Yet we are much more reserved about crosses without the figure of Christ in suffering. . . the crucifix. In fact, we might be relieved that someone has stole Jesus' body from the cross so that we don't have to look on it anymore. Why are we outraged that the baby Jesus would be missing from the manger but relieved to find a cross without the figure of Christ in His agony?
That is indeed the problem. We like babies and a religion of a baby God who comes to be cooed over and cared for. We are rightfully uncomfortable about a religion of a man God who comes to wear our sin, carry our suffering, die our death, and be laid in our grave. This Christian Gospel is shocking to our comfortable lives of self-delusion about the seriousness of sin and its dreadful enemy death. It is so shocking to us that we would rather make peace with death and deem it natural than confront the honest price it cost the Lord to set us free from sin and its curse of death. It is so shocking to us that we would rather live the lie that a little self-improvement help is all we need, some tips on how to live a better, fuller, richer, longer, healthier, more successful, more pleasurable, and happier life than to face up to our lost condition. It is so shocking to us that we complain mightily about the baby missing from the manger but do not utter one word of complaint when we see a cross minus the figure of our Lord in His wounded and suffering condition, paying the full price of our redemption.
Something wrong with that. . . For another view of the same problem read Adriane Heins blogpost. . .
6 comments:
Actually, I prefer a plain, wooden cross. No crucifix.
It's not that I'm uncomfortable with the sin and suffering that occurred, but rather, a matter of I know what happened and I don't need a symbol to remind me of it. To me, and this is my personal opinion, it borderlines on idolatry.
Just a preference and the way I was raised and taught.
Christ did die on the cross but it is also true that he is now risen and is no longer on the cross.
σκάνδαλον
Quote: " To me, and this is my personal opinion, it borderlines on idolatry."
Historically this is exactly the opposite of what the church concluded early on -- the refusal of the crucifix and images was its own idolatry. Read up on the iconoclastic controversy. This pot was stirred by the Reformed who turned 1500 years of history upside down and insisted that a crucifix or icon or statue was a graven image. Then they renumbered the commandments to add this to the list. And now we Lutherans have gotten caught up in it all.
If there is not an "official" Lutheran stance on, or attitude towards, the Second Council of Nicaea (which resolved the controversy between iconodules and iconoclasts), is there a common or historically-dominant one?
Hello, do you know where the source of the picture of the empty manger is from? I'm trying to find the source so I can use it in a Christmas tract I'm making for my church. Thank you!
Post a Comment