Where Is My There?

Through reading a book Nehemiah, one can see a model that we should all follow regarding having and following a God given vision. Nehemiah, when hearing the need of his people, says in 1:4, “When I heard these things, I sat down and wept. For some days I mourned and fasted and prayed before the God of heaven.” God called him to a specific task and he carried it out (to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem). He was placed in such a position in life that God had provided a way for that action to be carried out.

What Nehemiah experienced is what I hope to experience. I know that, just as Nehemiah, I have been shaped for a purpose. My experiences, abilities, and passions are not in vain, and I know God will use those to his advantage, I only seek to know what for. I want to see the artistic masterpiece that God is creating, but I’ve only seen portions of it.

As it is, I know I want to minister in an area of the United States that is not in the Bible Belt, likely somewhere up north between Seattle and New York (at least I narrowed it down to half of the US). I have now seen the need in New York for Gospel-centered churches, and I literally weep over that city. Scripture says of Jesus in Luke 19:41 “As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it.” I still have not been given my Jerusalem, the Jerusalem that I am supposed to bear my cross for.

Even though I have wept over New York City and mourn for its lack of faith in Christ, I’m not sure if I’m specifically called to that one city. I desperately desire a city that I too can weep over like Jesus and rebuild like Nehemiah. I pray that God will open my eyes to a place that I can marry, a city that I can love, build up, and devote my life to.

Jesus and Slavery

Being raised in rural South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union immediately before the Civil War, I have gained a rather horrid distaste for slavery.  Also being a Christian, I have always been bothered by the use of slavery within the Bible.   Does God support something as oppressive and immoral as slavery?  Slavery in the New World often times meant the inevitability of being raped and abused, was it the same way for the Early Church and Israel?  Are we in this age more “morally evolved” than our descendants? Such questions have always plagued me.  Because of this wonder, I’ve decided to research the topic a little and share my findings (in other words, combine a lot of my resources especially from gotquestions.org and The Reason for God by Tim Keller).

The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many have seen this to mean that the Bible authorizes all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrew were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8-10).

Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.

Social historian Rodney Stark states, “Although it has been fashionable to deny it, anti-slavery doctrines began to appear in Christian theology soon after the decline of Rome were accompanied by the eventual disappearance of slavery in all but the fringes of Christian Europe.  When Europeans subsequently instituted slavery in the New World, they did so over strenuous papal opposition, a fact that was conveniently ‘lost’ from history until recently.  Finally, the abolition of New World slavery was initiated and achieved by Christian activists.”

Christians began to work for abolition not because of some general understanding of human rights, but because they say it as violating the will of God.  Older forms of indentured servant-hood and bond-service of Biblical times had often been harsh, but Christian abolitionists concluded that race-based, life-long slavery, established through kidnapping, could not be found in alignment with Biblical teaching.  Christian activists such as William Wilberforce in Great Britain (btw, the movie about him entitled Amazing Grace is amazing), John Woolman in America, and many others devoted their entire lives, in the name of Christ, to ending slavery.  At the same time the slave trade was so financially rewarding that many within the church greedily sought to justify it.

When the abolitionists finally had British society ready to abolish slavery across the empire, many in the colonies said the price of commodities would skyrocket catastrophically.  This did not deter the abolitionists.  The House of Commons agreed to compensate the planters for all freed slaves, a sum which equaled to half of all the British government’s annual budget.  The Act of Emancipation passed in 1933, and the costs were so high to the British people that some have referred to the voluntary abolition of slavery in Britain as “voluntary econocide.”

Many have tried to understand why so many political figures would act so selfishly to do away with the act.  Why self-interest would they have in this act of abolition?  Rodney Stark has argued that the only reason why this sacrificial behavior ever took place was because it was Christian leaders who were in the forefront of this movement.  Many within Christianity had allowed this inhuman behavior to continue but being the “repentant religion” that Christianity is, many sought to correct this move.

Very much related to this topic, Martin Luther King Jr. realized that it was behaving more like a Christian would do away with such things as racial injustice.  He believed that it was a deeper and truer Christianity that would help change the face of America.  David L. Chappell believes that the Civil Rights was primarily a religious and spiritual movement as opposed to simply political.   He argues that white Northern liberals who were the allies of the African-American civil rights leaders were not proponents of civil disobedience or of a direct attack on segregation.  Because of their secular belief in the goodness of human nature, they thought that education and enlightenment would bring about inevitable social and racial progress.  Black leaders were instead much more rooted in the Biblical understanding of the sinfulness of the human heart and in the denunciations of injustice that they read in the Hebrew prophets.  The Civil Rights movement was a religious revival.

Alright, many might have read what I’ve stated and say, “What of the passages in Scripture that seem to be in favor of slavery?”  What do you do with passages like Ephesians 6:5 which states, “slaves obey your masters”?  Many times when people come across a passage like this they immediately disregard the Bible completely without understanding the text.

Often times when a passage like this seems so offensive, consider that it might not actually teach what it appears to be teaching.  Many texts people find like this can be cleared up with a decent commentary that puts the issue into its historical context.  Ephesians 6:5, for example, is often immediately understood in our culture to be parallel with the African slave trade, human trafficking, and sexual slavery practiced in many places today.  To believe this is simply ignoring the cultural context of that passage.

