Lutherans and Images. . .

This is by no means at attempt at a complete review of the complicated relationship between Luther, Lutherans, and images (and art in general).  Early on Luther was ambivalent, seeming to prefer less rather than more.  The rise of enemies of the Reformation from the side of the enthusiasts and the Radical Reformers seemed to have changed his mind.  By this time Luther was convinced of the value of these things in setting the Lutherans apart from their more extreme counterparts in Geneva and other parts.  Curiously, everywhere Lutherans were challenged by such folks over the role of art, the use of images, the wearing of vestments, and the ceremonial of the Divine Service, the Lutherans seemed to be more adamant about the value of these and their usefulness.  I would suggest you read Bridget Heal or Ernst Zeedon or Bodo Nishan or Siegfried Mueller or Thomas Kaufmann for the particulars.  Suffice it to say, the typical pattern was for Lutherans to warm up to these things the more they were attacked for their use by the more radical folks in Protestantism.

Therein lies my own point.  When pressed by those who said that such things were unnecessary or a distraction or contrary to Scripture, the Lutherans did not just argue from a theoretical point but actually increased their use as if to say they were important after all.  What a difference between the Lutherans of more recent history and this time in Lutheranism.  When Lutherans got to the USA they became more and more concerned about the practices that had once seemed rather normal.  Along with art (especially the crucifix), vestments, music (especially chanting), and the ceremonies of the Divine Service, the Lutherans felt conspicuous.  They had hoped to be rather normal on the American scene and so some of them began to mirror the hesitance of the more elaborate they encountered among the Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and the like.  Less became more and more was, well, not good.  This was certainly part of the desire for the Common Service and some liturgical unity.  Lutheran identity was in danger of being lost.  Indeed, one of the complaints about Lutheran hymnals is that they were full of anything but Lutheran hymns.  That antagonism to art and beauty, the fuller ceremonial, vestments, and such was institutionalized in Lutheranism and we began to invent reasons for having an empty cross or acting like our Protestant counterparts on Sunday morning.  When challenged, they diluted their tradition instead of affirming it.  This is significantly different form the response of their ancestors a hundred years before.

C. F. W. Walther complained that the churches in America looked like lecture halls and rose to defend the Missouri Synod's use of vestments or chanting or a crucifix.  The fact that he had to defend Missouri against the less is more attitude of the American Lutherans who were here when the Saxons arrived tells a great deal about the state of things in the US.  Even more strange is how quickly Missourians forgot Walter's defense and his hymnal and borrowed freely from the American churches discomfort with things liturgical and with Lutheran art and music.  By the time of the 1950s we had learned to build church buildings devoid of art and had decided that a crucifix actually was a witness to the resurrection.  Gone were the statues, crucifixes, chanting, and liturgical practices of old.  Stained glass became modern and without much in the way of subject or usefulness in teaching the faith.  Big blocks of color replaced the images that once told the story of the Gospel.  

The more modern response to challenge or the discomfort of the surrounding culture with form, beauty, ritual, and music was to give up and remodel our way out of our own past.  Where we once found these things useful to mark the difference between us and the radical elements of Protestantism, we were now embarrassed by our own past enough to join them in the critique.  Instead of standing up for and warming up to images and ceremony we distanced ourselves from our own past and tried to be more like our critics.  How odd! Yet this is what has informed the church experience of some in our pews and pulpits who continue to think the Lutheran response should be to jettison these things instead of affirm their usefulness and make them more prominent.  Thankfully at least one of our seminaries seems to have learned this lesson and is encouraging the fuller rather then leaner approach to art, beauty, ceremony, ritual, music, and images.  What people today are calling new is actually something old and something we once found a bulwark against the confusion of the masses of Lutherans with the generic Protestants.  Those who dabble in contemporary or seeker worship borrowed from Evangelicalism seem to be acting upon the inherent suspicion of these traditions with the art and beauty, forms and ceremonies, that Lutherans learned are pretty important to who we are.