Another 2nd Commandment Question: Crosses (stemming from another thread)

[Romans922]

Kalawine said the following here and thought it needed it's own thread.

Originally Posted by kalawine

Another "question for an answer" might be, if you drove by a Church that has a cross on it's steeple, would it be a sin for you to visually see the cross? No. Would it be a sin for you to place a cross on your own Church's steeple? Yep.

Are you in violation of the 2nd commandment if you wear, make (to wear or for your steeple), enjoying seeing, etc. crosses?

[Re4mdant]

[Theognome]

To me, this is kinda like the snake in the wilderness- look upon it and live.

Theognome

[Whitefield]

Originally Posted by Romans922

Are you in violation of the 2nd commandment if you wear, make (to wear or for your steeple), enjoying seeing, etc. crosses?

No.

[Houston E.]

Originally Posted by Romans922

Are you in violation of the 2nd commandment if you wear, make (to wear or for your steeple), enjoying seeing, etc. crosses?

No, unless it becomes an object of worship.
i.e. it's used to focus upon, envisioning Christ upon it, etc..

[py3ak]

Wouldn't the question for the Reformed be, what warrant is there for using the cross as a religious symbol?

Subsidiary to that, is it a good idea to turn an instrument of torture into something as superficial as a personal ornament or a bumper sticker?

[reformedminister]

Originally Posted by Houston E.

No, unless it becomes an object of worship.
i.e. it's used to focus upon, envisioning Christ upon it, etc..

[Whitefield]

Originally Posted by py3ak

Wouldn't the question for the Reformed be, what warrant is there for using the cross as a religious symbol?

Subsidiary to that, is it a good idea to turn an instrument of torture into something as superficial as a personal ornament or a bumper sticker?

Not all Reformed need a warrant to use a religious symbol. The question was "does it violate the 2nd commmandment?"

And I would not consider a cross on the steeple (the original reference in the parent post) something superficial. As to the "instrument of torture", it is also the "instrument of my redemption."

[Romans922]

Where's Kalawine to describe what he means here?

[Unashamed 116]

I would say no, as long as the cross as wood is not worshiped. I wear a cross concealed on my uniform to daily remind me that I am crucified with Christ.

Plus, Jesus did say to "take up your cross" so we should all carry one around with us.......

[jwithnell]

I'd hate to get into a legalistic quagmire that it's OK to use a cross here, but not there, and only if it ....

That said, I am uncomfortable with the symbol, particularly when it is paraded around like it is to be worshiped, used in a superstitious way (think vampire movies), or as a personal decoration.

One possible use comes in distinguishing something from the non-Christian --for example in military cemeteries it is often used to mark the grave of someone who wants to identify herself as Christian. As we move further away from a Christian populace, it may be useful on buildings too ... I've spent a few fire assignments in Utah, and found myself running my eyes up steeples hoping to see a cross there rather than the pointy tip of a Mormon edifice.

[Whitefield]

Originally Posted by Unashamed 116

I would say no, as long as the cross as wood is not worshiped. I wear a cross concealed on my uniform to daily remind me that I am crucified with Christ.

And your chaplain wears one unconcealed on his uniform every day.

[wturri78]

I would agree that the cross has become nothing more than flippant jewelry and in many cases, a total mockery of Christianity. How many "gangsta rappers" or heavy-metalheads (Ozzy, anyone?) do we see going around "singing" about murder and drugs while wearing enormous crosses around their necks, or tattooing them onto their arms and backs?

Misuse of the symbols by those in "the world" is probably tangential, however.

The fundamental issue is the use of images in worship...but not just any images, of course. The prohibition against making and bowing down to "graven images" was linked to the worship of false gods...since the true God is invisible, any attempt even to make an image of the true God will become an image of a false God. It obviously flows inseparably from the first commandment--the worship of any other God than the God who created all things and led his people out of the house of bondage at a specific time in real space and real history. Ashera poles, Dagon statues, little metal dudes "that neither hear nor speak," that are either believed to be gods or (more realistically) to represent false gods are not to be made, kept, worshiped or served.