In the first-century Roman empire, when the New Testament was written, there was not a great different between slaves and the average free person.  Slaves were not distinguishable from others by race, speech, or clothing.  They looked and lived like everyone else, and were not segregated from the rest of society in any way.  Financially, slaves made the same wages as free laborers, and therefore not usually poor.  Slaves could even buy themselves out of slavery which almost always happened, very few slaves remained slaves for life.  Most could reasonably hope to be released within ten or fifteen years, or by their late thirties at most.  Also, these slaves were not owned completely but only their time and skills were owned by the master for a temporary amount of time.  There was, in essence, no difference between a slave and servant (the word is actually the same – δουλος).  It must also be noted once again that when this form of servant-hood is in place, it must be done according to the moral teachings of Scripture so that none shall be oppressed.

Even with all of this said, many people still find this to be offensive.  My advice in this respect is to simply consider that their problem with some texts might be based on an unexamined belief in the superiority of their historical moment above all others.  To reject the Bible as regressive is to assume that they have now arrived at the ultimate historic moment.  That belief is surely as narrow and exclusive as the views in the Bible that they regard as offensive.  Essentially, I’m advising you all to beware of the thought that you have progressed above other cultures.  In many ways, it is probably better that we do not have this type of servant-hood within our culture.  However, being that we live in such an anti-servant culture, such a thought becomes offensive to us (to a fault).  A common thought within this current historic moment is that we deserve to be served.  Such a belief has caused us to detest the thought of all types of serving.

With that said, many would find that offensive and thus believe that I’m advocating slavery.  By no means is that my intention!  I’m merely expressing that just as Jesus came as a servant, we too should serve our fellow man and free the captives.

Christocentrism in Sermon and Scripture

A major type or style of preaching that has been very popular recently is called narrative preaching.  The essential idea is that through the telling of stories, you teach concepts in Scripture.  There may be some good things about this type but often it teaches very little doctrine and is not as applicable as some other types.

Christocentric preaching takes this style of preaching and adapts it.  Instead of simply preaching the David and Goliath story with the idea that “you too can defeat your giants,” christocentric preaching instead would say, “Like David against impossible odds gained victory over Goliath, Jesus against impossible odds gained victory over death.”

This christocentric preaching style seeks to compare Old Testament narratives to the Grand Narrative.  Essentially, show how one event in the Old Testament is a foreshadowing of something to come. This way of going about teaching the Scriptures does essentially what Jesus did in Luke 24:27, “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.”  Such preaching is designed to “open the Scriptures” as verse 32 later says.  Luke 24:45 says that in this event, “He [Jesus] opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.”  From Jesus’ perspective, they knew the Scriptures but never grasped the essential character of that text, himself!

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus states, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”  In many ways, it seems as though many preachers do just that; they either refuse to acknowledge these fulfillments when preaching or they refuse to acknowledge the Scriptures fulfill anything.  I wonder how many times I’ve listened to a pastor preach an Old Testament text and never once mention how the New Testament speaks of that exact passage. The text is about Jesus!

As an example, how could we ever preach Isaiah 6 without mentioning Jesus? A portion of that text (6:1-6) states, “In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying.  And they were calling to one another: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.’ At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke. ‘Woe to me!’ I cried. ‘I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.’”

Many pastors will preach this text and speak of how holy God is, how great and awesome he is, etc. but why do we never mention Jesus here?  In John 12 immediately after Jesus quoted another section of Isaiah 6, he states in verse 41, “Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.”  This text is about Jesus!  In fact, all of Scripture is about the glorious holiness of Jesus Christ.

So many “religious people” study Scripture earnestly seeking to find God’s grace through it, but we often forget that it is through Jesus Christ as spoken of in that word that we are saved. John 5:39 states, “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me.”  It is not through our own works, our rituals, or even our beliefs that Scripture is true that we gain salvation but purely the grace of Jesus Christ.  He alone gives salvation and He alone can change our hearts, minds, and attitudes.

How sad it is that I so often seeing people claiming that they are Christians and yet believe they are right with God simply because they do the right stuff.  They believe that through a high moral standard, becoming holy, reading Scripture, going to church, doing ministry, and telling people about Jesus that they are saved.  No, as Ephesians 2:8-9 states, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.”  Not by our vain attempts do we become right with God but solely through repenting before Jesus Christ – of our sin and of our pride.  All Scripture attests to the miraculous work of Jesus and only through Jesus do we gain salvation.

Humility of the Creator

Over years of debating religious matters with non-Christians one of the most common questions is the following, “If there is a God, He would never attempt to even acknowledge our existence due to our own insignificance.  When examining the God and Creator of the universe who is infinite in every characteristic that He possesses and examining humanity’s own insignificance in the comparison to the grand scheme of all reality, why would He even bother with us?”

Just think about this concept a while, let it rattle through your mind.  The infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful God of the universe humbles himself to work in the lives of people who have no significance in relation to Himself.  In fact, these people are fallen depraved creatures who have rejected their Creator and often reject His various existence.  Why would such an almighty God do such a thing?  He had no need for us.  We can do nothing for Him or provide something for Him that He does not already possess.

