Thread: "Jesus" statue stolen from local church

***warning: news story contains 2nd Commandment Violation***

Jesus statue stolen from local church | Charlotte News, Weather, Sports | WCNC.com | Local News

A concrete statue of Jesus was stolen from a Presbyterian church.

Now, why would a PCUSA church have a statue of Jesus?

The Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church on Rea Road in south Charlotte is without its shepherd.

Ain't that the truth.

Someone went conservative and removed the 2nd Commandment violation.

Praise Jesus!

Any PB'ers from the Charlotte area that own a pickup?

Not all Presbyterians believe that images of Christ is a violation of the 2nd commandment....Sproul doesn't. I personally don't like them at all. But i can see Sproul's point even tho I wouldn't never have Christ's imagine around me.

Originally Posted by Berean

Any PB'ers from the Charlotte area that own a pickup?

I was in Wake Forest for a few days but have witnesses.

Originally Posted by TranZ4MR

Not all Presbyterians believe that images of Christ is a violation of the 2nd commandment....Sproul doesn't. I personally don't like them at all. But i can see Sproul's point even tho I wouldn't never have Christ's imagine around me.

I guess it's a good thing that there's no such thing as Images of Christ, then. Hence, no room for debate. These images and statues are not of Christ. And since they aren't, anything less than all Christ is (both His human and divine essence) would be abominable. And that's one of the points behind the 2nd Commandment. So we're all agreed. Right?

Although I'm certainly as glad as any of you that the idol is no longer haunting this place of worship, should we truly be rejoicing or finding enjoyment in the breaking of another commandment --the 8th --, as it was removed by way of thievery, and not by lawful means?

Sorry, Paul. I was just being light-hearted. I'm not rejoicing over anyone's breaking of the Law.

Well, well, well...

The house has been cleansed!

Originally Posted by Rich Koster

Someone went conservative and removed the 2nd Commandment violation.

If they are that conservative, what are they doing at a PCUSA church in Charlotte (where there are plenty of options available). And if they are liberal, why not just a statue of Gaia?

Originally Posted by TranZ4MR

Not all Presbyterians believe that images of Christ is a violation of the 2nd commandment....Sproul doesn't. I personally don't like them at all. But i can see Sproul's point even tho I wouldn't never have Christ's imagine around me.

Is this a change of position on Sproul's part? I thought in Holiness of God that he said images of Jesus were forbidden. Maybe I'm just getting confused . . .

Exactly; one would think "earth mother" would be as likely.

Originally Posted by Edward

***warning: news story contains 2nd Commandment Violation***

Jesus statue stolen from local church | Charlotte News, Weather, Sports | WCNC.com | Local News

A concrete statue of Jesus was stolen from a Presbyterian church.

Now, why would a PCUSA church have a statue of Jesus?

Originally Posted by jpfrench81

Originally Posted by TranZ4MR

Not all Presbyterians believe that images of Christ is a violation of the 2nd commandment....Sproul doesn't. I personally don't like them at all. But i can see Sproul's point even tho I wouldn't never have Christ's imagine around me.

Is this a change of position on Sproul's part? I thought in Holiness of God that he said images of Jesus were forbidden. Maybe I'm just getting confused . . .

I don't remember that from Holiness of God. I believe in Truths We Confess he says that images of God the Father and the Holy Spirit are forbidden, but not of the Son Incarnate.

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by Rich Koster

Someone went conservative and removed the 2nd Commandment violation.

If they are that conservative, what are they doing at a PCUSA church in Charlotte (where there are plenty of options available). And if they are liberal, why not just a statue of Gaia?

If someone wakes up, they may do some things before they move on. You might nail something to a door, smash an idol, burn some books, then unite with like believers.

Sproul is wrong. See the forthcoming article in The Confessional Presbyterian 5, by David VanDrunen. Pictures of Jesus and the Sovereignty of Divine Revelation: Recent Literature and a Defense of the Confessional Reformed View. Subscribe for 2009 here (see also the special on back issues):
Subscriptions/Store | The Confessional Presbyterian

Originally Posted by TranZ4MR

Not all Presbyterians believe that images of Christ is a violation of the 2nd commandment....Sproul doesn't. I personally don't like them at all. But i can see Sproul's point even tho I wouldn't never have Christ's imagine around me.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Sorry, Paul. I was just being light-hearted. I'm not rejoicing over anyone's breaking of the Law.