I would argue that the cross is in no way, shape, or form an image of a false deity. I suppose somebody could worship a wooden cross on a steeple. A converted environmentalist pagan could come into our sanctuary and be led into worshiping the fake tree up near the pulpit because their conscience is weak and they're still not over their old ways. The symbols, artwork, or decorations we have in the context of worship say much about our attitude toward God, as do all the things we don't have in the context of worship. An empty room with a chair still can contain a mountain of symbolism.

The cross, as a symbol, points us back toward the point when God's wrath and God's mercy met together, the pivotal moment of reconciliation between a holy God and sinful people. I think of that moment when I read about the cross in Scripture, or hear the cross preached in a sermon. I also think of that moment when I see a cross on a wall or a steeple.

I could be badly mistaken--and if so I would gratefully appreciate correction, as I certainly do not seek to worship God in an inappropriate way.

[Berean]

Originally Posted by Whitefield

As to the "instrument of torture", it is also the "instrument of my redemption."

[KMK]

Originally Posted by py3ak

Wouldn't the question for the Reformed be, what warrant is there for using the cross as a religious symbol?

Subsidiary to that, is it a good idea to turn an instrument of torture into something as superficial as a personal ornament or a bumper sticker?

What is your definition of a 'religious symbol'?

[Confessor]

No.

While with purported images of God, the dilemma can be stated that you are either worshiping it -- thereby breaking the second commandment -- or not worshiping it -- thereby breaking the third commandment -- such a dilemma does not exist for images such as crosses. For if one does not worship a cross, it is not the case that he's breaking the third commandment, for the cross is not meant to visually depict God Himself.

So, to qualify my original answer, I say that having a cross is not a violation of the second commandment unless it is an object of worship.

[Glenn Ferrell]

Although I avoid crosses and don’t want them in a place of worship, they are not in the same category as images of one of the persons of the triune godhead. Outside of public worship, as a designation of something Christian, distinguished from another religion, they might serve a purpose apart from worship. After all, we’re simply talking about intersecting line segments. Thus, I have little objection to the St. Andrews cross of the Scottish, British or Confederate flags. Though one will not find crosses in conservative Scottish churches, one will usually find a burning bush on or above the pulpit.

[Confessor]

Originally Posted by Glenn Ferrell

Though one will not find crosses in conservative Scottish churches, one will usually find a burning bush on or above the pulpit.

How is that permissible if a cross isn't?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Confessor

How is that permissible if a cross isn't?

In order to understand, you must first hold advanced degrees in theology & church history.

[toddpedlar]

Originally Posted by Theognome

To me, this is kinda like the snake in the wilderness- look upon it and live.

Theognome

Although 1) the cross as a symbol was never held up as a symbol to be looked upon in order to live and 2) the cross itself is NOT to be looked upon in order to live, even figuratively since the cross-shaped pair of wood beams is meaningless without Christ who IS to be looked unto for life, and 3) the bronze serpent was destroyed when it became an object of worship.

[ColdSilverMoon]

Originally Posted by Whitefield

Not all Reformed need a warrant to use a religious symbol. The question was "does it violate the 2nd commmandment?"

And I would not consider a cross on the steeple (the original reference in the parent post) something superficial. As to the "instrument of torture", it is also the "instrument of my redemption."

[py3ak]

Originally Posted by Whitefield

Not all Reformed need a warrant to use a religious symbol. The question was "does it violate the 2nd commmandment?"

And I would not consider a cross on the steeple (the original reference in the parent post) something superficial. As to the "instrument of torture", it is also the "instrument of my redemption."

Does a religious symbol impinge on worship? What is it speaking about? If a religious symbol is meant to communicate something about our God, then surely we should have God's permission to communicate in that way. If a cross is employed in worship, it falls under the RPW and the Reformed will most definitely need warrant for that.

I don't know that it's very much better to trivialize an instrument of redemption than to trivialize an instrument of torture.

[OPC'n]

I don't think so. I wear a necklace cross but it's only for decoration. I don't think of THE cross when I wear it.

[Whitefield]

Originally Posted by py3ak

Does a religious symbol impinge on worship?

How could it? Its outside and 50 feet up on the steeple. Does the RPW govern what is on the exterior of the building?

I don't know that it's very much better to trivialize an instrument of redemption than to trivialize an instrument of torture.

I hope you are not implying that I trivialize either.