He needs no fellowship that desire is made complete in His Trinitarian nature, not to mention the heavenly hosts of beings which worship Him.  Nothing we do puts Him in our dept, nothing we can ever do would mean God would require anything from us.  He is God.

Examining His greatness and our inferiority, it is not wonder that many non-Christians reject such a God.  Such a God that would humble Himself defies all human logic.  God has no need for us, why even acknowledge us?

While many might find this concept to be a stumbling block, the Christian finds this concept as a cause for rejoicing!  The almighty God and Creator of the universe humbled Himself to not only care for us but to become one of us!  God entered human existence by humbling himself to become a man, be born of a virgin, live the sinless life, be rejected by men, die on the cross, raise from the grave, ascend into heaven, and be glorified in all grandeur at the right hand of the Father – all according to the Scriptures.

Oh what a cause for rejoicing! Our Emmanuel, God with us, has come and brings salvation to all who believe and accept Him as Lord!

Philippians 2:5-11 states, “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.  And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!  Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Being Nicodemus

Christians come in all shapes and varieties.  One such example is him who has been consumed with religion.  Religion in and of itself is not inherently evil, but it can often become a stumbling block to the gospel message.  We will take a look at this by examining the famous passage in John 3:1-10.

(1) Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. (2) This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” (3) Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (4) Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” (5) Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (7) Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ (8) The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” (10) Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?

We see within this passage a very religious person coming to Jesus by the name of Nicodemus.  He was by all means perceived to be righteous by others and by himself.  However, he came to Jesus with a question that according to Jesus he should already know (e.g. “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?”).

Nicodemus, being the pharisee that he was, would have memorized the Torah at a very young age.  He taught the things in Scripture and yet did not understand what he was talking about.  This problem is a common problem that many “hyper-religious people” often have.  He had heard these teachings his entire life but he never understood the true message.  Even his understanding of Jesus’ statements is hyper-religious as seen by his extremely literal interpretation of Jesus’ every word.

What was it Nicodemus was missing?  Even though he knew the Scriptures, he did not know them.  You see, this idea of becoming “born-again” is not a new concept.  Let’s take a look at some passages that Nicodemus should have known, the first being Deuteronomy 30:6.

And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

This concept of becoming born-again is simply not a new concept in Scripture.  Jeremiah 31:33 is another example.

But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Ezekiel 36:26 is yet another example.

And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

We now clearly see that this concept should not have been new to Nicodemus being as he was a teacher of such Scriptures.   What was it that blinded him to the truth?  Pride is the most clear answer and this pride could very well be within himself.

Being as all of us are sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God, even the most religious person cannot escape from sin apart from Christ.  For the hyper-religious person, pride in one’s own apparent righteousness becomes a stumbling block for even feeling the need to seek Christ.  Jesus refers to this type of person differently than he does most.  When working with someone who needs mercy, he gives mercy.  For someone who thinks himself righteous, he humbles him.  He does this in Matthew 23.  As an example from that passage, here is verses 27-28:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

We see here Jesus humbling the religious person who thinks himself righteous.  Often times the best way of building someone up is to first tear them down.  With that said, very often the “Christian who is better than everyone else” needs to be torn down as well.  We are all in need of Christ and his mercy.  All of us.  Being born in a Christian home does not stop our need.  Going to church does not save us.

Nothing we can do saves us apart from faith in Christ given to us by his grace and his grace alone.  Through Christ and Christ alone can our hearts be made right with God.  We all need to seek after Christ an his mercy continually and continually repent before God.

But for the person like Nicodemus, possibly even you who are reading this, he knows these things.  He may have even heard it his entire life.  Does that mean he has experienced the mercies of God?  Has his eyes been blind to these truths?  How do you know that you are not just like Nicodemus?

Preaching Fit – Prayer and God’s Will

I recently had one of my “preaching fits.” For those of you who have no idea what I’m talking about, there are times that when I am in an attitude of prayer that I preach to myself. That may sound odd to some but these “spiritual experiences” happen when I am in a truly repentent and humble attitude before God willing to hear anything He would have to say. I end up getting the chills and begin preaching to myself. During these times I end up saying things and bringing out points in Scripture that I have never even thought about before. Recently I have been trying to record some of these points. I thought I’d share my most recent experience with you all:

Very often in our lives we do not pray to God not because we do not have time but because we know exactly what He will tell us. We fear that when we come before the Holy Father He will tell us exactly what we fear to hear. We fear that we will have to turn from sin, forgive our brother, or live out the life that He has called us to live.

We all know and have been taught that prayer is supposed to change things. We thus often come before God with our requests in hope that He will change our circumstances in life. However, the thing that we most often overlook is the fact that the number one thing that prayer changes is us! We forget that prayer is how we communicate with God. In other words, we can easily remember that we can speak to God but we forget that He is supposed to speak with us. Instead of praying that God would change His will, why do we not pray that God would change our own will? 1 Thessalonians 5:17 simply states, “pray constantly.” We are thus required to not only be asking God for what we want but we should be constantly seeking the will of God in our lives.

Renewed Interest in Blogging

I write this post in hopes that it will be the first of many to come.  I have neglected my blogging for an extended time now, and I wish to renew my vigor in this method of broadcasting thoughts.  This renewal comes in part because I need to organize my thoughts.  With that need, why should I hide such thoughts from the rest of the world?