I know, Josh; your light-heartedness brings a smile to my face more times daily than the internet should be allowed to do. Re-reading the thread, I retract my previous admonition as it may have been out of place and too heavy-handed. Either way, I pray that the current lack of statue gives this church occasion to consider what such things mean, and that it is far better to be without it; I pray this act of vandalism works for the good of this congregation.

Thanks to the moderator who added the warning, and my apologies to all for not having done so myself.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by jpfrench81

Originally Posted by TranZ4MR

Not all Presbyterians believe that images of Christ is a violation of the 2nd commandment....Sproul doesn't. I personally don't like them at all. But i can see Sproul's point even tho I wouldn't never have Christ's imagine around me.

Is this a change of position on Sproul's part? I thought in Holiness of God that he said images of Jesus were forbidden. Maybe I'm just getting confused . . .

I don't remember that from Holiness of God. I believe in Truths We Confess he says that images of God the Father and the Holy Spirit are forbidden, but not of the Son Incarnate.

I've been to Sproul's church (well, it's really Jesus' church, but you get my meaning). He's got great big giant canvases of the life of "Jesus" hanging down from the ceiling. It seems I remember Calvin saying something about this in the Institutes (and I would view it as a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture).

I'm guessing that this "Jesus" that disappeared did not really look like a Jew from Palestine in the first century, but instead was a long-haired effeminate Medieval European borrowed from Roman Catholic depictions. I'm sure that's not dishonoring to the Lord of Glory in the least.

rat brains!

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

I've been to Sproul's church (well, it's really Jesus' church, but you get my meaning). He's got great big giant canvases of the life of "Jesus" hanging down from the ceiling. It seems I remember Calvin saying something about this in the Institutes (and I would view it as a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture).

Is this so?

Oh my! I think this is horrible. . .

I could never worship amongst such breaches against the 2nd commandment.

Sorry to say.

-----Added 8/7/2009 at 12:22:40 EST-----

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by jpfrench81

Originally Posted by TranZ4MR

Not all Presbyterians believe that images of Christ is a violation of the 2nd commandment....Sproul doesn't. I personally don't like them at all. But i can see Sproul's point even tho I wouldn't never have Christ's imagine around me.

Is this a change of position on Sproul's part? I thought in Holiness of God that he said images of Jesus were forbidden. Maybe I'm just getting confused . . .

I don't remember that from Holiness of God. I believe in Truths We Confess he says that images of God the Father and the Holy Spirit are forbidden, but not of the Son Incarnate.

If you go here and get the sermon on "Images" you will hear him say that he believes that ppl who think that images of Christ are a violation of the 2nd commandment are Gnostic. He calls them his Gnostic friends. I love him anyway! No can be right on everything!

Here is R.C. himself on the subject:

"Actually, the commandment forbids pictures of anything, including Jesus, if used for the purpose of worship. It does not forbid having stained glass windows or pictures in the church, but it does forbid bowing down to them or seeking to worship God through them. After all, God decorated the Tabernacle with cherubim and other pictures, so simply having decorative or illustrative pictures in church is not the issue."

Sproul, R. (2000, c1994). Vol. 3: Before the face of God : Book three: A daily guide for living from the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House; Ligonier Ministries.

Thanks for that Dennis. A few things with regard to Sproul:

1) No one has a picture of "Jesus." Unless someone wants to lay claim to new mystical revelations, I don't think anyone (even Sproul) is in a position to state what He looks like.
2) God did decorate the Tabernacle, with specific instructions to do so in a manner just as He had commanded. I don't think comparing cherubim to the Lord of glory is a proper analogy either.
3) He displays these images in a place of worship. He does so for illustrative reasons. Yet he says they are not objects of worship. I fail to see how that squares.
4) Under Sproul's rubric, it would have been fine to have Aaron's calf in the congregation of Israel, just as long as no one actually worshiped it.
5) Does Sproul not think the Westminster divines wrestled with these issues? Not only is he taking an exception to the Confession, he is doing so in a manner that leads others to do so (by displaying the images in his church and by writing on the issue). This is problematic.

Joshua said and I agree: "I guess it's a good thing that there's no such thing as Images of Christ, then. Hence, no room for debate. These images and statues are not of Christ. And since they aren't, anything less than all Christ is (both His human and divine essence) would be abominable. And that's one of the points behind the 2nd Commandment. So we're all agreed. Right? "

I agree completely and as an ex roman catholic who is a convert to Protestantism and the Reformed faith I reject all images as irreverant and idoatry.

