# Worshipping at churches that violate the 2nd Commandment



## Barnpreacher (May 19, 2008)

Hi All,

I thought I'd start a new thread on this topic as a break off from the one I started on Saint Andrews Chapel.

If you were on vacation would/could you worship at an orthodox church that you knew violated the 2nd Commandment?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 19, 2008)

You mean as in "pictures" of Christ? No.


Barnpreacher said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I thought I'd start a new thread on this topic as a break off from the one I started on Saint Andrews Chapel.
> 
> If you were on vacation would/could you worship at an orthodox church that you knew violated the 2nd Commandment?



*let me add, that Saint Andrews is one of the more over the top examples I've heard about.


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 19, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> You mean as in "pictures" of Christ? No.
> 
> 
> Barnpreacher said:
> ...



Right, I'm talking about churches that violate the commandment in terms of images of Christ, crosses etc.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 19, 2008)

If I had no other choice then, yes. Also depends on how grossly they break the commandment. I can live with an isolated cross but not with images of "Jesus". To me the "Jesus" image is a disgusting and damaging piece of idolatry that should not be tolerated.


----------



## blhowes (May 19, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> If I had no other choice then, yes. Also depends on how grossly they break the commandment. I can live with an isolated cross but not with images of "Jesus".


Having a cross in the sanctuary violates the 2nd commandment?


----------



## etexas (May 19, 2008)

blhowes said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > If I had no other choice then, yes. Also depends on how grossly they break the commandment. I can live with an isolated cross but not with images of "Jesus".
> ...


In my PCA Church we have a small Cross, we view it more as "symbol" than "image".


----------



## FenderPriest (May 19, 2008)

Barnpreacher said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I thought I'd start a new thread on this topic as a break off from the one I started on Saint Andrews Chapel.
> 
> If you were on vacation would/could you worship at an orthodox church that you knew violated the 2nd Commandment?



I've just kept my eyes down in the past... though the assembly also had a female pastor (an Anglican church in the UK), so there were more than just this issue going on...


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 19, 2008)

We have a cross behind our pulpit. Although, I have been participating in a local PCA Bible study on the Institutes and I am sorting through this in my own life.

As Josh noted in another thread, Calvin would rip me to pieces for having this cross in my church if he were here today.


----------



## py3ak (May 19, 2008)

A cross wouldn't stop me, nor would a national flag, although it would be a point of discomfort. But an image of "Jesus" on display in the room where preaching is taking place would be a deal-breaker.


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 19, 2008)

joshua said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> > As Josh noted in another thread, Calvin would rip me to pieces for having this cross in my church if he were here today.
> ...



Right! I gotta stop today. I'm killing myself. 

Though I'm fairly certain reading the Institutes Calvin wouldn't have much good to say about the cross in the church either.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 19, 2008)

While it may become a stumbling block for superstiion and even idolatrous worship, a cross is not in and of itself idolatry like a purported image of Christ.


----------



## Richard King (May 19, 2008)

I worship in one now. Our PCA church rents a Seventh Day Adventist church on Sunday since those folks don't use it on Sunday.
It has a giant picture of what someone thinks Jesus looked like.
It bugs me.
One of my buddys at church calls it the giant picture of Barry Gibbs from the Beegees.
White hippie Jesus just makes me eager for us to get our own building but I don't think we are in sin by worshipping there.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 19, 2008)

In many areas it is like searching for the proverbial hen's tooth to find a church that doesn't violate the 2nd Commandment in some way, although many are not so blatant as the example in view here.


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 19, 2008)

Richard King said:


> It has a giant picture of what someone thinks Jesus looked like.
> It bugs me.
> One of my buddys at church calls it the giant picture of Barry Gibbs from the Beegees.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 19, 2008)

Barnpreacher said:


> We have a cross behind our pulpit. Although, I have been participating in a local PCA Bible study on the Institutes and I am sorting through this in my own life.
> 
> As Josh noted in another thread, Calvin would rip me to pieces for having this cross in my church if he were here today.



Since you are a Baptist I think he'd have some other reasons to "rip you to pieces" as well.


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 19, 2008)

Barnpreacher said:


> We have a cross behind our pulpit. Although, I have been participating in a local PCA Bible study on the Institutes and I am sorting through this in my own life.
> 
> As Josh noted in another thread, *Calvin would rip me to pieces for having this cross in my church if he were here today*.



Just for clarification, are we talking about a plain cross or a crucifix? I wasn't aware that a plain cross was an issue in Calvin's day. Did he disavow all religious imagery?


----------



## etexas (May 19, 2008)

In an extreme situation, I would. I would keep my eyes forward (or down) depending on where said images were and focus on the Word.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 19, 2008)

Barnpreacher said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I thought I'd start a new thread on this topic as a break off from the one I started on Saint Andrews Chapel.
> 
> If you were on vacation would/could you worship at an orthodox church that you knew violated the 2nd Commandment?