From this point, I will not only put my thoughts for theological ideas but my life … which is still largely theological ideas and practicing such ideas.  A major emphasis I now wish to have is the functioning of the corporate church and church planting.  You ask, what is the point?  As I wish to one day start my own church, why not use this method to gather my thoughts?

Well today’s blog deals with three things: church planting, a mission trip, and seminary.

I have for some time now been greatly interested in the possibility of doing church planting; that is, starting my own church.  There are so ma ny components about church planting that I absolutely love and other components that I absolutely fear.  The fear is not a bad thing however.  This fear is something that is motivating me more than anything in such a way that I have been preparing for the possibility of doing such a ministry.

Because church planting is considered by some to be quite possibly the hardest ministry of them all and the one which requires God’s provision the most, I want to make certain that my call is indeed from God.  In order to make sure I do indeed wish to do this, I am going on a mission trip in October to New York City to help with a new church plant in that area.

This mission trip will actually be the first one I’ve ever attended.  The reason for this is that I’ve seen many people go on mission trips more for bragging rights, a vacation, etc. than seeking to truly serve people and to bring glory to God.  If my intentions were not for His glory rather than my own, I wanted no part of it.  Now I think I am finally doing a mission trip for the right reason.  I’ve always wanted to go to New York City, but I’m actually more excited about serving the church and learning from the experience.  Now I just need the money for the trip and am hoping I will receive the help needed for such a trip.  Hopefully I will receive enough money from individuals and my church to pay for it.   Whatever happens I know that God will provide if it is meant for me to go.

[insert awkward transition into new topic]  Well now I am officially a Masters student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Today I spent several hours at Starbucks simply drinking coffee and reading a book for class.  Reading this book is partially what motivated me to write my blog tonight.  How, I’m not sure.  What I was reading in a nutshell was that churches in need of revitalization are in need of good leadership with strong vision.  I wrote notes about some of my thoughts regarding this topic which made me decide to enter those thoughts into a blog.  I will enter those thoughts at a later time.

Reading this book has made me excited about the next several years I will be in seminary.  The text was very motivating for me and renewed my zeal for being a new ministry student.  May God be glorified during my next several years of study in school, may I learn much which will enable me to further His kingdom, and may God truly grow me in such a way spiritually that others seek to praise His name!

Visual Arts Within Worship

Taking a quick glance across churches the world, one can immediately notice a striking change in not only theology but the use of the visual arts. Why is there such a huge change across denominations in the use of images? Artists across history have created many masterpieces of work in the name of God but are these images biblical? Would it be morally wrong to display Jesus or God in the form of a sculpture? Can the Word of God be taught not only by means of words but pictures? Is artwork able to help someone worship God? Is the use of imagery within the church nothing more than idolatry? These questions are just a few that might come up in regards to the use of images in the church setting.

The purpose of this paper is to take a historical, theological, and biblical look at the use of the visual arts in the worship setting and find the practical application to the conclusions in an effort to better equip the reader for Christian ministry. This process will first take place by looking at the church’s relationship with imagery across history. A theological summary will also illustrate what many theologians have thought about said subject. Also, what the Bible states about imagery and its use must be assessed and understood. Finally, a practical application will be given in order to find out how to apply what has been learned in a manner that is effective and biblical.

Historical Summary

From the time of Christ to the reign of Constantine the early church had mixed reactions in regards to the use of images. Images were already a controversial subject in the early church due to a fear of breaking the second commandment. Despite this fear of committing idolatry and Christianity facing harsh persecution, some artwork can be found from this time period. According to some sources the vast majority of Christian images were invisible to the eyes of nonbelievers as they were hidden in catacombs and burial places before about A.D. 200 [1]. Other historians have argued no Christian art existed before this time due to the art being indiscernible from the surrounding pagan artwork [2].

At the conversion of Constantine in 312 Christianity celebrated its triumph with a dramatic use of imagery and architecture [3]. The use of the visual arts rose tremendously as the faith itself spread across the land. In 396 Augustine argued God could use temporal things to show the eternal reality for which the human soul hungers [4]. Medieval Pope Gregory the Great (590-604) insisted that “icons are for the unlettered what the Sacred Scriptures are for the lettered” [5].

The use of the visual arts during this time of the church had tremendous use in not only decoration but in convicting the heart to respond and act, teaching Scripture to those who could not read, and opening “windows to the meaning of the event being depicted” [6]. Christians began using religious pictures of Jesus Christ, Mary, or a saint referred to as icons in communion and intercessory prayer. Art convicted the heart and connected the heart of the individual with the event depicted very much like the relics of martyrs.

The Eastern Orthodox Church had more emphasis on the use of icons and images than the Western churches. Due to the questionable and what many considered abusive use of Eastern Orthodox imagery, the Iconoclast Controversies began in 726, and most of the conflict centered around Constantinople [7]. The Emperor Leo II (717-741) himself initiated the controversy in part because of Islamic influence. His son Emperor Constantine V (741-745) showed an even greater hatred for images as seen from his Iconoclastic Council of 754 which stated [8]:

“Supported by the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, we declare unanimously in the name of the Holy Trinity that there shall be rejected and removed and cursed out of the Christian Church every likeness which is made out of any material whatever by the evil art of painters. Whoever in the future dares to make such a thing or venerate it, or set it up in a church or in a private house, or possess it in secret, shall, if bishop, priest, or deacon, be deposed, if monk or layman, anathematized and become liable to be tried by the secular lays as an adversary of God and an enemy of the doctrines handed down by the Fathers” [9].

