Christians and art.

[etexas]

On thing I have always wanted to put on the PB table is this and I do ask this in a broad sense so forgive me that from the get go. OK, Megan and I have a coffee table book called "Jesus Christ in Art", it covers everything from early mosaics to the Dutch masters. I was looking at it and wondered...is there a distinction between false images forbidden as best as I can see to prevent worshipping them, and things like stained glass windows, Dutch masters and other almost "devotional" work, made to stir the soul with a deeper love of Christ, not to be bowed to of themselves. Would greatly love any input on this topic. Idols Versus Art. Grace and Peace

 

[etexas]

I feel a second commandment debate coming on here....


Watch out brother, it was debated not too long ago here on the PB whether the big lion in Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe was a 2nd Cmmdnt violation because he was supposed to symbolize Christ.

If this sort of weird debate occurrs, you can be assured that many here will accuse you of gross idolatry.

Been there! Actually I hope to keep it "nice", in regard to the 2nd commandment I want to focus on purpose: Bad purpose, make an image of ANYTHING for the purpose of bowing down in worship to it is wrong and a violation of said commandment. Good purpose (at least in my view) is a simple silver cross I wear on my neck, my wife gave it to me. I do not worship it! To me it is like the soldiers dog-tags! It is also a small tangible reminder of what Our Blessed Lord and Saviour did for us. If it were an object of worship, then I would be violating the 2nd commandment, yet seeing that that is not the purpose or intent, an idolatry "charge" would be quite difficult. In any event I want this to be a a discussion of tact and love a discussion of what might be viewed as legitimate Christian art and what is gross idol worship. I just want a "feel as to when and where it should be made.

 

[SRoper]

The second commandment forbids making any image whatsoever that purports to be of God. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven 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." Full stop. There is no right use of an image of God (in any of his persons) as all such uses are strictly forbidden.

The second commandment goes on to say that worshipping any image (which would include images that aren't intended to be of God) is also forbidden.

 

[Richard King]

A good book along these lines is 'Art for God's Sake" by Phillip Graham Ryken.

Our pastor had us read it for an elder training class.

 

[etexas]

The second commandment forbids making any image whatsoever that purports to be of God. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven 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." Full stop. There is no right use of an image of God (in any of his persons) as all such uses are strictly forbidden.

The second commandment goes on to say that worshipping any image (which would include images that aren't intended to be of God) is also forbidden.

So would you say an old Church with a steeple with a cross atop it is an Idol. Not a symbol....despite the fact that after being there....say 97 years no one has worshiped it or even thought about worshipping it. And when you say anything on Earth....would that include a Piggy Bank or a child's doll.

 

[etexas]

By the bye....an extreme version on this issue would forbid ANY artwork in a Christian home! Figurines, paintings, vases with fish designs (under the sea remember), plates with painted artwork. You name it. Unless it is not the intended use to replace the TRUE LIVING GOD as the focus of worship.

 

[LadyFlynt]

My understanding is "anything used to represent God". This follows with the pope as well. Vicar of Christ means one who stands in the place of Christ, directly translated as 'anti-Christ', not meaning against, but rather in place of. So any item, picture, statue, person used to represent or in place of is a breaking of the 2nd Commandment.

 

[etexas]

OK, how about TV, you are watching.......The History Channel, and it has a special on the Sistine Chapel. Is it OK to watch for the sake of Historical interest or would that be defiling.....even if you are not worshipping the ceiling. Which I hope no one would do! Ceiling worship is silly and evil.

 

[Richard King]

The second commandment forbids making any image whatsoever that purports to be of God. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven 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." Full stop. There is no right use of an image of God (in any of his persons) as all such uses are strictly forbidden.

The second commandment goes on to say that worshipping any image (which would include images that aren't intended to be of God) is also forbidden.

Is the image in your avatar something of God?

 

[bwsmith]

A good book along these lines is 'Art for God's Sake" by Phillip Graham Ryken.

Our pastor had us read it for an elder training class.

