In a recent post, the issue of pictures of Christ came up in the comment thread. So I’ll throw this out for everybody to chew on:
I was just listening this morning to a recent (Dec 9) White Horse Inn, titled “Worship in Spirit and in Truth.” For one thing, they confirmed (in an “everybody knows” kind of way) Sheet Music’s suggestion that the Israelites were using the golden calf as an idol to the one true God, Yaweh, who brought them out of Egypt (which would tend to reinforce the prohibitions of images of Jesus). However, there was also a throw-away comment, something to the effect of “The Reformers knew what to do with all those religious images — take them out of the sanctuary, and move them into museums.” They might have also said “where they belong,” but I’d have to listen again to be sure.So I’m curious what you think should be the Christian response to “Christian” art (paintings, sculptures) in museums, which depicts Christ. (Zrim: are we allowed to call any art “Christian”?) Should we say “Pretty, but sad”? Look away? Boycott? Burn down the museum? What is the legacy of Reformed artists? (Rembrandt? Other Dutch masters?) Should we not have nativities?
Also, Echo founded his argument on Deut 4:15-18: “You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire…” But that’s in the lesser, Obsolete Covenant; since then people have seen a form when the LORD spoke to them: “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (in a more direct way than God dwelt among Israel) “we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father”. Jesus displayed publicly the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being. Of course, Christ is not with us now, but that does not revert us back to the Old Covenant, does it? As Christians who embrace the incarnation, must we keep the Word locked up in only words? Is the Lord’s Supper the only permissible flesh which the Word may become until he comes again?