If it was the only otherwise sound option I knew of, yes. 

Here's a hypothetical. Assume in this case the decision is which church to join, not just visit. Say you are credo and the only two churches in the area that would be legitimate options are a Baptist church that violates the 2nd Commandment with some kind of pictures of Christ and a Presbyterian one that follows the RPW except in the case of infant baptism. (In the Baptist view infant baptism violates the RPW, which is an application of the 2nd Commandment.) What do you do?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 19, 2008)

Barnpreacher said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I thought I'd start a new thread on this topic as a break off from the one I started on Saint Andrews Chapel.
> 
> If you were on vacation would/could you worship at an orthodox church that you knew violated the 2nd Commandment?



Yes, because I would be sinning by not attending the means of grace and "forsaking the assembling of ourselves together" by not attending. 

As an imperfect Christian, I expect other believers to be forebearing towards my sins and failures, should I not be forebearing towards theirs?


----------



## etexas (May 19, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> > Hi All,
> ...


Well put Brother.


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 19, 2008)

tcalbrecht said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> > We have a cross behind our pulpit. Although, I have been participating in a local PCA Bible study on the Institutes and I am sorting through this in my own life.
> ...



That seems to be our understanding through our study of his Institutes. Perhaps we're misunderstanding him on the issue.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 19, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> While it may become a stumbling block for superstiion and even idolatrous worship, a cross is not in and of itself idolatry like a purported image of Christ.



A picture of a cross is no more an idol than a picture of a guillotine, hangman's noose etc. as it is only a picture of something that was used to execute people. However, when it is employed in worship ceremonies, or some "holy" meaning is given to a picture of a cross, then I believe it is superstitious and a violation of the RPW.


----------



## Barnpreacher (May 19, 2008)

joshua said:


> As the PM notifications are sometimes subtle and discreet, Pastor Barnhart, I wanted to inform you that I replied to your PM.



I got it, Brother. Thank you. It was very helpful.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 19, 2008)

py3ak said:


> A cross wouldn't stop me, nor would a national flag, although it would be a point of discomfort. But an image of "Jesus" on display in the room where preaching is taking place would be a deal-breaker.



I agree. I do not think some people understand how repugnant it is to have an icon of Christ in the Worship space.


----------



## Mushroom (May 19, 2008)

You guys are breaking my heart. My lil' PCA Church has both a stained glass image of "Jimmy the shepherd" as someone once called them in another thread at the back of the hall, AND a 2' high brass cross on a table with 2 candles and an open bible out in front of the pulpit. I offered to resolve the shepherd image problem with a brick once, but the Elder I was speaking to was not amused.

So am I a member of an apostate Church or what?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 19, 2008)

tcalbrecht said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> > We have a cross behind our pulpit. Although, I have been participating in a local PCA Bible study on the Institutes and I am sorting through this in my own life.
> ...



It is my understanding from reading Calvin that he did. I'll get the quotes from the Institutes when I get home.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 19, 2008)

Brad said:


> You guys are breaking my heart. My lil' PCA Church has both a stained glass image of "Jimmy the shepherd" as someone once called them in another thread at the back of the hall, AND a 2' high brass cross on a table with 2 candles and an open bible out in front of the pulpit. I offered to resolve the shepherd image problem with a brick once, but the Elder I was speaking to was not amused.
> 
> So am I a member of an apostate Church or what?



I would not call it "apostate" but it certainly violates the Second Commandment.


----------



## Mushroom (May 19, 2008)

joshua said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> > You guys are breaking my heart. My lil' PCA Church has both a stained glass image of "Jimmy the shepherd" as someone once called them in another thread at the back of the hall, AND a 2' high brass cross on a table with 2 candles and an open bible out in front of the pulpit. I offered to resolve the shepherd image problem with a brick once, but the Elder I was speaking to was not amused.
> ...



Hiya, Josh. Yeah, I disagree but endure. The Elder did say that he'd keep my offer in mind for a year, in case something unexplained happened.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 19, 2008)

R.C. Sproul said that art . . . oh, . . . er . . . ah . . . let's start this over. A couple of weeks ago I was at a function at a Presbyterian church in my community. The place was LOADED with stained glass windows of Jesus. Prior to PB, I would not have even noticed. But, now, WOW!


----------



## beej6 (May 20, 2008)

Of course some of us might say the question in the OP contradicts itself... an orthodox church wouldn't violate the 2nd commandment...

But simply for visiting/being on vacation - I personally wouldn't stress about it. Until churches post extensive pictures of their sanctuaries on their websites...


