Denominational differences in the depiction of Jesus

TheLightWithin

...through a glass, darkly
Messages
2,507
Reaction score
1,351
Points
108
Location
Cherish religious freedom: yours, mine, everyone's
So this is a 9 minute video, which may be a bit long but it's not huge. The speaker in this video explains how in Presbyterianism, or possibly other Reformed churches, it is considered inappropriate or unscriptural to show representations of Jesus. I thought I had heard that of Mennonite and Quaker churches and more recently of Presbyterian churches. What I am wondering is, is this an important point? As he points out many other denominations do use images. He rightly points out that nobody knows what Jesus looks like which would make the image "false" but - does that get in the way of worship? This would definitely be a direct opposing of usual Orthodox and Catholic practice for centuries. Thoughts?

 
He rightly points out that nobody knows what Jesus looks like which would make the image "false" but - does that get in the way of worship?
Personally I don't think so.

This would definitely be a direct opposing of usual Orthodox and Catholic practice for centuries. Thoughts?
Those churches are entitled to their own traditions, and that is fine by me, as far as it goes.

But do I see the reasoning as absolute? No.

The Bible says –
Exodus 20:3: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exodus 20:4-5: 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: 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 ..."
So the prohibition is linked by the conjunction for to the the reason why – and here it is clear that 'the LORD thy God' forbids the worship of any other gods or idols.

Deuteronomy 5:8-9 says the same.

When Jesus speaks of 'the Father', He inevitably and inescapably evokes an image in the mind ...
 
Never heard of that before and have attended Presbyterian churches. Reading more it is the reformed and confessional branches that are most strict...and it is mainly in the sanctuary, not to be used as a focus of prayer or worship. (Second commandment thing)

My liberal bent was first a high five to the church as the blue eyed white guy image has (I believe) fomented and sanctioned many a racist superiority in the Christian world.

I also read it was acceptable in children's books whichbisnwhere I would have been when I was in Presbyterian churches.
 
Isn't that exactly what Luther and Calvin were all about?
On the image front, no for Lutherans, yes for Calvinists, I think, and even in the latter case there is some allowance, but generally images are no tolerated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wil
Isn't that exactly what Luther and Calvin were all about?
Sort of. Other Protestants too... and most especially even the unorthodox/heterodox sect my grandfather was part of
I grew up with the idea that the Catholic and Orthodox ideas had drifted far from the truth
Which may be no worse than what Catholic and Orthodox theologians said to one another and to Protestants
Somewhere later I read that Quakers were almost "ritualistically a-ritualistic" whatever that means, I took it to mean they were so opposed to ritual and images that they called attention to it somehow.
Being too caught up in proving how different you are from other denominations perhaps became its own idol, invisible and abstract though it may be.
Somehow growing up I got the idea that identifying oneself with a denomination and being proud of it and defiantly announcing how you were different from other denominations was what religion was all about.
It wasn't just from the Armstrong churches either, it was every little thing I read or picked up on about religion, around me, or on TV or books, or whatever, that made me conclude that. Acquaintances, kids at school evangelizing (YES!) people my mom knew with their interdenominational rivalries, people my grandma knew, what grandma described of her upbringing in what must have been a Pentecostal church, etc.
That other denominations were not good enough, if not wrong or bad.
That other religions, as fascinating as they may be, were somehow wrong or bad or demonic or something.
But it's that kind of thinking that leads people down dark paths, not having fantasy art portraits. I would think.
 
the idea that the Catholic and Orthodox ideas had drifted far from the truth
Yes the Protestants protested against status quo.
Quakers were almost "ritualistically a-ritualistic" whatever that means
Yes their meeting rooms (that I have attended) unnadorned and no pulpit, the claim (as I hear it) is you sit in silence/prayer/meditation until the spirit guides you to say something. In practice I have always felt they came in with an agenda, something to say, and my hope is they "sat" communing with spirit till they agreed on the right way to say it....but that may just be because I was never guided to stand up... (I have always enjoyed the silence tho, I enjoy communal silence) (although most my friends will deny this)
 
Yes the Protestants protested against status quo.

Yes their meeting rooms (that I have attended) unnadorned and no pulpit, the claim (as I hear it) is you sit in silence/prayer/meditation until the spirit guides you to say something. In practice I have always felt they came in with an agenda, something to say, and my hope is they "sat" communing with spirit till they agreed on the right way to say it....but that may just be because I was never guided to stand up... (I have always enjoyed the silence tho, I enjoy communal silence) (although most my friends will deny this)
I attended a couple of Quaker meetings years ago and some bible studies with them. They were the unprogrammed Quakers so they had the circle of chairs, no pulpit, etc. Apparently there are divisions within the denomination that have led to some Quakers being "programmed" Quakers and having something more like a conventional ministry and may look something like the Holiness denominations, I think maybe even having merged and some are called evangelical Quakers or Quaker Holiness churches.

I do not know if any Quakers have gone the route of being Nicene churches though. If so they probably cease to be Quakers as I thought one of their defining tenets was to be non-creedal as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wil
This was a massive issue in the Eastern Roman Empire around the 10th century - referred to as Iconoclasm, it was an explosive debate.
 
Jesus loves us as he loves himself, he died for us, despite all our differences. The very least we should do; is love all our separated brothers and sisters as we love ourselves, despite our differences.

This is a flippant analogy.....

There is a church where everyone has to wear red shoes, down the road is a church where everyone has to wear green shoes. The leaders of the red shoe church notice different shades and styles of red shoes. So they agree a standard that everyone has to comply with. What is the purpose of uniformity, is it to have a monopoly on the sale of red shoes.

Beliefs are important, but what we do with our beliefs is more important, how do we really love our neighbours as we love ourselves?
 
Back
Top