The Second Council of Nicaea of 787 proclaimed images to be right, proper, and even necessary for worship. The Iconoclast Controversy finally ended in 842. The Eastern Orthodox Church won the dispute, and it as well as the Catholic Church today both still hold to the Council of Nicaea’s conclusion [10].

The use of images remained unchanged until the time of the Reformation. During this time period came another iconoclast movement though not as intensive in an effort to teach with Scripture as opposed to what many perceived to be idolatrous imagery. The Reformation witnessed the general condemnation of the image and the rise concentrating on the Scriptures alone. Frescoes and paintings in Catholic churches were whitewashed. Books replaced icons. The result was not doing away with all imagery but all imagery within the Protestant church setting. Every since has existed an uneasy relationship between artwork and Protestant thought and a belief that art should exist only outside the worship setting.

Theological Summary

Many theological views have clearly existed throughout the history of images within the church. Of the views present, the most extreme views are present within the opposing sides of the Iconoclast Controversy: the iconoclasts against images and iconodules for images. The debate largely dealt with whether or not images should be considered to be idolatry.

“In the life, liturgy, and history of Orthodoxy, the icon is not simply sacred art or church decoration; it is above all things theology in color” [11]. Art and theology were and still are inseparable with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Iconodules John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite defended their theological reasoning for what at least appears to be worshiping images. They clearly stated their intent was to worship the Creator rather than the creation. What had appeared to be worship was to them a form of honoring the patron or matron represented within the icon. Also rooted in their defense was the incarnation of Jesus Christ. John and Theodore made clear the blasphemous implications of putting God in the form of an image, but because God gave an icon of himself in Christ, He sanctioned the use of such imaging. Also, just as Jesus is the image of God, so is man according to Genesis 1:26. They thus argue, if one image of God can be made into an image then why not another [12]?

The iconoclasts on the other hand argued that no difference exists between pagan idolatry and Christian iconography. The reason came in part through their understanding of the deity of Christ. Emperor Constantine V said an image is of the exact same nature or essence as its prototype, even as Christ the image of God is the same essence as the Father (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15) [13]. Any images of Jesus must therefore be considered blasphemous before God. The veneration of icons was never mentioned in the early church which gave the iconoclasts a historical basis for their argument.

“While the East wanted to see the Word in images, the West insisted on hearing it in the spoken word” [14] Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ullrich Zwingli each shared a passion for spoken word, but each had their own views of Scripture. Luther was more open to the use of images in worship and in private devotion, based on his emphasis on justification by faith. Luther argued that once a person is justified he is free to use images if they are helpful; on the other had, if he does not believe, no image will help [15].

John Calvin stated in his commentary on the second commandment (Exod. 20:4-6), “The words simply express that it is wrong for men to seek the presence of God in any visible image, because He cannot be represented to our eyes” [16]. Calvin goes farther when he states, “images cannot stand in the place of books” [17]. He took this farther by even stating that only in preaching the Word can God’s true majesty be grasped, “Even if the use of images contained nothing evil, it still has no value for teaching” [18]. As a result, all images were to be taken out of the church.

Zwingli was sternly opposed to images and other forms of ceremonial piety for the following reasons: “First, the principle of scriptural authority relativized all extrabiblical practices” [19]. Basically, Zwingli has tended to eliminate what is not expressly commanded in Scripture. Second, images held demonic power to the extent that “images of holy women were shaped so attractively, so smooth and colorful that they were able to entice men to lust” [20].

What largely contributed to the nonuse of images by some of the Reformation leaders was an emphasis of the heart of the individual, divinity of God, and the idea of Sola scriptura. They believed salvation to be expressed through the heart and not any type of representation or emotional release through art. Though one could learn about God through creation (Ps. 19:1; Rom. 1:18-20), one could not gain knowledge about God through another person’s limited imagination. How could one comprehend all of God and put it in the form of an image [21]? The image also had less of a need and took second place to the teaching and reading of Scripture. No longer was the truth of the gospel to be taught by the visual arts but by educating people to read the Scriptures for themselves.

Very different from the Reformation leaders is the view largely held by the Emergent church of the current generation. Emergent church leader Dan Kimball states in his book Emerging Worship: Creating Worship Gatherings for New Generations:

“Multisensory worship involves seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching, and experiencing. This means our worship of God can involve singing, silence, preaching, and art, and move into a much greater spectrum of expression. . . . We move past merely listening and singing to a whole new level of ways to participate in worship through all our senses” [22].

Biblical and Theological Analysis

As seen clearly, many theologians, denominations, and church leaders have taken a wide variety of views upon the subject of whether or not the visual arts are permissible in the worship setting, but what does the Bible say about the matter? Is the subject stated clearly within Scripture or is it an unclear issue? Anytime within Scripture the term image is referenced it is either mentioning a false image which should not be worshiped or the image of God which we should become. The question then arises if images can be made in worshiping the one and true God from a biblical standpoint.