The only image I look at now is the empty cross like we have in our Presbyterian sanctuary,representing the risen Christ not the Christ who is sacrificed over and over again as in roman catholicism in the popish mass.

In grace,
Dudley

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Thanks for that Dennis. A few things with regard to Sproul:

1) No one has a picture of "Jesus." Unless someone wants to lay claim to new mystical revelations, I don't think anyone (even Sproul) is in a position to state what He looks like.
2) God did decorate the Tabernacle, with specific instructions to do so in a manner just as He had commanded. I don't think comparing cherubim to the Lord of glory is a proper analogy either.
3) He displays these images in a place of worship. He does so for illustrative reasons. Yet he says they are not objects of worship. I fail to see how that squares.
4) Under Sproul's rubric, it would have been fine to have Aaron's calf in the congregation of Israel, just as long as no one actually worshiped it.
5) Does Sproul not think the Westminster divines wrestled with these issues? Not only is he taking an exception to the Confession, he is doing so in a manner that leads others to do so (by displaying the images in his church and by writing on the issue). This is problematic.

Referencing #1, I'm going to take one on "the day" and leave it on my screensaver for all those left behind. (Along with the 1599 Geneva shortcut on the desktop)

Will you have time, Rich? "Wait a minute, I need to grab my camera and..."

Originally Posted by Berean

Will you have time, Rich? "Wait a minute, I need to grab my camera and..."

Rich would say, "I need to grab my camera and a White Castle Slyder."

One of the readers of the news article commented, "This gives new meaning to the phrase: "Have you found Jesus?" "

How can you have a picture of Jesus and not worship it. that would be equally wrong.

If it is depicting Our Lord we should think of Him as we see it therefore we should be worshiping Him as a result of it. When a thought of Jesus or a picture since I have been exposed to them int he past, comes to my mind, I worship Him.

I don't understand how Sproul in his analytical mind could possibly so compartmentalize them as separate.

But what about that bare cross, is it an image? What is its purpose? Is it an aid to worship? Why else have it there. One said reminds us of ascension. WHOse ascension?
It does not have to be an image of God Himself. That is what an image is. We can't make and exact replica of God no one knows what He would look like so the command would be meaningless if it only included replicas. Image is in representation of.

I agree that this is wrong to make an image whether you worship it or not.
It says do not make an image, and also do not bow down to it. It does not say do not make an image to bow down to.

How do PCA congregations display images purporting to represent Jesus, the second persons of the God-head, and evade discipline by their presbyteries? Even if a minister or other officer should be allowed an exception to WLC 109, this is not license to ignore what it says in practice.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Originally Posted by Berean

Will you have time, Rich? "Wait a minute, I need to grab my camera and..."

Rich would say, "I need to grab my camera and a White Castle Slyder."

I think manna will be on the menu, so I'll leave the Slyders behind

What if someone would have painted a picture of Jesus while he was on Earth?

Originally Posted by Berean

One of the readers of the news article commented, "This gives new meaning to the phrase: "Have you found Jesus?" "

They would have concrete evidence that they did

Originally Posted by Glenn Ferrell

How do PCA congregations display images purporting to represent Jesus, the second persons of the God-head, and evade discipline by their presbyteries? Even if a minister or other officer should be allowed an exception to WLC 109, this is not license to ignore what it says in practice.

There are some ARP congregations with stained glass windows of "Jesus." I'm guessing these were probably installed during times of widespread ignorance of the Standards. It's bad enough (but also common enough) for laypeople to be ignorant of this, but why in the world would Sessions allow this to take place?

How can they remove an image of a person whose image was never duplicated?

Originally Posted by Zenas

How can they remove an image of a person whose image was never duplicated?

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that because we don't know what Jesus looked like, the icons should be allowed to stand since they aren't "really Jesus"?

That seems like analogous to Aaron responding to Moses, "Don't get mad about the calf, little brother, since we all know that isn't what YHWH really looks like."

See this thread: Session's Response to LC 109 and Jesus Image Question

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Originally Posted by Zenas

How can they remove an image of a person whose image was never duplicated?

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that because we don't know what Jesus looked like, the icons should be allowed to stand since they aren't "really Jesus"?

That seems like analogous to Aaron responding to Moses, "Don't get mad about the calf, little brother, since we all know that isn't what YHWH really looks like."

No, I'm not arguing for the false image, I'm emphasizing its false aspect through pointing out the absurdity in those pictures and statues that claim to be "Jesus" and yet depict a white man with blue eyes.