Art and the Bible (L'Abri Pamphlets) (Paperback)
by Francis A. Schaeffer

 

[JohnV]

Art is symbolic. What you mean to ask, Max, concerns the use of human form in a generic sense to depict Christ, though not to try to depict His exact image. In other words, what the figure is doing or standing for in the picture is the focus, not the image of Christ Himself. The painting of Christ ascending, with hands outstretched giving blessing and benediction to the disciples, has no intention of depicting our Lord, but of depicting the promise of return. The clouds forming, the expectant faces of the disciples, the elevating movement in the painting, all these depict our Lord's departing in the sense of the gospels. The human form of Christ is merely a necessary object in the painting, not intended to depict Him in any particular way, except to emmanate His assuraces; and not intended to be an object of worship in and of itself. No sane person would think that an art master living many centuries later would actually know what Christ looked like, or have a photograph to work from; so no one actually believes that this image is a replication of any kind. It is a depiction of the event, an attempt to put part of the gospel into a form that can be seen and felt, that can inspire a person to long for Christ Himself, and for His return.

Is this still a breaking of the second commandment?

Is that what you meant to ask?

 

[Civbert]

So would you say an old Church with a steeple with a cross atop it is an Idol. Not a symbol....despite the fact that after being there....say 97 years no one has worshiped it or even thought about worshipping it.

I'd say is a symbol, and a symbol for Christianity - not a symbol for God.

And when you say anything on Earth....would that include a Piggy Bank or a child's doll.

If it's presented as representing God.

 

[bwsmith]

On thing I have always wanted to put on the PB table is this and I do ask this in a broad sense so forgive me that from the get go. OK, Megan and I have a coffee table book called "Jesus Christ in Art", it covers everything from early mosaics to the Dutch masters. I was looking at it and wondered...is there a distinction between false images forbidden as best as I can see to prevent worshipping them, and things like stained glass windows, Dutch masters and other almost "devotional" work, made to stir the soul with a deeper love of Christ, not to be bowed to of themselves. Would greatly love any input on this topic. Idols Versus Art. Grace and Peace

I love my religious art & architecture books! Sometimes they have been the goad for a good conversation. However if a created thing is confusing my worship, then by all means, I must lay it before the Lord, and let HIM direct my steps. (Psalm 139:23-24)

I have a great affection for many artists whose “religious art” is technically excellent and inspiring. Henry Ossawa Tanner and his paintings of the annunciation, and other Bible stories, is one, as well as Handel and Mendelson, and John Bunyon and John Newton. And I love looking at, studying their works – and wondering about the God who stirred so many souls, that HE would stir mine. I am in an art class with many unbelievers – and I felt led ( I trust by God) to design a mosaic with the cross as a central theme. That decision sparked a few conversations among fellow students.

I also love to write – and I wonder how fiction can be used for God’s glory, and not some idol.

 

[eternallifeinchrist]

I love to try to find the gospel in most written works. It helped me pass the time in secular universities. Most teacher's didn't like it, but hey! interpreting literature is up to the person doing it. Write all you can to advance the gospel and kingdom of heaven. I much prefer reading about Christian things than trying to find Christ in non-Christian works. This makes me think of Shakespeare's sonnets. I found that they are very Christian if you look at them that way. Most pagan critics try to sensualize his work rather than find the God-glorifying beauty in it.

Many believers cannot even have Bibles in their homes due to persecution and lack of funds much less an idol.

I think most Pier One shoppers are more likely to buy a Buddah figure to adorn their living rooms than a Christian fish symbol-a shrine in your house or a sanctuary?

I pray that the eyes of their hearts are open to the great grace of salvation in Christ Jesus' death and resurrection that saves us from our sin.

 

[bwsmith]

I love to try to find the gospel in most written works. It helped me pass the time in secular universities. Most teacher's didn't like it, but hey! interpreting literature is up to the person doing it. Write all you can to advance the gospel and kingdom of heaven. I much prefer reading about Christian things than trying to find Christ in non-Christian works. This makes me think of Shakespeare's sonnets. I found that they are very Christian if you look at them that way. Most pagan critics try to sensualize his work rather than find the God-glorifying beauty in it.