First, one needs to understand the second commandment from Exodus 20:4-5a, “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God.” Some have taken this passage to mean that one cannot make an image of anything for any purpose while others believe it to mean one is commanded not to worship a manmade image. Is it the act of making an image that is forbidden or the act of worshiping the image created?

Peter Enns has argued that the second commandment is to be understood within the framework of the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:3). The second expands the first as if to say, “The Israelites are not to worship other gods, therefore, they are not to make any idol of any kind” [23]. Calvin argued, “The words simply express that it is wrong for men to seek the presence of God in any visible image, because He cannot be represented to our eyes” [24].

Images in and of themselves are not condemned in this commandment but the worship of images even if they are of God himself. Identifying God with any created thing is one step from thinking of God in terms of that image. Not to mention God cannot justifiably be formed into an image as mentioned by Paul in Acts 17:29 which states one “should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone-an image made by man’s design and skill.” What image could be comparable to God himself (Isa. 40:18)?

Within the context of the rest of Scripture, each time images are forbidden God seems to attribute His condemnation to the fact that He is the one worthy of worship, not an idol or creation by man (Duet. 4:14-25; 5:8-10; 27:15). Thus, if an image, whether it is a painting or a human being, becomes an idol then it is being worshiped instead of God – just what the second commandment condemned.

If having an image of God is blasphemous then what of having an image of Jesus Christ? The foundation for having permission to ascribe Jesus into an image is based on two arguments: the incarnation of Jesus Christ and both man and Jesus being created in the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15). Because of the incarnation, the immaterial God can be represented with the material image; to say otherwise is to deny that the Word became flesh (John 1:14).

In Genesis 1:26-27 God created man in the image of God and men are to shape themselves into the image of God, Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 3:18; Col. 3:10; Rom. 8:29). As Jesus Christ is considered by Scripture to be the image of God, to say Jesus cannot be made into an image is therefore to say humanity cannot.

Has God himself supported the function of images within worship? Scripture itself has commanded and/or approved the making of certain images of created things, even for use in worship. For instance, the tabernacle and the temple were filled with images: lampstands that looked like flowering almond trees (Exod. 25:31-40); a huge basin resting on the backs of oxen (Jer. 52:20); pomegranates on the clothes of the priests (Exod. 28:33); angels on the Ark of the Covenant (Exod. 25:18-22), the curtains (Exod. 26:1,31), and spanning the Holy of Holies (1 Kings 6:23-38); and a variety of images on the doors to the sanctuary (1 Kings 6:32,36).

Within Exodus 31:1-11 God appoints Bezale and Oholiab to use their Spirit-inspired artistic abilities for the purpose of glorifying God. Something which would be considered complete blasphemy for the iconoclasts was the Israelites looking to the bronze serpent to be healed while in the wilderness (Numbers 21:4-9). These God appointed images could be used in a manner which in the very least be used as decoration if not for use in worship and teaching.

Practical Implications

With a biblical view of imagery understood, how is this view to be carried out in a practical manner? The visual arts can bridge the gap between the physical world and the spiritual world. Artwork can be aids to attention; therefore, artwork can help keep the attention upon God. Objects within the works of art are symbols, useful in worship because they represent certain facts, ideas, or feelings. The visual arts can also be just as effective as hindering the Word of God as ministering the Word of God.

Teaching and worship tools can consist of many types and variations of art: painting, sculpting, drawing, photography, PowerPoint, video, etc. Each of these tools can be used in a variety of ways as not only decoration but tools which can be used in teaching and expression of thought. One personal account of using the visual arts within the worship setting was an occasion while preaching. With each point, I used a piece of simple artwork to reinforce the message taught. This method helps in not only helping visually minded individuals remember the material but can cause the viewer to contemplate the message and symbols used.

A drawing can show a person the world in which a biblical person once lived. A painting is able to cause an individual to contemplate the complexities of life. A photograph is able to convict a person’s heart to the lost in order to proclaim the Gospel. Learning, contemplating, and convicting are what the visual arts can do for the glory of God.

Not only can the visual arts be a ministry for the viewers but for the artist himself. Just like music and poetry, the arts can be an excellent way to express emotion within an individual. If an artist feels like Job after his horrible loss and the artist expresses this feeling through a painting, would not the expression of emotion be of healing release? What about those who share the same feelings and emotions? Would the painting not link the two before God within their agony coming together as one?

Not only does artwork express emotion but the awe of the individual toward God. David proclaimed in Psalms 19:1, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” In just the same manner, the artist can stand in awe at the beauty of God’s work and creation, expressing this awe in the form of visual works of art.

With some of the benefits of the visual arts now known, the warnings that come along with the arts must be reviewed. First, an image can only be a tool in worship, not the object of the worship. God alone is the one worthy of worship and He should never have to compete with a man-made object. If the arts become a contest instead of an expression of thought and emotion, it becomes the object of the worship. Second, the arts should never come in place of the Word of God. Indeed the arts can be used to express the Bible’s teachings but never take its place. Third, once symbols lose their meaning, they tend to become superstitions useless tradition. Using them as mere decoration is unworthy of the Christian faith. One must know the meaning being taught within the images for this reason. Fourth, symbols may be entirely detached from personal fellowship with God. One may become absorbed in symbolic meanings without having an experience or personal relation to God.

