Pictures of Christ

[BGF]

Friends, I'm looking for material that makes a biblical defense for the appropriate use, for whatever reason, of images of Jesus. I am in the midst of a conversation with a pastor who has taken the exception to WCF Q&A 109. I disagree with his reasoning but want to engage intelligently. I'm not looking to debate the matter, as it has already been well covered on the Board. I'm just looking for sources, preferably from those who claim to be reformed, that accurately represent the argument.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

This may be of use:
PCA Historical Center: Documents of Synod, Report on Pictures of Christ, pages 332-350.

 

[BGF]

Great resource, Patrick. Thanks. Although the argumentation it it leaves me scratching my head. I'll have to read it a couple more times before I could articulate what I believe it flaws to be.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

This is of real interest to me, since a few Sundays ago in morning worship (not a PCA church) a scene from The Passion of the Christ movie appeared on the screen up front, during a "praise song" we were singing. The movie scenes shown included the face of the actor portraying Christ. Quite grievous it was. Thank you for the link to the report of the Special Committee, Patrick. I find it quite sad, but I'm glad to know the PCA's stance on this.

The report said, "Westminster divines believed that the second commandment called for such a statement [forbidding the use of all images of God]. But it is important for the purposes of this study to ask: were not the men of the Westminster Assembly influenced, to a degree, by the religious context in which they worked and with which they contended?" Once this argument is pulled out and used to justify permitting a practice condemned by the Confession (not to mention the Bible!) then there is no document, including the Scriptures, that can guide us.

I think I see a prejudice in the arguments of the men who wrote the report. Maybe their argumentation leaves you scratching your head, Brett, because it's logically fallacious.

 

[BGF]

Jeri, yes the fallacious logic is certainly the reason. I just couldn't get past the strange section on the interpretation of an idol and how it pertains only to three dimensional hewed objects. Once I can dismiss the goofiness of using that as a defense for the allowable use of images, I may be able to mentally engage with the rest of the report.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It seems things are slipping into debate on the matter, despite the OP desire against this.

In that case see:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/reformed-consensus-images-Christ-75488/

Pictures of Christ and the Second Commandment - John Murray - Reformed Literature

http://www.puritanboard.com/f55/rts-orlando-opinions-85662/#post1067118 (and reading the subsequent posts)

 

[BGF]

Quite right, Patrick. I derailed my own thread! OP modified. Debate away all who desire.

 

[Jack K]

I'm glad to know the PCA's stance on this.

For the record, I'm pretty sure the report Patrick linked to is not an official PCA stance. Rather, it is a report that was submitted to the PRCES Synod shortly before that denomination merged with the PCA (which is why the report is now found as a part of PCA historical records). If I recall correctly, the PRCES never acted on the report, nor did the PCA—but someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

That said, it probably is exactly what the OP asked for... the best biblically-argued Reformed position paper in favor of allowing some images of Christ in some circumstances. As a guy who specializes in teaching children in the church, I've had to become familiar with the arguments.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

This is the editorial note prefacing the report.

Editorial note from the PCA Historical Center: In the digitizing of this study, the approach taken is that this is not a work of great historic value, and therefore, typographical errors have been cleaned up, yet without drawing attention to the presence of those errors in the original text of Documents of Synod. One significant error is flagged by citing the error in red print. This occurs on page 336, where the text identifies the author of a quote as "Shelton". Instead, the author of the quote was John Murray, and the citation should be to page 126 of Murray's article, "The Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith," in Scripture and Confession, John H. Skilton, editor.
It should also be pointed out that, in the providence of God, the RPCES never instituted the proposed changes in its edition of the Westminster Confession or Catechisms, due to its reception into the PCA in 1982.
Please note, too, that a picture which was part of the report and which appeared on page 349 of Documents of Synod is not reproduced here, out of respect for those who hold the classic Reformed view of the application of the Second Commandment.
​

 

[BGF]

Chris, the interesting thing about that preface is that, although it states that the proposed changes weren't adopted by the RPCES, it seems to be the default position of some in the PCA. At least in my parts ( I don't want to unfairly over-generalize).