Many believers cannot even have Bibles in their homes due to persecution and lack of funds much less an idol.

I think most Pier One shoppers are more likely to buy a Buddah figure to adorn their living rooms than a Christian fish symbol-a shrine in your house or a sanctuary?

I pray that the eyes of their hearts are open to the great grace of salvation in Christ Jesus' death and resurrection that saves us from our sin.

A side bar – PBS did a wonderful special, In Search of Shakespeare” and their was a companion book – it conjectured that given the perilous times in which Shakespeare wrote, his art was a well disguised attempt to debate the old faith with the new. (RC-ism vs. Protestantism)

 

[etexas]

Art is symbolic. What you mean to ask, Max, concerns the use of human form in a generic sense to depict Christ, though not to try to depict His exact image. In other words, what the figure is doing or standing for in the picture is the focus, not the image of Christ Himself. The painting of Christ ascending, with hands outstretched giving blessing and benediction to the disciples, has no intention of depicting our Lord, but of depicting the promise of return. The clouds forming, the expectant faces of the disciples, the elevating movement in the painting, all these depict our Lord's departing in the sense of the gospels. The human form of Christ is merely a necessary object in the painting, not intended to depict Him in any particular way, except to emmanate His assuraces; and not intended to be an object of worship in and of itself. No sane person would think that an art master living many centuries later would actually know what Christ looked like, or have a photograph to work from; so no one actually believes that this image is a replication of any kind. It is a depiction of the event, an attempt to put part of the gospel into a form that can be seen and felt, that can inspire a person to long for Christ Himself, and for His return.

Is this still a breaking of the second commandment?

Is that what you meant to ask?

Thank you! Perhaps You did a better job of expressing my question than I did.
And yes that is the qiustion that I put on the table.

 

[etexas]

I love my religious art & architecture books! Sometimes they have been the goad for a good conversation. However if a created thing is confusing my worship, then by all means, I must lay it before the Lord, and let HIM direct my steps. (Psalm 139:23-24)

I have a great affection for many artists whose “religious art” is technically excellent and inspiring. Henry Ossawa Tanner and his paintings of the annunciation, and other Bible stories, is one, as well as Handel and Mendelson, and John Bunyon and John Newton. And I love looking at, studying their works – and wondering about the God who stirred so many souls, that HE would stir mine. I am in an art class with many unbelievers – and I felt led ( I trust by God) to design a mosaic with the cross as a central theme. That decision sparked a few conversations among fellow students.

I also love to write – and I wonder how fiction can be used for God’s glory, and not some idol.

Thank You. Those are good points about illustrations in Christian literature. You see, I personally cannot conceive how that could be viewed as a graven image for the purpose of bowing to and worshipping. Good thoughts.

 

[etexas]

A strict reading of the 2nd COmmandment does not just forbid any graven images that are meant to represent God, but ANY graven images at all...

The 2nd Commandment then also forbids making any graven image of ANYTHING. THUS - NO ART.

We must become Wahabi Arabs and revert to only using calligraphy.

It says ANYTHING in heaven, on earth or under the earth... THis means you cannot draw blueprints for your house, definitely cannot make a statue of a man (you can only depict half of a man anyway, you cannot engrave his soul), nor can you have your tacky littel yard gnomes or pi nk flamingos. These are all forbidden.

..UNLESS, you see these things as prohibitions against making any IDOL.

Shouldn't the Hebrew word read "idol" instead of graven image. An idol's only purpose is worship - thus, this is forbidden.

Many graven images of fruits, angels, birds, etc adorned the temple.... GOd Himself trasngressed the 2nd Commandment the way some would read the 2nd Cmmndmdnt.

Profound point! If you read it with a confusion of say a picture of Grandma and true IDOLS, then logic says throw out picture of family, snip pictures out of the paper before it comes in the house! The list would never end. Those with children could not have picture of their kids anymore, as a husband I could not have a picture of my wife anymore. The second commandment MUST be understood within the context of intent! Good Points Trevor. Thank you.