[py3ak]

The building is a circumstance - but if the building is given religious significance it does fall under the RPW. Meaning that one would have to have positive warrant for the use of the cross. Of course, someone could use the cross not for religious significance but as a practical matter - as a question, in fact, of advertising that this is a Christian church.

Advertising seems like a trivial thing to me. That's why I'm glad that an elder went up in a cherry picker many years ago and sawed the cross off the top of our steeple.

[Tripel]

Originally Posted by py3ak

If a cross is employed in worship, it falls under the RPW and the Reformed will most definitely need warrant for that.

What does it mean for a cross to be "employed" in worship? We have a stained-glass window that has many images on it, one of which is a cross. I wouldn't say it is "employed" in worship any more than the flowers arranged near the pulpit.

-----Added 5/26/2009 at 06:18:28 EST-----

Originally Posted by py3ak

The building is a circumstance - but if the building is given religious significance it does fall under the RPW. Meaning that one would have to have positive warrant for the use of the cross...That's why I'm glad that an elder went up in a cherry picker many years ago and sawed the cross off the top of our steeple.

Why have a steeple?

[py3ak]

See my post above.

A steeple is very costly to remove.

[Whitefield]

Originally Posted by py3ak

The building is a circumstance - but if the building is given religious significance it does fall under the RPW. Meaning that one would have to have positive warrant for the use of the cross. Of course, someone could use the cross not for religious significance but as a practical matter - as a question, in fact, of advertising that this is a Christian church.

Advertising seems like a trivial thing to me. That's why I'm glad that an elder went up in a cherry picker many years ago and sawed the cross off the top of our steeple.

The steeple of the church is not used during worship, so it is neither an element or circumstance of worship. And hence needs no positive warrant for its placement on the steeple (or on the exterior wall facing the street).

As for your congregation to decide to remove the cross from the steeple, that is fully within the proper decision of your congregation; just as it is equally a proper decision for a congregation to choose to have a cross on the steeple.

The parent-posting stated that to have a cross on the steeple is a sin. In your opinion it is undesirable, but for it to be elevated to a sin against God, something more than "I don't like" has to be presented.

[Glenn Ferrell]

Originally Posted by Confessor

How is that permissible if a cross isn't?

The burning bush is used not as a symbol for God in any of his persons, and has never been used like the cross in processions or something to bow down to. It is more of a heraldic symbol used since 1691 as a symbol for the Church of Scotland and some groups claiming to be a continuation of the CoS (FcoS, FcoSC, FPCoS). The motto, “NEC TAMEN CONSUMEBATUR,” “it was not however consumed,” refers to the people of God, perhaps with the recent persecution of the Covenanters in mind when it first appeared.

I’m not sure how the Free Church people would argue for its display in a place of worship, considering they are as strict as anyone regarding the RPW. Nor do I know how they clearly distinguish it from the cross. I’d be interested in hearing and will ask the next time I talk with one of their ministers.

[py3ak]

The building where worship takes place is definitely a circumstance. Worship could not take place without a stated meeting place - a stated meeting place is common to human societies that must meet - thus the building meets the definition of a circumstance. Treated as such, its decor, internal and external, must be subject to the general rules of the Word. If, however, the building is assigned religious significance, if it is conceived of as a "sacred space" it morphs from a circumstance into an element - and then warrant is required for the whole concept of a sacred space, and for the items which are used to establish or maintain or proclaim its sacredness.

But if the building is a convenient location, then the cross is advertising. The steeple says that it is a building used for religious meetings, the cross says that it is Christian religious meetings. So an instrument of torture becomes the logo.

[Whitefield]

Originally Posted by py3ak

The building where worship takes place is definitely a circumstance. Worship could not take place without a stated meeting place - a stated meeting place is common to human societies that must meet - thus the building meets the definition of a circumstance. Treated as such, its decor, internal and external, must be subject to the general rules of the Word. If, however, the building is assigned religious significance, if it is conceived of as a "sacred space" it morphs from a circumstance into an element - and then warrant is required for the whole concept of a sacred space, and for the items which are used to establish or maintain or proclaim its sacredness.

But if the building is a convenient location, then the cross is advertising. The steeple says that it is a building used for religious meetings, the cross says that it is Christian religious meetings. So an instrument of torture becomes the logo.

