Home > Art, Lutheranism > Crucifixes and Lutherans

Crucifixes and Lutherans

December 18th, 2009
Marketing Advertising Blog — VuManhThang.Com

Lower Center Panel of the Altar Painting in St. Mary Church, Wittenberg, Germany. By Lucas Cranach.

Lower Center Panel of the Altar Painting in St. Mary Church, Wittenberg, Germany. By Lucas Cranach.

From The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod’s FAQ page….

Question:

Is the use of crucifixes a Roman Catholic practice? Doesn’t the empty cross provide a better symbol for Lutherans? How does the LCMS feel about using a crucifix in church? [Note: A crucifix is a cross with a statue of the crucified Christ on it].

Answer:

A common misunderstanding among some some Lutherans is the opinion that a crucifix, or the use of a crucifix, is a “Roman Catholic” practice. The history of Lutheranism demonstrates that the crucifix was a regular and routine feature of Lutheran worship and devotional life during Luther’s lifetime and during the period of Lutheran Orthdoxy. It was also the case among the founding fathers of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. If you were to visit most of the original congregations of the LCMS here in the United States you would find lovely crucifixes adorning their altars, and in addition, beautiful statues on the altar of Christ and the four evangelists, or other such scenes. There is nothing uniquely Roman Catholic about this.  Many Lutherans and Lutheran congregations use crucifixes. Crucifixes are used in the chapels of both of our seminaries.

Lutheranism has always considered the crucifix to be a powerful reminder of the sacrifice our Lord Jesus made for us and our salvation, on the cross. A crucifix vividly brings to mind the Apostle Paul’s divinely inspired words, “We preach Christ and Him crucified”  (1 Cor. 1:23).

Interestingly enough, while there is certainly nothing “wrong” with an “empty” cross, the practice of using an “empty cross” on a Lutheran congregation’s altar comes more from non-Lutheran sources. At the time of the Reformation there was conflict between Lutherans and Reformed Christians over the proper place of pictures, images, statues and the like in the church. Lutherans stood with historic Christendom in realizing that such art in the church was not wrong, and was a great aid for helping to focus devotional thoughts on the truths of the Word of God, no greater truth can be found that the death of Jesus Christ our Lord for the world’s salvation.

The “empty cross” is not a symbol of Christ’s resurrection, as some say, for the fact is that the cross would have been empty regardless of whether or not Christ had risen from the grave. The point to be kept clear here is that both an “empty cross” and a crucifix, symbolize the same thing: the death of Christ our Lord for the salvation of the world. Many feel that the crucifix symbolizes this truth more clearly and strikingly. That has been the traditional opinion of historic Lutheranism, until the last fifty years ago, due to the influence we will now mention.

Some Lutherans began to move away from crucifixes during the age of Lutheran Pietism, which rejected much of Lutheran doctrine and consequently many Lutheran worship practices. At the time, Lutheran Pietists, contrary to the clear postion of Luther and the earlier Lutherns, held that symbols such as the crucifix were wrong. This was never the view of historic Lutheranism.  Here in America, Lutherans have always felt a certain pressure to “fit in” with the Reformed Christianity that predominates much of the Protestant church here. Thus, for some Lutherans this meant doing away with things such as crucifixes, and vestments, and other traditional forms of Lutheran worship and piety. It is sad when some Lutherans are made to feel embarrassed about their Lutheranism by members of churches that teach the Word of God in error and who do not share Lutheanism’s clear confession and practice of the full truth of the Word of God.

Lutheranism has always recognized that the use of any symbol (even the empty cross) can become an idolatrous practice, if in any way people are led to believe there is “power in the cross” or that a picture or representation of a cross has some sort of ability, in itself, to bring us into relationship with Christ and His Gospel. Any of God’s good gifts can be turned against Him in this life and become an end in themselves.