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny (May 20, 2008)

I do it every Sunday. The images are not in the sanctuary though. We have a cross on the wall and even boast the US flag and the Christian flag. I never had a problem with any of this until I became confessional as a result of following the PB as brother Dennis stated above. Old pictures of the pulpit show that a image depicting Jesus used to be behind the pulpit, this was removed when a baptistry was put in. 

As a side note, I find it odd that those who do break the 2nd commandment are very poorly informed in their attempt to portray Christ, Jesus would not have had long hair per 2Cor 11. The movies and books do this as well, Jesus and the disciples are depicted as a group of hippies.


----------



## Dogfreid (May 20, 2008)

I have no problem with a cross or a crucifix. In fact, I would have a problem with a church that has the means to put one up but doesn't. I think this stems from a misunderstanding of the second commandment. To begin with, the commandment came at a time when Christ hadn't incarnated and the cross hadn't happened. But the incarnation by definition includes the physical or material. And so should we in our worship.

Anyone that wants to caricature this view by stating that the cross becomes an object of idolatry is free to do so, but it's just that, a caricature. When I see a cross I don't associate the wood with deity; I don't believe the splinters contain drops of divinity. The ANE peoples believed their hand-made idols contained their deities. In the very least that their objects could summon the deities. Even the pagan Greeks were susceptible to this. Read Paul's address to them in Acts 17 carefully. Yet this is not at all what I believe as I ponder the image of the cross.

An empty cross represents a resurrected Christ. This is why the Catholic cross (and the mass itself) is an abomination to the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ.

Should we turn our eyes when we see a picture of an empty tomb at church? Oh, the horror of an image capturing such a blessed event! What about when a youth group wants to watch the Passion or Jesus of Nazareth?

Additionally, I'm more concerned with the implicit docetism involved in the view that crosses and images are to be prohibited in worship.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 20, 2008)

Berny,
Well, let me tell you _my _concerns: First, this is clearly an exception you are taking to the Westminster standards, which you have essentially painted as holding the error of docetism. Second, the application for membership on the PB specifically asked you to declare any problems you had with the standards you indicated were your confession of faith, in this case Westminster. You did not do so. Perhaps this was out of ignorance but I would address that asap if I were you by editing your bio. 

Now, I'm sure others will opine on what you have said, but images of Christ, the second person of the Trinity, _are _prohibited by the second commandment. Now, what is the purpose of such images -- books for the unlearned; I believe the church has been there done that. Such images have no lawful use. It is impossible. If such an image stirs up devotion it is worshipping God by an image; and clearly prohibited by the second commandment; if it doesn't stir up devotion to God, it is vain, a clear violation of the third commandment. 



Dogfreid said:


> I have no problem with a cross or a crucifix. In fact, I would have a problem with a church that has the means to put one up but doesn't. I think this stems from a misunderstanding of the second commandment. To begin with, the commandment came at a time when Christ hadn't incarnated and the cross hadn't happened. But the incarnation by definition includes the physical or material. And so should we in our worship.
> 
> Anyone that wants to caricature this view by stating that the cross becomes an object of idolatry is free to do so, but it's just that, a caricature. When I see a cross I don't associate the wood with deity; I don't believe the splinters contain drops of divinity. The ANE peoples believed their hand-made idols contained their deities. In the very least that their objects could summon the deities. Even the pagan Greeks were susceptible to this. Read Paul's address to them in Acts 17 carefully. Yet this is not at all what I believe as I ponder the image of the cross.
> 
> ...


----------



## BJClark (May 20, 2008)

Should this just apply to our churches? Or does it apply to our homes as well?

Does it apply to say, family portraits, pictures of the ocean or birds or whatever that may be found in a person's home?

As the 2nd Commandment (as all of them) are meant for ALL of life and not just times of worship..or does it not apply to that extent in our lives? 

“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. Ex 20:4


----------



## JBaldwin (May 20, 2008)

BJClark said:


> NaphtaliPress;
> 
> Should this just apply to our churches? Or shouldn't it apply to our homes as well?
> 
> ...



Is not this the view held by the Amish? They do not have images or pictures of anything in the their homes.


----------



## Zenas (May 20, 2008)

py3ak said:


> A cross wouldn't stop me, nor would a national flag, although it would be a point of discomfort. But an image of "Jesus" on display in the room where preaching is taking place would be a deal-breaker.



We have a cross and a national flag and the "Christian flag" in our church. Myself and a few others would love to get rid of all of it, but our session is pretty set in all of them being there I think.


----------



## BJClark (May 20, 2008)

JBaldwin;




> Is not this the view held by the Amish? They do not have images or pictures of anything in the their homes.



yes it is..