 

[etexas]

ON the opposite note, I guess if you were far eastern you might be tempted to honor your ancestors with pics of old dead relatives. In this case, this would be a 2nd cmdt violation and the pictures must be dealt with in a way to prevent this.




Also another point many bring up is this: You cannot picture Jesus becasue you can only paint his humanity not his divinity - thus it is wrong to paint Jesus.

But, when you paint a man or a women you also only paint the body. You cannot paint the soul of man.



Again, the 2nd Commandment either says, that we are both not to make anything graven AND also not to bow down before them, or we are not to make anything graven for the purpose of bowing down before them (i.e. an idol).

It really makes more sense to see this as a prohibition against making idols...not merely pictures, etc. IF a prohibition against any graven images is made, so much for DOra the Explorer and so much for illustrations for medical and anatomy books outlining muscles, etc.

I would agree that trying to picture God the Father is foolishness because God is spirit. But the Son became flesh and flesh can be pictured. (NOTE: but if you are tempted to worship it or entice others to worship it, then you shouldn't have it).



A final (weird) point: It really is difficult to picture Jesus in your mind as empty space. We always picture him as man. And if this is idolatry, then so is the empty space that is supposed to be picturing him, is it not?

There is a Dora the Explorer cult started by my niece!

 

[JohnV]

A strict reading of the 2nd COmmandment does not just forbid any graven images that are meant to represent God, but ANY graven images at all...

The 2nd Commandment then also forbids making any graven image of ANYTHING. THUS - NO ART.

We must become Wahabi Arabs and revert to only using calligraphy.

It says ANYTHING in heaven, on earth or under the earth... THis means you cannot draw blueprints for your house, definitely cannot make a statue of a man (you can only depict half of a man anyway, you cannot engrave his soul), nor can you have your tacky littel yard gnomes or pi nk flamingos. These are all forbidden.

..UNLESS, you see these things as prohibitions against making any IDOL.

Shouldn't the Hebrew word read "idol" instead of graven image. An idol's only purpose is worship - thus, this is forbidden.

Many graven images of fruits, angels, birds, etc adorned the temple.... GOd Himself trasngressed the 2nd Commandment the way some would read the 2nd Cmmndmdnt.

The point of asking the question honestly is not so that we can present other views dishonestly, Trevor. It is one thing to say that those who interpret the second commandment more strictly are not being consistent, but it is another to portray them as ruling out all images of every kind. After all, some of these guys also use these nice little smilie faces in their posts, and see nothing wrong with that. If you are going to interact with them then interact with what they really hold to, without exaggerating their stance.

There was a debate about the second commandment on the PB a few years ago. It was well done, although it is likely the case that the pro-image side was misrepresented to some degree. But even at that, I don't think for a moment that this led to an unfair presentation of the anti-image side. Nor did it overstate the side so as to depict it as "strict", in the sense of ruling out family pictures and such.

I would refer Max to this discussion. I think you will likely find it if you search for "second commandment", or if you ask one of our more computer-able members to link it up for you.

 

[etexas]

I think I stand by my original stance. I think that we as Western Christian should and indeed must make clear that art is not alway Idolatry. Heaven knows I am a Christian man, I do not want violations of the commandment. But before I turn in I leave with an example I began with : The small silver cross(not crucifix), my wife gave me. I do not worship it. It is NOT an image of God; Father , Son, or Holy Ghost. It represents my faith, it is a reminder of what the Wonderful Lord Jesus did for me. Nothing more. This is an imperfect example, but for you Americans, do you look at or flag and see a symbol of our nation. Or do you look at the US flag and get very confused and decide that Flag is Nation. If I carry the Stars and Stripes to Iran and stand on it I am standing on America. What a silly notion! My cross is like the flag in the sense that I do not confuse it with what it stands for. I know some disagree (and I respect you in Christ for your stance, truly), I simply hope you can see where I stand as well. Grace and Peace.

