 16, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Avoidance of religiously significant architecture is ironic because it is itself a religious statement in architecture. All architecture communicates because all architecture is art--even utilitarian architecture.


 
That is how you view it in an age which cannot differentiate religion from idealogy. The Puritans would not have seen it that way.


----------



## Philip (Mar 16, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> That is how you view it in an age which cannot differentiate religion from idealogy. The Puritans would not have seen it that way.


 
The Puritan simplicity of architecture is significant in that it places the pulpit and the word, both written and spoken, as the focus of the building and the worship service--if that isn't theology expressed in architecture, I don't know what is.


----------



## MW (Mar 16, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> The Puritan simplicity of architecture is significant in that it places the pulpit and the word, both written and spoken, as the focus of the building and the worship service--if that isn't theology expressed in architecture, I don't know what is.


 
That is what a deconstructionist might take away from it. Of course the Puritan himself would have been thinking of how the people could most profitably listen to the Word without hindrance.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 16, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Avoidance of religiously significant architecture is ironic because it is itself a religious statement in architecture. All architecture communicates because all architecture is art--even utilitarian architecture.


 
Let's say for the moment that all architecture is making a statement. Why does avoidance of religious significance have to be a statement about religion? Why couldn't it be a statement about architecture instead? 
But the view that all architecture is making a statement tends to break down when you look not to the overall design, but to some of the details. When a church with a limited budget goes with folding or stackable plastic chairs over pews for financial reasons, one can concede that it's a statement about their finances; but is it really an expression of an invidualistic as over against a communitarian view of the congregation?

Honestly, Philip, that sort of superficial generalization sounds a lot more like ignorance than thoughtfulness.


----------



## Wayne (Mar 16, 2010)

Philip:

I believe we've strayed from Rev. Carroll's original question, and no one has really brought forward any sources.

Meanwhile, if I can review:


> It would depend on how far you think the RPW goes in regulating the architecture of Church buildings. I wouldn't have a problem with it for the following reason: the RPW can't apply to church architecture.



First of all, the Regulative Principle properly has in view three aspects: 1. Doctrine; 2. Worship; 3. Polity. The primary point of the Regulative Principle (it's not just for worship any more!) is that God is wholly and entirely sovereign over the Church and that we have no authority for invention in 1. doctrine; 2. worship; 3. polity.
God sovereignly determines 1. Biblical truth; 2. how He shall be worshiped; 3. how the Church shall be structured and constituted.



> If it did, then we would get this:
> 1) Whatever is not commanded in Scripture for worship (including Church architecture) is forbidden.



This is an partial and inadequate statement of the Regulative Principle. A fuller and adequate statement is embedded in WCF I.6, namely, that our practice [1. doctrine; 2. worship; 3. polity] must be based upon that which is expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.



> 2) Nowhere in Scripture are special places of assembly commanded to be built for worship outside the sacrificial system.



A place to worship falls under the category of circumstances. A group of people gathering must necessarily have a place to gather. They must also necessarily gather at some specified time, might sit in pews or on logs, might have air conditioning or no heat, etc. These things are the circumstances of worship. They are _adiaphora_.

Thus the argument falls.



> Now, whether a cross on the wall violates some other part of the 2nd Commandment is up for debate, but it does not violate the RPW as a wall decoration any more than a banner with John 3:16 written on it would.



But here you seem to display a full misunderstanding of the RPW, for the 2d Commandment is an integral and foundation part of God's instruction as to how He shall be worshiped, which is what the RPW is all about. If you allow the premise that a cross is in violation of the 2d Commandment, then its use is necessarily by definition a violation of the RPW. 

Is that clear? And may I ask, would you like to have a suggested bibliography for reading in this area?


----------



## Philip (Mar 16, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> That is what a deconstructionist might take away from it. Of course the Puritan himself would have been thinking of how the people could most profitably listen to the Word without hindrance.


 
Be that as it may, it is still a message, it is still theological, it is still religiously significant--everything you do reflects what you believe. Puritan meetinghouses reflect Puritan theology. The practical considerations overriding the symbolic are themselves expressions of theology.

Let me explain:

In a medieval church building, everything was meant for symbolism. Thus, the altar was the focal point, the building was cross-shaped, even though such a design is obviously impractical. The focus was on symbolism and sacrament and was reflected in the architecture.

But then comes the reformation: the focus now is on the word preached--on hearing rather than seeing. Consequently, the new meetinghouse was designed with acoustics in mind and with the pulpit raised so as to be visible to all present. The theological focus on the word could not be more evident.

I think as reformed people we often are a bit wary of the visual arts and so we forget that even austerity and simplicity is an artistic statement. Our church buildings need to be consciously designed to reflect what we believe--is the word the focus? Then build a permanent pulpit. Are the sacraments essential? Then place the table at the center. We cannot, though, pretend that these things are merely circumstantial--nothing is _merely_ circumstantial.