 

[NaphtaliPress]

That's not because the report is constitutional but because of the view of subscription to the standards in the PCA and obviously the merger brought in a lot of folks who rejected LC 109.

 

[Edward]

PRCES Synod shortly before that denomination merged with the PCA

I think you mean RPC,ES

 

[Romans922]

The official position of the PCA is what WLC 109 says.

 

[Jack K]

PRCES Synod shortly before that denomination merged with the PCA

I think you mean RPC,ES

Yes. Those Ps and Rs can get tricky.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

R. J. Gore Jr. wrote a controversial book where he discusses the topic. It is on Reformed Worship. He is ARP. It is not Confessional. You can view a pdf of the paper by googling Second Commandment and his name.

I like Packer. It is short but sweet.

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/j-i-packer-on-idolatry-and-images-of-Christ/

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The report said, "Westminster divines believed that the second commandment called for such a statement [forbidding the use of all images of God]. But it is important for the purposes of this study to ask: were not the men of the Westminster Assembly influenced, to a degree, by the religious context in which they worked and with which they contended?"

The chronological snobbery that these people engaged in is amazing. Of course the men who wrote the Westminster Standards were influenced by the religious context in which they operated. But, forgive me for stating the obvious, who exactly is not influenced by the religious context in which they operate?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The official position of the PCA is what WLC 109 says.

That being the case, would you argue that those who dissent from the official position and take exception to WLC 109 should at least have the decency not to use "pictures of Jesus" in public worship services?

 

[earl40]

The official position of the PCA is what WLC 109 says.

That being the case, would you argue that those who dissent from the official position and take exception to WLC 109 should at least have the decency not to use "pictures of Jesus" in public worship services?

Spot on, since they view it as adiaphora they ought to not harm the conscience of the "weaker" brother.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

That was the approach taken in an old issue of The Blue Banner when my old church made a petition that for presbytery meetings any such pictures on display be covered. An initial positive reception of the idea was killed from the floor and the matter was sent to committee. Not a small factor was that one of the authors of that horrid RPCES report was a prominent member of the presbytery. The presbytery eventually I think simply left it to the church's discretion; maybe they suggested it would be the nice thing to do, but I don't remember if they did that much. FPCR had left the PCA by the time that was done.
The Blue Banner, Volume 3 Issue 7-8. July-August 1994.
Coldwell: Indifferent Imaginations? The Case Against Images at Meetings of N. Texas Presbytery. � Kik-Murray-Fisher-Vincent-Durham-Boettner: Images of Christ A Violation of the Second Commandment: Supporting Documents.
PDF: 424 KB / 16 pages.

The official position of the PCA is what WLC 109 says.

That being the case, would you argue that those who dissent from the official position and take exception to WLC 109 should at least have the decency not to use "pictures of Jesus" in public worship services?

Spot on, since they view it as adiaphora they ought to not harm the conscience of the "weaker" brother.

 

[BGF]

That was the approach taken in an old issue of The Blue Banner when my old church made a petition that for presbytery meetings any such pictures on display be covered. An initial positive reception of the idea was killed from the floor and the matter was sent to committee. Not a small factor was that one of the authors of that horrid RPCES report was a prominent member of the presbytery. The presbytery eventually I think simply left it to the church's discretion; maybe they suggested it would be the nice thing to do, but I don't remember if they did that much. FPCR had left the PCA by the time that was done.
The Blue Banner, Volume 3 Issue 7-8. July-August 1994.
Coldwell: Indifferent Imaginations? The Case Against Images at Meetings of N. Texas Presbytery. � Kik-Murray-Fisher-Vincent-Durham-Boettner: Images of Christ A Violation of the Second Commandment: Supporting Documents.
PDF: 424 KB / 16 pages.