The real value of symbols depends on the individual person. The mind of the worshiper must be filled with the right Christian content in order to make the proper use of symbols in Christian worship. A constant danger exists that false concepts may creep into the mind of the worshiper. Teaching of the Word of God must therefore never be neglected. Putting a visual facade over a false message never makes the content correct, just more appealing from a glance.

Conclusion

The use of the visual arts within the worship setting has been extremely controversial over church history. The Iconoclast Controversy and the abuse of images by the Eastern Orthodox show the most extreme sides of the argument. The balance of those two views seems to display the most biblical use of how images should and should not be used within worship. A historical, theological, biblical analysis of images in the worship setting and the practical application to those findings has been given. Hopefully this knowledge will better equip the reader for knowing how to handle the visual arts within Christian ministry.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Franklin M. Segler, Christian Worship, (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1996), 156.

2. Paul Corby Finney, The Invisible God: The Earliest Christians and Art (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 130.

3. William A. Dyrness, Visual Faith: Art, Theology, and Worship in Dialogue (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 27.

4. Ibid, 33.

5. Daniel B. Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 77.

6. Diane Apostolos-Cappadona, “Icon,” Dictionary of Christian Art (New York: Continuum, 1995), 165.

7. Ibid.

8. Clendenin, 84.

9. Ibid, 71.

10. C. C.Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 108-109.

11. Clendenim, 80.

12. Clendenim, 87, 93. Heidi J. Hornik and Mikeal C. Parsons ed., Interpreting Christian Art: Reflections on Christian Art (Macon, GA: Mercer University, 2003), 3. Jams Stamoolis ed., Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 2004), 240.

13. Clendenim, 86, 92.

14. Ibid, 77.

15. Dyrness, 51.

16. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses, vol. 1, trans. Charles William Bingham (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 107.

17. Clendenim, 78.

18. Dyrness, 53.

19. Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers, (Nashville: Broadman, 1988), 132.

20. Ibid.

21. Dyrness, 53.

22. Dan Kimball, Emerging Worship: Creating Worship Gatherings for New Generations, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 81-82.

23. Peter Enns, The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 415.

24. Calvin, 107.

Often times.

Something I’ve recently noticed in just observing others in regarding seeking God is acting as if God needs to fill out a job application. When God does not fit our requirements we either seek another God or we mold God into the image we wish him to be. If God is indeed God then would our desires actually change his character or affiliations?

Often times we want God to be all love and mercy forgetting mercy is to those who do not deserve it. If one deserved mercy then mercy would then cease being mercy.

Often times we want God to be a wishing well for our desires. If our desires do not come true then apparently we are not worshiping the correct God. Would not a true God enact his own desires as he wills?

Often times we want God to leave us alone yet we want him to be sovereign. We want God to take control of situations we do not like yet we do not want him to take control of the things we like.

Often times we want God to be a loving Father, but we do not want to be obedient children. We think that if we cry and scream loud enough God will actually do what we want.

Often times we want God to speak and yet we do not listen to his words. If we are actually expecting God to speak to us then why do we not listen to him when in prayer and when reading his Word… assuming we pray and read.

Often times we expect God to do what we want him to do because we supposedly deserve his blessings. We seem to think that if we do what we are supposed to do (pray, read the Bible, be a good person, etc.) that God is supposedly now in our dept and owes us something.

Abortion

Why is it people should be against the idea of abortion? Why is it Christians should be in the forefront of the pro-life movement? What is wrong with abortion in the first place? What is more important, personal convenience or the life of an unborn child? What does scripture have to say about unborn life? If abortion is banned, what next? What about women who have had abortions? Is abortion that big of a deal? These are some questions I hope to answer in this note. I seek to answer these as not only a reference for other people but for myself. I do not only want to give religious answers (though I am obviously biased in this situation) but secular answers which would influence the non-believer.

Is abortion really that big of a problem? Yes. Many people in our culture seem to be unaware of just how prevalent abortion is within our nation and the world. One source states nearly half of all pregnancies to American women are unintended; four in 10 of these end in abortion. About half of American women have experienced an unintended pregnancy, and at current rates more than one-third (35%) will have had an abortion by age 45. 67% have never married and sadly 78% report a religious affiliation. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as “Born-again/Evangelical”.

Another source states 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient). These statistics means the vast majority of abortions are merely done out of convenience rather than medical need.

Nauseous yet? Here are more statistics. In 2004, the highest number of reported legal induced abortions occurred in Florida (91,710), NYC (91,673), and Texas (74,801). Twenty-two percent of all U.S. pregnancies end in abortion. 47% of women who have abortions had at least one previous abortion. 40% of minors having an abortion report that neither of their parents knew about the abortion.