 

[Civbert]

...You do remember the post a while back debating whether the Lion in Lion, Witch and Warbrode was a 2nd Cmndt violation don't you?

But in that case, the Lion was not meant to represent Christ, it was a part of parable of Christianity. It was a pattern or shadow of Christ. It's still debatable since we are not to represent God in the form of anything of the earth (cow, fish, lion), but I think this the Lion not intended to be a direct symbol or image of God. But I could go either way.

...
I have seen some Presbyterian kid's Bibles with Jesus as a white blob and no face. But even this is a likeness is it not? A fish bumper sticker too.

It is a likeness. But a fish bumber sticker is a symbol of Christianity - not the God/Christ. The point is we are not to try to represent God (and by implication Jesus) in any earthly form - not as a person, or as a cow. God's attributes, and Christ's divine nature, will always be falsely represented when depicted in the form of of anything of earth. Even if we had perfect photo of Christ, it would be a sin. It coveys a lie, that Jesus was merely a man.

The same would be true for pictures representing events, it conveys Jesus as not fully God. It's a lie.

The cross is not a symbol for Christ. But put one at the front of a church and it confuses. Suddenly it seems we are praying to the symbol. Put one one a chain around your neck and it says you are a Christian - at least it used to mean that. Now it means your cool.

 

[SRoper]

So would you say an old Church with a steeple with a cross atop it is an Idol. Not a symbol....despite the fact that after being there....say 97 years no one has worshiped it or even thought about worshipping it. And when you say anything on Earth....would that include a Piggy Bank or a child's doll.

No. A cross, a piggy bank, and a child's doll do not purport to an image of God.

By the bye....an extreme version on this issue would forbid ANY artwork in a Christian home! Figurines, paintings, vases with fish designs (under the sea remember), plates with painted artwork. You name it. Unless it is not the intended use to replace the TRUE LIVING GOD as the focus of worship.

That would indeed be extreme. No one here is advocating that.

Is the image in your avatar something of God?

I don't quite understand your question. I don't think anyone is confusing the picture of me with a picture of God. In creating that picture, I never thought that for a second.

A strict reading of the 2nd COmmandment does not just forbid any graven images that are meant to represent God, but ANY graven images at all...

The 2nd Commandment then also forbids making any graven image of ANYTHING. THUS - NO ART.

We must become Wahabi Arabs and revert to only using calligraphy.

It says ANYTHING in heaven, on earth or under the earth... THis means you cannot draw blueprints for your house, definitely cannot make a statue of a man (you can only depict half of a man anyway, you cannot engrave his soul), nor can you have your tacky littel yard gnomes or pi nk flamingos. These are all forbidden.

..UNLESS, you see these things as prohibitions against making any IDOL.

Shouldn't the Hebrew word read "idol" instead of graven image. An idol's only purpose is worship - thus, this is forbidden.

Many graven images of fruits, angels, birds, etc adorned the temple.... GOd Himself trasngressed the 2nd Commandment the way some would read the 2nd Cmmndmdnt.

You are right except as you note elsewhere God authorizes the creation of representations of created things. Nowhere does he authorize the creation of representations of the creator. In the command do not make an image or likeness the indirect object "of God" is implied.

As to your other point, the first commandment is actually where idolatry is forbidden. An idol is any object that is worshipped in place of God whether it is manufactured by hands or not. If you assert that the second commandment is prohibiting idolatry, then you have the second commandment repeating what the first just said. This is what the Romanists believe which is why they take what we call the first and second commandments and combine them into one commandment. The reformed view is that the second commandment is not about the object of our worship but about how we are to worship.

 

[SRoper]

The Bible represents Christ as a lamb. The early church symbolized Christ as a lamb. They never bowed before it or focused their prayers to these art symbols.

If they indeed made a picture of a lamb and called it Christ they were wrong to do so.

Every photo of every man, except a dead man, would thus be a lie - becasue you can only picture half of a man, the mortal and physical part. You cannot picture a man's soul, therefore every photo is a lie.