As for the RPW--again, I would argue that there are no mere circumstances of worship.



> If you allow the premise that a cross is in violation of the 2d Commandment, then its use is necessarily by definition a violation of the RPW.



I meant that the question is up for debate, not that it is actually a violation (I actually don't think that it is). The RPW is an implication of the 2nd Commandment, but does not itself cover the whole of the commandment.

We are, I think, referring to the implications of the Regulative Principle insofar as it applies to _worship_ here, so I am not sure what your point is. Mine is that while we have records of churches meeting in homes in the NT, we have no precedent for the new covenant body of believers meeting in a purpose-built building, therefore under the RPW it is implicitly forbidden _unless_ we say that it is to the _practices_ of worship and not the _accidents_ of worship that the principle refers.

Let me clarify that I am not arguing that crosses in a church building are right or wrong, just that applying the RPW across the board here may have implications that are not justified theologically. The fact is that Scripture is silent on the visual (or circumstantial) aspects of worship and yet these aspects are unavoidable--so the question becomes a pragmatic and pastoral one, not an expressly theological one.


----------



## MW (Mar 16, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Consequently, the new meetinghouse was designed with acoustics in mind and with the pulpit raised so as to be visible to all present. The theological focus on the word could not be more evident.


 
There is a world of difference between you finding religious symbolism in what they did and them investing religious meaning in what they did. Theirs was a practical consideration whereas yours is an ideological one.


----------



## MW (Mar 16, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> As for the RPW--again, I would argue that there are no mere circumstances of worship.


 
In that you would be taking a stance which is contrary to the confessional commitment of this board, and so you must be asked to restrain yourself from promoting your deconstructionism on this board.


----------



## Wayne (Mar 17, 2010)

Philip:

I do think it would help if you were to read more deeply on this subject. I might particularly point to any of the articles that have appeared in _The Confessional Presbyterian Journal_ on this topic. Without checking, I don't remember if any of T. David Gordon's articles on the RPW have appeared there, but his work is also worth reading.


----------



## Philip (Mar 17, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > As for the RPW--again, I would argue that there are no mere circumstances of worship.
> ...


 
Exactly how am I promoting a position that is anti-confessional? As I see it, I am just exploring the implications of one particular aspect of the confession. Simply dismissing this as "deconstructionism" (whatever exactly you mean by that) is unhelpful. The question is whether the circumstances of worship fall under the jurisdiction of the RPW because, like it or not, the circumstances _do_ affect our worship and even a strictly utilitarian building reflects something about the theology of the congregation. I think we are called to bring even our architecture under the lordship of Christ.


----------



## TimV (Mar 17, 2010)

What is so difficult for me is trying to get a consistent view of things. I can see if no singing or musical instruments are allowed then no symbolic ornamentation is allowed. By the same token, the Temple was so rich in symbolism that it dripped with it



> 1Ki 7:16 He also made two capitals of cast bronze to set on the tops of the pillars. The height of the one capital was five cubits, and the height of the other capital was five cubits.
> 1Ki 7:17 There were lattices of checker work with wreaths of chain work for the capitals on the tops of the pillars, a lattice for the one capital and a lattice for the other capital.
> 1Ki 7:18 Likewise he made pomegranates in two rows around the one latticework to cover the capital that was on the top of the pillar, and he did the same with the other capital.
> 1Ki 7:19 Now the capitals that were on the tops of the pillars in the vestibule were of lily-work, four cubits.
> ...



So what would be wrong with Biblical scenes on stained glass or a cross, so long as no aspect of the Trinity was portrayed?


----------



## JennyG (Mar 17, 2010)

I've often reckoned that wearing a plain cross visibly (in some circumstances) can be like a handy way of conveying "....I'm a believer in Christ by the way, if you should happen to want to discuss it..."
Would anyone consider that a wrong way of thinking?


----------



## Andres (Mar 17, 2010)

JennyG said:


> I've often reckoned that wearing a plain cross visibly (in some circumstances) can be like a handy way of conveying "....I'm a believer in Christ by the way, if you should happen to want to discuss it..."
> Would anyone consider that a wrong way of thinking?


 
the only problem with this is that it seems now a days most people wearing crosses are NOT the Christians. It seems to have become a fashion statement, so people just wear them to wear them.


----------



## Wayne (Mar 17, 2010)

Tim:

John L. Girardeau's work, _Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of God_, is one of the standard treatments on this issue. Basically, he argues that instruments were relegated solely to the temple era. 