----------



## Pilgrim (May 20, 2008)

If a cross is a 2nd commandment violation, then a lot of PCA and OPC churches violate it, and it is probably the vast majority. Is there any Presbytery of either denomination that would require an exception for that? I doubt it (although what they may require or allow regarding exceptions certainly shouldn't be the ultimate standard), but I've read this thread in haste and maybe have missed the point. I can do without crosses personally, but to me it is not nearly as clear a violation as actual pictures of what the artist imagines to be Christ. I can imagine scenarios where one might have to drive across several states to find a church that doesn't have a cross displayed somewhere. 

The "Amazing Grace: History and Theology of Calvinism" DVD was loaded with "pictures of Christ". Why this was deemed necessary, I don't know. My copy has disappeared and I only saw it once about 2 1/2 years ago, but I got the impression that the producers were going out of their way to appear high church, as if it was somehow more reverent.


----------



## Dogfreid (May 20, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Now, I'm sure others will opine on what you have said, but images of Christ, the second person of the Trinity, _are _prohibited by the second commandment.



Now, this would be the very point of contention, wouldn't it?

For the record, I'm far more interested in the debate over the cross or crucifix than I am over images.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 20, 2008)

Dogfreid said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Now, I'm sure others will opine on what you have said, but images of Christ, the second person of the Trinity, _are _prohibited by the second commandment.
> ...


Of course it is; but not what is unConfessional. I'm not interested in the cross debate; but a crucifix is an image. Fix your bio.


----------



## Dogfreid (May 20, 2008)

I had trouble logging in earlier and it made me think that I was banned. I kept putting in my name and password and after it redirected me it showed that I wasn't logged in. Let me just take the opportunity to say that if the mods or admins want me to stop posting on this matter or any other that might be off putting to the confessional identity here, I'm more interested in retaining membership than continuing these discussions. I'd rather respect the mood here than become a maverick in these discussions.

With that said, I'd like to address a couple of things:

Napthali, I fixed my bio before you posted your last message. Is it not showing up?

Joshua wrote: "But it won't be a point of contention here. Why? Because the Westminster Confession of Faith, due to Scripture's commands, states these truths very clearly.

For the record, a crucifix contains an image."

Notice how adherence to the confession destroys the critical sense. It becomes a functional magisterium in that it cannot be questioned on its interpretation of Scripture. How can we retain the principle of Sola Scriptura when we accept the Confession as the end-all of doctrinal explanation?

Why can't we debate this issue? We're not Roman Catholics. We get to test everything against Scripture.

I realize that this has now turned into a debate over the authority and place of the Westminster Confession, and this was not the point of this thread. But let me note that I didn't intend to steer us to this debate. I'm interested in debating the different issue of symbols and images in church yet we cannot because there has been the authoritative and final interpretation on it already delivered.

What is the difference between the 7th ecumenical council on the iconoclast controversy and the Westminster Confession? Both authoritatively concluded a specific position. Yet as Protestants who hold to Sola Scriptura, we'd expect to be able to question our conciliar and confessional statements against Scripture while the EO cannot or would not (given their rejection of Sola Scriptura).


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 20, 2008)

Dogfreid said:


> I had trouble logging in earlier and it made me think that I was banned. I kept putting in my name and password and after it redirected me it showed that I wasn't logged in. Let me just take the opportunity to say that if the mods or admins want me to stop posting on this matter or any other that might be off putting to the confessional identity here, I'm more interested in retaining membership than continuing these discussions. I'd rather respect the mood here than become a maverick in these discussions. With that said, I'd like to address a couple of things:
> 
> Napthali, I fixed my bio before you posted your last message. Is it not showing up?



No conspiracies as far as I know; you wouldn't have been able to log in at all if you had been suspended. Thanks for changing the bio. It is rather non specific and coming at this issue as vocally as you are you seem to have an exception pretty firmed up against the Westminster Standards on this subject. There is an approach to this that is not hostile to the board's confessionalism, and that is to ask questions, rather than make bold pronouncements that those standards imply a heresy or attack the nature of confessions themselves. [/quote]


----------



## Dogfreid (May 20, 2008)

Joshua, I think I understand your point better now. It's not that we cannot debate the issue in a proper forum but that we cannot debate it here. That makes sense, and it's perfectly acceptable.

Napthali, I knew there wasn't a conspiracy in play. Frankly, if the mods or admins want to ban me that is their prerogative and they won't hear a peep of complaint from me. I know I'm a guest here; it's not my right to be a member.

Your right about the approach that I should take with respect to these debates. I should've asked questions rather than say the things I said outright.

But I am able to say that now because before Joshua clarified the Confession's place on this board for me I didn't know that such things were out of bounds.

If anyone wishes to continue this discussion with me, please email me or post a comment on my blog. I respectfully bow out.


----------

