Tuesday, January 7, 2014

What kind of cross. . .

I recently read a rant from someone who insists that crosses with the figure of the risen Christ are not crucifixes and the fruit of a shallow, vacuous, and sentimental Christianity fearful of the real crucifix with its undisguised portrayal of suffering.  Perhaps he is correct, a figure of the risen Christ is not the same as a crucifix's image of the suffering Lord, but he is not right -- it is not necessarily the fruit of a Christianity which refuses to behold Christ's suffering.

The parish I serve has one of those terrible figures of the risen Christ.  It was not my first choice but it was a compromise with those who insisted that it be an empty cross or none at all.  Teaching is progressive by steps just as the departure from orthodox teaching and life is regressive by steps.  Living in a Southern city in which the vast majority of your neighbors are Baptist, Church of Christ, Nazarene, or some variation on a non-denominational theme, the idea of any figure of Christ on the cross is a scandal -- just as the cross itself is or should be a scandal.  But we have confused the scandal of the cross not simply by removing the figure of Christ from it but by imagining that our Lord's resurrection somehow erases the suffering and displaces His death.  This has led to a Gospel of redemption without Christ's suffering and forgiveness by decree and not because our Lord paid the awful price of sin with His blood.

A cross with a figure of the risen Christ may be an attempt to ignore the cost of our redemption though it is free to us.  More likely, it is a step, a teaching step to restore the crucifix as the visual mirror of the preaching and proclamation of Christ crucified.  Seeing a figure of Christ on the cross, whether the more graphic images of Christ's suffering or the image of the risen Lord, points to that suffering just as the cross always points to the suffering that gives relief, the blood that cleanses us from all sin, and the death that gives life.  Every cross points to Christ's suffering and there is no such thing as an Easter cross. 

I would certainly have preferred a regular crucifix but this parish had never had one, the culture in which we  lives finds it hard to accept, and there is no need to make a hill a place to die when it might become an occasion of teaching.  Thus the end result was a figure of the risen Christ on a cross.  Perhaps at some point down the road it might be replaced with a regular crucifix.  I do not know.  There are a couple of crucifixes in the chancel and one by the baptistry so it is not like the crucifix is absent.  Our processional cross has a bronze figure of the suffering Christ -- all of these together represent a dramatic improvement over the previous chapel which had no art work whatsoever and one empty cross on the altar that faded into the colored glass window behind it (oh, yes, there is a red colored glass cross in that window).

My personal preference is Christ on the cross in His priestly robes -- sort of like Christ in a chasuble.  I like it simply because of the association of that suffering and the fruits it has borne with the means of grace ministry of the Pastor.

In the end I would be happy to see any one of these three or any variation of them as the principal cross in the chancels of Lutheran parishes across the world.  Whether it is a crucifix of some type or a painted triptych with the figure of Christ on the cross prominently displayed (some very fine examples in Germany), it is certainly a great improvement over the thin, unsubstantial crosses that end of saying little and being eminently forgettable as symbols of the preached Christ.

9 comments:

John said...

Do Lutheran churches of whatever stripe have barren crosses or ones with Jesus on them? Having once been married to a Catholic I can't get used to barren ones.

Unknown said...

Fr. Peters,

You write, "It was not my first choice but it was a compromise with those who insisted that it be an empty cross or none at all." WHy did you have to compromise? Are you not the pastor of this flock?

This is exactly what happens when parishes become democracies and the laity control the praxis and the doctrine equally, if not more so than the pastors to whom they are entrusted.

For one Sunday, put up a crucifix. If those people leave, then they're not at Church for the right reason. Let the Church be the Church and let those who desire to follow their own beliefs do so somewhere else. It may not be the best in terms of "church growth" but I, if I were a pastor, would rather have integrity of the faith than a huge number of lukewarm members.

Chris

David Gray said...

I think Pastor Peters is operating in a pastoral way. Pastors lead flocks, they don't rule them without regard to the status of the flock. You have to teach people where they are at.

For one Sunday, put up a crucifix. If those people leave, then they're not at Church for the right reason

That is a bizarre statement without merit. The fact that someone may not have a proper understanding of a given aspect of worship does not mean they are at church for the wrong reason.

Carl Vehse said...

Whether it is a crucifix of some type or a painted triptych with the figure of Christ on the cross prominently displayed (some very fine examples in Germany), it is certainly a great improvement over the thin, unsubstantial crosses that end of saying little and being eminently forgettable as symbols of the preached Christ.

I would think that a brutally plain wooden cross would be more symbolic of what Christ did for sinners than ornate and jewel-encrusted silver and gold crosses.

Anonymous said...

I love this crucifix at the RC church where my husband's uncle was a member.
http://marymother.org/ChurchPictures/tabid/71/AlbumId/1/PhotoId/5/Default.aspx

Hope this picture went through!

Mary

Anonymous said...

Lutherans have no formal laws for the content of the chancel so there was no rule book to appeal to. It appears Pr Peters was instructing the folks in this process and perhaps they would be at a different place down the road. The buildings of Lutheran congregations belong to their congregations and the clergy have no veto power inherent in such decisions. I actually wish my own pastor would teach and lead more instead of merely lamenting what he cannot get done.

Janis Williams said...

@ Chris. Compromise between a pastor and parish is not heresy or false teaching. (Fr. Peters surely made clear his choice of cross with corpus, and the reasons for it.) Failing to preach that Cross and the Lord who was crucified upon it however, is damnable.

I might also add Fr. Peters has a small silver crucifix on the altar which he faces whenever he faces the people (during the Eucharist). He has been clear with the parish as to what it is. He compromised for the people's sake, but has not compromised for himself.

Unknown said...

@Janis. A few things:
1) I did not accuse Fr. Peters of heresy and you should apologize to me for that.

2) All you have done is highlight the disconnect that exists in modern Lutheranism between doctrine and praxis. Sure, Lutherans talk a lot about the cross and Christ on the cross, but show one in the Church and suddenly you've gone too far?!

3) Compromised for the people's sake? Compromising the faith does NO ONE any good. Again, if these people can't deal with it, then they should feel free to leave and go to a happy clappy evangelical service.

@Fr. Peters, based on what Janis wrote, is the crucifix on the altar facing away from the people? If so, why not have it face the people?

Pastor Peters said...

Anonymous

Janis was not accusing you of doing anything but she did use an example of hyperbole because there are some who think every hill is one you ought to die on. There are times when the teaching route is long and arduous but it is generally the best way to lasting change.

Lutheran congregations (except for some visible ones with some large voices) are not generally adverse to the crucifix. Everyone congregation I have been a part of up to the one I now serve had a crucifix long before I got there. Perhaps the South only makes this a more prominent issue. That said, if there are a few that is too many Lutherans to be uneasy about the crucifix.

Compromise about a crucifix would be wrong if it were voted upon or if people got their way by threat. I saw how people felt and taught them. I truly believe that now 13 years later a crucifix would have been not a big deal but then they had gone forever without one and did not understand why I thought we ought to have one. I am not ready to give folks the boot unless they threaten it to me. Otherwise I will try to teach them to agreement.

We have a four foot Christus Rex on a cross above the altar. Facing the congregation is a processional crucifix. There is another one at the font by the door. But, since we have a free standing altar and I do the liturgy of the Sacrament versus populum, I wanted to face a crucifix and so I obtained a small one to be the focus of my attention just like the Christus Rex and processional crucifix if for the rest of the folks.

Really the issue in my post is the harsh dismissal by a Roman Catholic of a Christus Rex and I was expressing my belief that it is not in conflict with the crucifix.