Lutherans have never believed that banning or limiting proper artwork in the church is the way to prevent its improper use. Rather, we believe that proper teaching and right use is the best way, and the way that is in keeping with the gift of freedom we have in Christ to use all things to the glory and honor of God. Thus, many Lutherans use and enjoy the crucifix as a meaningful reminder of our Lord’s suffering and death. It might interest you to know that our Synod’s president has a beautiful crucifix adorning the wall of his office, constantly reminding him and visitors to his office of the great love of God that is ours in Christ Jesus our Lord.

In short, and this is the most important point of all: there is nothing contrary to God’s Holy Word, or our Lutheran Confessions, about the proper use of the crucifix, just as there is nothing wrong with the proper use of an empty cross, or any other church symbol by which we are reminded of the great things God has done for us. We need to guard against quickly dismissing out of hand practices that we believe are “too Roman Catholic” before we more adequately explore their use and history in our own church.

In Christian freedom, we use either the crucifix or an empty cross and should not judge or condemn one another for using either nor not using either symbol of our Lord’s sacrifice for our sins.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Categories: Art, Lutheranism
  1. Christine
    December 18th, 2009 at 08:42 | #1

    A good position taken by the Synod reflecting our freedom in Christ.

    Curiously, when I was a member of an ELCA congregation it struck me as odd that the liturgy they used was very much in sync with the Roman Catholic mass of Vatican II, yet when the pastor suggested that they place a cross in the sanctuary with a corpus of the risen Christ it was protested that that was too “Catholic.” A crucifix was out of the question.

    I have two crucifixes in my home and also view them as symbols of the great love of God that is ours in Christ Jesus our Lord.

  2. jmark
    December 18th, 2009 at 11:43 | #2

    My (personal) preference for a crucifix vs. a plain cross:
    The crucifix shows God as man, a man who is suffering. The crucifix is a reminder that God suffered as a man does. I find this profoundly comforting: no matter what I go through, God has gone through it first. The plain cross is clean, reduced to a simple graphic symbol: it is no longer a bloody instrument of torture; it seems to me to be redemption without the actual cost in terms of pain and suffering. So much of Lutheran spirituality has to do with a special appreciation for the incarnation: we are not very likely to stray into neoplatonic, disembodied mysticism as Catholics or Orthodox Christians sometimes do; sanctification happens in our daily lives, following our human vocations, performing the duties that men and women with jobs and families have. The crucifix makes the incarnation vivid; a man’s death becomes the means of redeeming the world. The crucifix is a powerful symbol even for people who know little about Christianity (I know inner-city teenagers who love wearing the crucifix: even if they have only the vaguest understanding of what it means, they are drawn to the image of a suffering and dying man who was a victim of injustice and misunderstanding. Tell them that the man on the cross died for them, and they are fascinated. A plain cross, however, is easily mistaken for the mathematical “plus” sign). I’ve heard that some Christians are “bothered” by the crucifix; they prefer crosses with a resurrected Jesus. I attribute this to a misplaced fastidiousness. I wonder if these are the same individuals whose euphemisms for death are so opaque that it takes me several minutes to realize that the person they are talking about is deceased: “My cousin ‘passed.’” “Aunt Beth has moved on to better things,” “Uncle Joe is no longer on this plane of existence.”

  3. Joanne
    December 20th, 2009 at 23:52 | #3

    If your readers would really like to see what Lutherans did in the way of religious art when they built a large parish church from scratch (ca. 1608) may I suggest this link: http://www.raymond-faure.com/Wolfenbuettel/wolfenbuettel.htm
    Raymond Faure has taken an incredably large number of very good photographs of the Harz area of central Germany. This link will take you to his Wolfenbüttel page, and in a column down the left side you see selections. BMV is for Beatae Mariae Virginis, the purpose built Lutheran church that is chock full of art works and crucifixes from the German Renaissance that somehow did not get destroyed in the 30 years war, the 7 years war, the Napoleonic wars, or WWII. Thafta! It’s the best example of this in Germany I’ve seen, to date.

Comments are closed.

Bad Behavior has blocked 1543 access attempts in the last 7 days.