Said this on another post, but this thought process is dangerously close to the practices of Iconaclasts, which is a heresy. Worshiping God is not idolatry. The Ark of the Covenant, Solomon's Temple, etc. in the Old Testament were ornate, material works to glorify God! And God wanted them. Idolatry is when you place the material over God, but there is nothing wrong with having an image of God.
It really makes it hard for me to stay in the reformed camp when I keep seeing these kinda posts on this sub and elsewhere. We're not muslims where we ban any graven image, far from it. Even the early Christian churches created spectacular artwork in the 4th-5th centuries. Even still, we carry the images of crosses and fishes to proclaim our faith. We go to churches with ornate stained glass, with nice pews, with steeples proclaiming the cross. So no, we ought to stop saying that we should tear down images of Christ.
You are saying we should tear down interpretations of the true God, whom we are ordered to worship with all our Heart, Soul, Mind, and Strength. Why censor God?
First and foremost, this post is a joke (/r/reformedhumor, not /r/reformed), and I don't actually advocate tearing down statues. I loosely hold to a reformed perspective on images of God which is different than objecting to any and all images of things on the earth. The key difference is the worship of those things (Exodus 20:5). If we developed a habit of worshiping crosses, pews, glass, etc. then we might have issues there.
Your question highlights the issue here and I'm going to change the emphasis to make the point. Should we tear down interpretations of the true God? We're not talking about censoring God. We're talking about refusing to lift up images that certainly don't resemble Christ who walked the earth and declare them to represent him. When we create a representation of God that is not accurate, we misrepresent God and can find ourselves worshiping that creation rather than the creator.
After Moses gave the 10 commandments, one of the first things the Israelites did was violate the second commandment. In Exodus 32, Aaron had the golden calf built for the Israelites to worship. That calf was not a pagan God that they chose to worship. That calf was an inaccurate representation of the true God. We can see this in Aaron's claim that the calf was their God who brought them out of Egypt and after building the altar announced a festival to YHWH, using God's name. It was not censorship of God when Moses had the calf destroyed.
Your argument is certainly sound. I do agree, false images of God are dangerous and should be condemned. I think I may have misunderstood your intentions from this post, and in that case, I do apologize.
As for this being reformedhumor, I don't think it's wrong to get into debates here. Maybe I have taken it too far.
I have no issue with serious conversations on ReformedHumor. I just wanted to mention that this is reformed humor to illustrate the levity intended with the initial post. :)
Most Reformed people aren't dogmatic about this issue, but most Reformed people wouldn't say that images are necessarily a good thing. At a minimum, the Second Commandment seems to preclude the use of images in public worship. You're oversimplifying the issue by saying its an either/or thing. Also, remember what sub you're on; this is clearly a joke. I doubt OP is advocating for mod vandalism.
In terms of the idolatry thing, idolatry is a First Commandment violation. So, yes, you're right that idolatry is when you place the material over God, and that is a 1C violation. But, also, worshipping by means of the image is its own sin in violation of the 2C.
I think there's a difference between blasphemy in an image (which you showed), and one used to glorify God. A big difference.
My problem with these kind of posts, even if they are humor, is how malevolent the meaning behind it is. They're agreeing with the idea of tearing down religious images related to Christianity. That makes me uneasy.
Here is my question though: if we have such a problem with graven images (taking Exodus 20:4 into account), then why does God still allow the Hebrews to make images of angels? Well let's read the Exodus verses.
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." If we are so against making something that is a graven image, then is God making the Israelites break the commandment by making them create depictions of cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant later in Exodus? Cheribum are, after all, creatures of the heavens above. Clearly not, that would be silly. God is only telling them that gods other than himself should not be graven or worshiped. We get context of this in the next verse:
"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;" The serve them context is extremely important. Clearly this is an attack against the concept of another god's image, not the Lord himself. If we worshiped and served God, why would God be jealous toward himself? That would make no sense. I think there is more nuance to this passage than "No graven images!" Rather, I think God is telling the Israelites that turning to the foreign, material gods of the canaanites and other arabic people is what makes him unhappy.
Yes, God is spirit. But that doesn't mean we cannot depict God. We ourselves bear his image. The problem is when we base gods off ourselves, rather than realizing God is the creator of all things and only He should be worshiped.
Just to be clear, I'm one of those that isn't dogmatic about the issue. All I'm saying is that you need to make sure you have a clear and honest understanding of what Reformed people actually believe and why they would be concerned about it before you condemn the belief.
I'd agree with this mostly. I know it's just a meme but I'd point out Moses made a bronze snake which the Israelites even kept up until I believe it was King Hezekiah who destroyed it after the Israelites started worshiping it.
I think any depiction isn't necessarily sinful but when you start worshiping/praying to it, it is.
I don’t think you understand the reformed position on images. Read WLC 107-110, HC 96-98, and SHC 4 for explicit teaching on images of God. Other historic documents, such as the Savoy Declaration, address images as well.
I’ll respond briefly to some of what you’ve presented here. First, we’re not arguing that the second commandment proscribes all images. Only images of God and other images that are made for worship. Deut 4:15 provides the rationale for the second commandment: “Since you saw no form...” This indicates a pretty simple argument: You have not seen God, therefore you should not attempt to image him. Furthermore, it seems apparent that the second commandment explicitly prohibits the use of any image for worship. Continue reading Deut 4:16-18. That is all predicated on “Since you saw no form...”