This assumes that man is made of two substances which I won't get into here for fear of sidetracking this thread. Even if I grant you that man has an immaterial substance that cannot be pictured, so what? One, we are making a picture of a creature; it need not be perfect. Two, we are still representing the person's only nature (that of a human). An image of Christ can only represent his human nature; his divine nature is wholely severed from his person. "We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation." Images of Christ are not Chalcedon compliant.

Jesus was God in flesh, people saw Him in the flesh. They were not seeing a lie, though many did not recognize His full character.

No doubt, but this has little do with the lawfulness of making images of God.

 

[Civbert]

The Bible represents Christ as a lamb. The early church symbolized Christ as a lamb. They never bowed before it or focused their prayers to these art symbols.

That's a metaphor, not a symbol.

 

[LadyFlynt]

How does a picture of you get confused with a "picture" of God???? I just thought that was you?

 

[Civbert]

Every photo of every man, except a dead man, would thus be a lie - because you can only picture half of a man, the mortal and physical part. You cannot picture a man's soul, therefore every photo is a lie.

Jesus is not merely a man.

Jesus was God in flesh, people saw Him in the flesh. They were not seeing a lie, though many did not recognize His full character.

But seeing, they did not believe the truth. They saw a prophet or a leader or a teacher. They did not know they were looking at the the Son of God. Seeing Jesus physically actually did nothing to help people know who He was. Only his words told them the truth.

 

[Civbert]

Of this I am certain, that God desires to have his works heard and read, especially the passion of our Lord.

But it is impossible for me to hear and bear it in mind without forming mental images of it in my heart. For whether I will or not, when I hear of Christ, an image of a man hanging on a cross takes form in my heart, just as the reflection of my face naturally appears in the water when I [Vol. 40, Page 100] look into it. If it is not a sin but good to have the image of Christ in my heart, why should it be a sin to have it in my eyes? This is especially true since the heart is more important than the eyes, and should be less stained by sin because it is the true abode and dwelling place of God.

Luther, M. (1999, c1958). Vol. 40: Luther's works, vol. 40 : Church and Ministry II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Even Luther made bad arguments. He assumed: (1) it is impossible to think of Christ without forming a mental image of a man, (2) that it is not a sin to have this image in his mind (3) that there is a difference between the heart and the mind, (4) that the "heart" is less stained then the mind.

(1) is false. I can understand the difficulty of anyone raised in the Roman church have trouble not imagining an image of Christ when thinking of Him, but it is not impossible. I rarely imagine a person walking around when I think of Christ nature.

(2) if it's a sin to make graven images of God, then how is it not a sin to have the image in our minds. All sin occurs first in the mind, when we decided to sin.

(3) the heart/mind dichotomy is not found in Scripture. The heart is the mind in the Bible.

(4) and how would this be true? I just think Luther is rationalizing his want to have images. His logic does not work. This is not Luther at his best.

 

[Civbert]

When a preacher describes Jesus with the women at the well in John 4, how does this pastor not sin if he tells the congregation to imagine Jesus talking to this women and pointing to the well, etc. He is appealing to people to make mental images of Jesus....2nd commandment violations.

You assume he is not sinning?

 

[Civbert]

My point is that to read the Gospels with any mental imagery at all would encourage all sorts of 2nd Commandment violations. Every narrative involving Jesus would promote sin on part of the reader.

Only if they have images of Christ in mind. It is not necessary.

To read about Christ ascending into heaven is to imagine Christ ascending into heaven...doh, another sin (if this be a violation).

To read about Christ ascending into heaven is not to necessarily imagine Christ ascending into heaven. Mental images are not necessary for thinking. Some people have no image memories - they can not consciously recall sensations, images, smells, etc. This is not unusual.

But even if this is difficult - it is also hard for a man to look at on a some women without lust. It is hard not to feel jealousy or envy in some situations. It's a fact that we have failed to keep God's commands completely or perfectly. A day does not go by where we have not sinned in thought, word, or deed.