The official position of the PCA is what WLC 109 says.

That being the case, would you argue that those who dissent from the official position and take exception to WLC 109 should at least have the decency not to use "pictures of Jesus" in public worship services?

Spot on, since they view it as adiaphora they ought to not harm the conscience of the "weaker" brother.

All the replies have been very useful. Thanks. It may be necessary for me to make a defense for the official, historic position of the PCA. Patrick, the link you provided will be very useful for establishing the position that many seem to take where I am.

Chris, I would like to make use of your article for reference and to help organize my thoughts. This will be for internal use and possibly before our session. Nothing will be for publication. Are you okay with that?

 

[Edward]

historic position of the PCA.

You might want to tread with care there and not overstate on your argument. I'm pretty sure that there were churches that had purported depictions of Jesus from the start of the PCA, and while I'll defer to our historians and canon lawyers, I'm not aware if it being a significant area for discipline.

Note that the church in North Texas Presbytery that advocated against the images is no longer in the denomination, while those which did not adopt that position that are still in existence, are.

And while we can certainly recognize Elder Barnes for his fidelity to the Constitutional Standards, his views are not exactly in the mainstream of the denomination.

So while you can well argue from the standards as to what the positions should be and from which exception should be taken to the Presbytery if it hasn't already, I'm not sure that arguing it as the historic position of the denomination would get you much mileage.

 

[BGF]

historic position of the PCA.

You might want to tread with care there and not overstate on your argument. I'm pretty sure that there were churches that had purported depictions of Jesus from the start of the PCA, and while I'll defer to our historians and canon lawyers, I'm not aware if it being a significant area for discipline.

Note that the church in North Texas Presbytery that advocated against the images is no longer in the denomination, while those which did not adopt that position that are still in existence, are.

And while we can certainly recognize Elder Barnes for his fidelity to the Constitutional Standards, his views are not exactly in the mainstream of the denomination.

So while you can well argue from the standards as to what the positions should be and from which exception should be taken to the Presbytery if it hasn't already, I'm not sure that arguing it as the historic position of the denomination would get you much mileage.

Warning duly noted. I am, however, not looking to engage in disciplinary procedures. My goal is, rather, to convince our session that a relatively new program in our church should not make use of images in its practice. We have an event done during the Easter season that includes a devotional guide with several "pictures of Jesus ". I believe this practice to be both unbiblical and unconfessional. If there is going to be any chance to convince leadership it is now while the "tradition" is young. I am aware of no other time in our church's 21 years that images have been used in this manner. It is a private devotional event, sponsored by the church and held in the church building. This will be an uphill battle since I am sure I am in an extreme minority.

 

[earl40]

historic position of the PCA.

You might want to tread with care there and not overstate on your argument. I'm pretty sure that there were churches that had purported depictions of Jesus from the start of the PCA, and while I'll defer to our historians and canon lawyers, I'm not aware if it being a significant area for discipline.

Note that the church in North Texas Presbytery that advocated against the images is no longer in the denomination, while those which did not adopt that position that are still in existence, are.

And while we can certainly recognize Elder Barnes for his fidelity to the Constitutional Standards, his views are not exactly in the mainstream of the denomination.

So while you can well argue from the standards as to what the positions should be and from which exception should be taken to the Presbytery if it hasn't already, I'm not sure that arguing it as the historic position of the denomination would get you much mileage.

Warning duly noted. I am, however, not looking to engage in disciplinary procedures. My goal is, rather, to convince our session that a relatively new program in our church should not make use of images in its practice. We have an event done during the Easter season that includes a devotional guide with several "pictures of Jesus ". I believe this practice to be both unbiblical and unconfessional. If there is going to be any chance to convince leadership it is now while the "tradition" is young. I am aware of no other time in our church's 21 years that images have been used in this manner. It is a private devotional event, sponsored by the church and held in the church building. This will be an uphill battle since I am sure I am in an extreme minority.