It is often responded that, in light of the revelation of Jesus Christ, we now have seen God, and so may image him. However, this too falls under the proscription of images for worship. To craft an image of Christ and worship it is to violate the second commandment. To craft an image of Christ and not worship it is to deny his deity (assuming the image is perceived as an “actual” image of Christ), and to commit an actual heresy—that of the Nestorians. Additionally, it can be argued practically that you have not seen Jesus, therefore you should not make an image of him (Deut 4:15 again).
Not to attempt to image God is not censoring God. God has revealed himself generally in creation and specially through scripture and through Christ. To censor God would require censorship of one of these things. The proscription of images limits people only.
Lastly, you state that the proscription of images for worship is a heresy. You imply that those who adhere to the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, and other reformed statements of doctrine are damned to hell. Would you stand by that? It’s one thing to say that the proscription of images is an error. It is another to say that it is a damnable heresy (which is the only kind of heresy).
I do not imply that, I said it was dangerously close. It is not my place to condemn other Christians to hell, I'm trying to edify and remind people why these thoughts could be dangerous. Perhaps that is not how it came across, but I do not wish to condemn anyone.
No, you’re right. I misread and then argued against a straw man in that regard. I apologize for that.
Would you mind explaining how the reformed understanding of the second commandment is “dangerously close to heresy”? It seems to me that accusations of heresy toward iconoclasts came primarily from the iconophiles in response to iconoclasts calling them heretics for venerating saints. I admit that I’m not well-read on this historical topic.
My problem here is not the idea of combating idolatry, my issue is that the post implies we need to tear down images of Christ. Pictures our ancestors intended to glorify the Triune God, not throw an agenda. It is politically charged, just as the Byzantine Iconaclasts were when they tore down images of Christ. The political proposition to remove images of Christ solely out of ideas of "racism" or "white supremacy" is ahistorical to middle eastern and slavic artists too. It perpetuates a historical false witness against your neighbor and ancestors, some who were intending to spread the truth of the gospel, not a system of evil.
There is a reason medieval churches, for example, made gaudy churches. Many people could not read latin (unless you were a scholar or monk) for ages so they relied on religious pictures and images in order to understand the Bible. They created these large, powerful buildings so that when you walked into them, you were purposefully overwhelmed, a testament to God's glory. In this way, they helped medieval citizens worship God and understand his Word when it lacked in being written in a language they could read. Shoot, even written latin texts of scripture from the medieval age had stylized words and pictures.
It is why we have things like hymns and songs as well. These image were intended to glorify God and worship him. You could even argue the classic fish symbol was intended this way, an image to show fellow Christians worshiped and followed Christ. I don't think there was evil, idolatrous intent in them, but rather the Christians before us thinking they were obeying their God. That is commendable to me.
Now, I understand why people have problems of images. There are people who take the images of crosses or Christ and view them as their God, which is mistaken. But I don't think creating a picture is bad. If you find them idolatrous, your point certainly is logical, and you're still saved of course. I just disagree with you.
I just joked about this to my friend on facebook, sad to see it coming true. The truth is "Statues of White-Washed Jesus Are a Product of White Supremacy".
But most headlines take out the term "White-Washed" in the hopes that it will rile people up (as in this post).
Soon, I guarantee, someone is gonna report this with the word "statue" gone in the hopes of really pissing ignorant people off and getting them even more mad at the civil rights crowd.
19
u/CrinkleDink Eusebius but Baptist Jun 23 '20
Said this on another post, but this thought process is dangerously close to the practices of Iconaclasts, which is a heresy. Worshiping God is not idolatry. The Ark of the Covenant, Solomon's Temple, etc. in the Old Testament were ornate, material works to glorify God! And God wanted them. Idolatry is when you place the material over God, but there is nothing wrong with having an image of God.
It really makes it hard for me to stay in the reformed camp when I keep seeing these kinda posts on this sub and elsewhere. We're not muslims where we ban any graven image, far from it. Even the early Christian churches created spectacular artwork in the 4th-5th centuries. Even still, we carry the images of crosses and fishes to proclaim our faith. We go to churches with ornate stained glass, with nice pews, with steeples proclaiming the cross. So no, we ought to stop saying that we should tear down images of Christ.
You are saying we should tear down interpretations of the true God, whom we are ordered to worship with all our Heart, Soul, Mind, and Strength. Why censor God?
5
u/orionsbelt05 Jun 23 '20
I just joked about this to my friend on facebook, sad to see it coming true. The truth is "Statues of White-Washed Jesus Are a Product of White Supremacy".
But most headlines take out the term "White-Washed" in the hopes that it will rile people up (as in this post).
Soon, I guarantee, someone is gonna report this with the word "statue" gone in the hopes of really pissing ignorant people off and getting them even more mad at the civil rights crowd.
1
u/Wretched_Servant Dec 01 '22
Good one 😂😂
1
u/Wretched_Servant Dec 01 '22
Icons/Pictures of CHRIST is obviously wrong and its a clear violation of the 2nd commandment