As to Biblical scenes, I don't think there is a problem there. The problem is with depictions of deity. Anyone care to correct me on that? 
The cross is a bit more of a question and I've yet to locate any discussion among the Reformers, though mostly for lack of time. I do know that in the early days of Covenant Seminary, when they purchased this property, there was a cross on the main building (formerly owned by the Passionist Fathers sect of the RCC). That cross was soon removed.


----------



## JennyG (Mar 17, 2010)

Andres said:


> JennyG said:
> 
> 
> > I've often reckoned that wearing a plain cross visibly (in some circumstances) can be like a handy way of conveying "....I'm a believer in Christ by the way, if you should happen to want to discuss it..."
> ...


I believe you're right, Andrew. By "in some circumstances" I did partly mean that I wouldn't assume that message would always get across. But sometimes it does - there was a Christian airline worker in Britain recently (sorry no link) who was disciplined for wearing a cross at work, and the whole saga of her appeal against suspension was widely reported, which may have helped spell the point out.
I was wondering more if anyone thought it was wrong in itself


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 17, 2010)

JennyG said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > JennyG said:
> ...


 
Jenny, that is a good topic for discussion, but it will stray away from the topic of this thread, which is about crosses in worship, which I'm pretty sure refers to corporate worship of the assembly, not what you do outside of corporate worship.


----------



## Tim (Mar 17, 2010)

Wayne said:


> As to Biblical scenes, I don't think there is a problem there. The problem is with depictions of deity. Anyone care to correct me on that?


 
I think that stained glass Bible scenes, although not making images of Christ/deity, would nevertheless be a hindrance to worship in that they communicate in picture what ought to be communicated through God's Word (read, spoken, preached). This would be akin to showing a video of actors playing Old Testament characters, instead of preaching through that Bible passage. Having stained glass Bible scenes would be a distraction at the very least.


----------



## earl40 (Mar 17, 2010)

JennyG said:


> I've often reckoned that wearing a plain cross visibly (in some circumstances) can be like a handy way of conveying "....I'm a believer in Christ by the way, if you should happen to want to discuss it..."
> Would anyone consider that a wrong way of thinking?



I remember Walter Martin used to say when the JW's come by wear the largest cross you have around your neck. I miss Walter.


----------



## Reepicheep (Mar 17, 2010)

This is certianly a worthy discussion to have. For us, when we builit our new sanctuary a few years ago, we talked this over cquite a bit and decided on having a large empty cross in teh sanctuary.

Our eldership, which is collectively very appreciateive of the Puritans, still agreed the empty cross is a symbol of Christ’s finished, redemptive work, plain and simple. The cross is not a symbol of Jesus Himself, but rather what He did for us. The cross is not an object to be worshiped or otherwise venerated in any way. Early Reformed churches removed crucifixes (crosses with Jesus being crucified) from sanctuaries in the 16th century because of their misuse. Now, some 500 years later, without the same idolatrous Roman baggage (and a clear distinction from the RC Crucifix), the symbol of the empty cross serves as a reminder and declaration of what we believe and is affirmed in the Apostle’s Creed - “Who (Jesus) was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried”.

1 Corinthians 2:2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

We respect different views and practices on this.


----------



## dudley (Mar 17, 2010)

NaphtaliPress said:


> A cross is not an idol by definition but it has been terribly abused to superstition. It is unwise given that to put them prominently in the sanctuary in my opinion. See George Gillespie's distinctions in his_ English Popish Ceremonies_ (Naphtali Press, 1993). I had some correspondence many years ago on this subject with a PCA pastor who was designing his congregations new building. I think in that case the question was whether they should have one on the exterior not right in front of all the worshipers.



I agree with the above position, and perhaps a quote near the cross that proclaims our belief as Reformed Protestants that "the cross is a *symbol* of our redemtion By Christ our Savior on Calvary' we are not saved by the cross, we are saved by our faith in Jesus Christ alone!"


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 29, 2010)

Thanks for all the discussion, guys. For reasons about which I am not clear, I do not get notifications of new posts.

The only resouce I have seen so far is Gillespie. Since crosses and crucifixes are not the same thing, is it fair to decry them for being "popish?"


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 8, 2010)

Talked to Terry Johnson He suggests the following books (very hard to find): 

*Architecture in Worship. By André Biéler*



*Amazon.com: Christ and Architecture: Donald, J. Bruggink: Books Christ and Architecture (Hardcover)*

~ Donald, J. Bruggink (Author) 







*Church Architecture of Protestantism an Historical and Constructive Study (Hardcover)*
~ Andrew Landale Drummond (Author) 
Amazon.com: Church Architecture of Protestantism an Historical and Constructive Study: Andrew Landale Drummond: Books



The architectural setting for Reformed worship (Open Library)
The architectural setting for Reformed worship
by James Hastings Nichols
Published in 1960, Presbytery of Chicago (Chicago)


----------