So, cut to the conclusion. Are you saying a cross on a church steeple is a per se sin against God? If you are, what does it violate in Scripture?

So an instrument of torture becomes the logo.

And likewise I could say the instrument of redemption becomes the logo.

[py3ak]

I disagree with your framing of the debate. From my entry into this thread, I asked if a better way to state the question would not be one of warrant.

And your question would have to be split, in any case.

And a logo is a rather trivial thing, it is not?

[ColdSilverMoon]

Originally Posted by py3ak

I don't know that it's very much better to trivialize an instrument of redemption than to trivialize an instrument of torture.

By this logic God trivialized the instrument of the Fall when the Israelites looked upon the serpent.

It may be trivializing the cross to you, and that's perfectly fine for you to hold that opinion and thus not adorn yourself, your car, or your church with a cross. But your personal distaste does not make it a sin - for you or anyone else.

[Confessor]

Originally Posted by Glenn Ferrell

I’m not sure how the Free Church people would argue for its display in a place of worship, considering they are as strict as anyone regarding the RPW. Nor do I know how they clearly distinguish it from the cross. I’d be interested in hearing and will ask the next time I talk with one of their ministers.

Prima facie, I would not judge them to be inconsistent, simply because I doubt they would ever deal loosely with such an issue. That is, if they are so strict with the RPW, and they have a burning bush displayed, they probably have given it a good deal of thought.

But yes, I would appreciate it if you could find out their specific reasoning on the matter.

[py3ak]

Mason, it isn't trivializing something to turn it into the means by which life is obtained in the face of otherwise certain death. Surely you'll agree that this is a pretty dignified role.

[Whitefield]

Originally Posted by py3ak

I disagree with your framing of the debate. From my entry into this thread, I asked if a better way to state the question would not be one of warrant.

And your question would have to be split, in any case.

And a logo is a rather trivial thing, it is not?

I didn't frame the debate, nor the initial question. I'm simply waiting for someone to explain, from Scripture, how having a cross on the steeple (or anywhere on the exterior of a church) is a sin against God.

And no, a logo which has meaning is not a trivial thing.

[py3ak]

Yes, but you'll notice that I got on with a suggestion to rephrase the original question.

Is the logo's meaning religious?

[ColdSilverMoon]

Originally Posted by py3ak

Mason, it isn't trivializing something to turn it into the means by which life is obtained in the face of otherwise certain death. Surely you'll agree that this is a pretty dignified role.

No, they received life with faith as the instrument - looking to the serpent was the manifestation of their faith - the symbol, or "logo," so to speak. Our faith in Christ's work on the cross allows us to receive life as well. Thus the cross is a symbol of our faith the same way the serpent was a symbol of the Israelites' faith in that episode. I don't think either is trivial....

[py3ak]

If they didn't look, they didn't live. The serpent on the pole was a necessary object for their sight. That's dignified, and more than a logo. Further, the construction of serpent was authorized by God (there was warrant for it), but even it was considered Nehushtan when people began to attach a religious significance to it, outside of the situation for which God authorized it.
I'd want something a little stronger than that.

[ColdSilverMoon]

Originally Posted by py3ak

If they didn't look, they didn't live. The serpent on the pole was a necessary object for their sight. That's dignified, and more than a logo. Further, the construction of serpent was authorized by God (there was warrant for it), but even it was considered Nehushtan when people began to attach a religious significance to it, outside of the situation for which God authorized it.
I'd want something a little stronger than that.

I'm not saying the serpent episode proves the cross is an allowable symbol. My point is that the cross is only trivialized as a symbol in your opinion. The serpent was a valid symbol of faith only insomuch as the Israelites viewed it as just that - a mere symbol for their faith, rather than an object of worship. The same is true for the cross - it is a perfectly legitimate symbol for our faith in Christ's work on the cross. In my view, neither symbol is the least bit trivial.

But aside from the triviality issue, there is still the issue of whether or not wearing a cross necklace or having a cross bumper sticker is sinful. So far no one has shown that it is. In terms of the cross on a steeple, I agree with you - it is simply identifying that place as a location for the gathering of God's people. I see nothing wrong with that...