If one leaves this issue alone one will only see it grow like a cancer. Will you be able to stop this? Probably not but you as an officer of the church can stem the tide. I am in discussion with my pastor about hiring a pastor of music ministry that would be willing to sing a Psalm at least now and then. I have said this before but in the THIRTY YEARS I have attended PCA churches I have yet to hear one Psalm sung and I hope my discussion with my pastor changes that.

As Rocky said to the Russian...."Go for it."

 

[NaphtaliPress]

That is fine Brett.

Chris, I would like to make use of your article for reference and to help organize my thoughts. This will be for internal use and possibly before our session. Nothing will be for publication. Are you okay with that?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Edward is essentially correct; however, as the official doctrine of the PCA, Brett has a sound case to make for his own church given the novelty and from his personal offense this is being done in his church. The only advice I would give Brett 20 years out from that old controversy is to be doubly sure to avoid a contentious spirit, over aggressiveness, etc. Be very patient as this is viewed as one from Mars or tilting at windmills.

historic position of the PCA.

You might want to tread with care there and not overstate on your argument. I'm pretty sure that there were churches that had purported depictions of Jesus from the start of the PCA, and while I'll defer to our historians and canon lawyers, I'm not aware if it being a significant area for discipline.

Note that the church in North Texas Presbytery that advocated against the images is no longer in the denomination, while those which did not adopt that position that are still in existence, are.

And while we can certainly recognize Elder Barnes for his fidelity to the Constitutional Standards, his views are not exactly in the mainstream of the denomination.

So while you can well argue from the standards as to what the positions should be and from which exception should be taken to the Presbytery if it hasn't already, I'm not sure that arguing it as the historic position of the denomination would get you much mileage.

 

[BGF]

Edward is essentially correct; however, as the official doctrine of the PCA, Brett has a sound case to make for his own church given the novelty and from his personal offense this is being done in his church. The only advice I would give Brett 20 years out from that old controversy is to be doubly sure to avoid a contentious spirit, over aggressiveness, etc. Be very patient as this is viewed as one from Mars or tilting at windmills.

historic position of the PCA.

You might want to tread with care there and not overstate on your argument. I'm pretty sure that there were churches that had purported depictions of Jesus from the start of the PCA, and while I'll defer to our historians and canon lawyers, I'm not aware if it being a significant area for discipline.

Note that the church in North Texas Presbytery that advocated against the images is no longer in the denomination, while those which did not adopt that position that are still in existence, are.

And while we can certainly recognize Elder Barnes for his fidelity to the Constitutional Standards, his views are not exactly in the mainstream of the denomination.

So while you can well argue from the standards as to what the positions should be and from which exception should be taken to the Presbytery if it hasn't already, I'm not sure that arguing it as the historic position of the denomination would get you much mileage.

Thanks for the advice. I agree, and I have assured our pastor that I have no intention of creating schism. I have told him that I will never act in disagreement with him or the leadership without first going directly to them. There are things I'm willing to die for, but not willing to kill for.

 

[Romans922]

Elder Barnes...his views are not exactly in the mainstream of the denomination.

My views aren't the mainstream? Praise the Lord!

Also, exceptions are determined by the Presbytery not the man/candidate. Candidates/men determine only where they believe they differ ("differences") with the Standards, Presbytery then determines if it is an allowable exception or not.

I have said this before but in the THIRTY YEARS I have attended PCA churches I have yet to hear one Psalm sung and I hope my discussion with my pastor changes that.

Earl, if you leave Florida it may happen. We sing them in Kansas City.

That being the case, would you argue that those who dissent from the official position and take exception to WLC 109 should at least have the decency not to use "pictures of Jesus" in public worship services?

I wouldn't use the word 'decency', but rather 'duty' since they vow to uphold the Standards as the teaching of Scripture. Most arguments for the use of purported images of Jesus are for use with children in education, not in public worship. Though there are many meeting rooms with such images found in them.