Ok, that just states there a lot of abortions but that doesn’t mean it is wrong. Let me give a scriptural reason for abortion being morally wrong. According to Abort 73, “There are a number of examples where Scripture uses the exact same words to describe babies before birth and babies after birth. In Genesis 25:22 we read, ‘The children struggled together within her,’ speaking of the twins in Rebekah’s womb. The word children is the ordinary word used for children (or sons) outside the womb. Luke 1:41 tells us that “when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb”. This is the same word for babe (brephos) that is used in Luke 2:12 and 16 for the baby Jesus and in Luke 18:15 for infants. Even more significant than the word usage is the description of what this unborn child did. John the Baptist, still in the womb, leapt for joy in recognition of the presence of Christ, who was also still in the womb. This is an in-utero prophecy of the arrival of Christ, and that is an astounding reality. “

Isaiah 49:1b states, “Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name.” God has a plan for our lives before we are born, does that not mean we are important from the moment of conception? Not enough scriptural evidence of God loving us before birth? Jeremiah 1:5a says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.”

God is the creator of life and is the only one who should be allowed to end life (capital punishment excluded, topic for another day ). Isaiah 139:13 says, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” These are only a few passages pertaining to the issue of abortion and just these few gets the point across.

John Piper once said, “To attack the human being in the womb and kill him or her is to assault God. God is making the child. God is weaving a unique image of his divine glory with the purpose of imaging forth that glory in the world. Killing the child is an attack on God’s glory and is treason against the Ruler of the universe. So, fundamentally and most importantly, abortion is about God because children are made by God in the image of God for the glory of God.”

Piper also once said abortion “is the sacrificing of our sons and daughters to demons. And someday we will see this. And we will be as amazed that it could have endured so long as we are that the enslavement of Africans lasted as long as it did. The issue is just as clear as that one was. And we are just as blind today as they were then. The big difference is that the babies can’t run away. The underground railroad is entirely dependent on you, not them.”

One of the 10 commandments is that of you shall not murder as mentioned in Exodus 20:13. Murder here includes the life of an unborn child. Some who are “pro-choice” as they like to be called say this is not really a child in the womb but simply a piece of unintelligible meat no different than an animal. This is completely untrue not only biblically as already mentioned but biologically.

Here is a great source which shows just how unique the child is even at the moment of conception. One excerpt states, “Conception: Of the 200,000,000 sperm that try to penetrate the mother’s egg cell, only one succeeds. At that very moment, a new and unique individual is formed. All of the inherited features of this new person are already set – whether it’s a boy or girl, the color of the eyes, the color of the hair, the dimples of the cheeks and the cleft of the chin. He or she is smaller than a grain of sugar, but the instructions are present for all that this person will ever become. The first cell soon divides in two. Each of these new cells divides again and again as they travel toward the womb in search of a protected place to grow.” I considered showing pictures of undeveloped aborted children to stress this point further but I can’t bare to even see them. Also, I prefer to not have emotion be the basis for my arguments against abortion.

Even those who are naturalistic in their beliefs believe in survival of the fittest. Abortion simply does not make sense in that regards either as wouldn’t the purpose for a species be to preserve itself? If that is the case then wouldn’t the moral right be to continue the lives of humanity? Abortion is the opposite of that and is wrong according to evolutionary beliefs.

Biblical and biological reasons for abortion being wrong have been presented so now for legal reasons. Why is it that it is okay for a mother to kill her unborn child but if she is killed, it is considered a double homicide? Or how about if a person hits a pregnant woman that is also considered murder in the eyes of the court system? Why is it a mother and doctor can kill the child without legal consequences? Is there not a contradiction here? Why is it naturalistic beliefs such as this contradict one another?

Many women have also lost their children by natural means before birth. If the unborn is not human like abortionists say then why should the mother be upset about this? It’s not like she can’t have another after all. Maybe a fetus is something more than an animal. A fetus is a child in the making and should not be executed prematurely.

Is abortion just a convenience for people? According to the statistics listed in the beginning, apparently so for the vast majority. One of the reasons people have abortions at such a high rate is simply because many do not want to take responsibility for their actions. With every action there is a reaction. This statement works not only in science but every day life. If one thinks themselves not mature enough to raise children then that individual must realize the consequences of sexual promiscuity and not run from those consequences. If one does not like the possible consequences then do not cause them, in other words practice abstinence (which Christians should be practicing anyway…).

Abortion is a huge issue but there is one thing that would significantly decrease the number of abortions, decrease in non-marital sexual activity. Very evident is this logic but sadly many people will not sacrifice their pleasure for what is morally right (both abstinence and being pro-life). Even more fundamental to the problem with abortion is the fallen nature of humanity. Humanists, many naturalists, and others with disagree with the depravity of man argument, but this is indeed the overarching issue at hand.

What can a person do to help the pro-life movement? A major way is to adopt children. If a woman is unable to care for a child then adoption needs to be a choice. Abortion shouldn’t be the only option a woman has. Not only does this help minister to the suffering women in these situations but it gives couples the opportunity raise a child of their own if they are unable. Even couples who are able to have children of their own should adopt if only to minister to these hurting women.

Many people are all supportive of the pro-life movement but they forget about the women hurting in these situations. They need help from the church and anyone who will give that help. They need love. This love and help for these women can never be forgotten as the child is not the only one who suffers. Churches and secular organizations need to do everything in their power to help these women who have had abortions and those who decide to raise these children. My heart breaks for those who have ever had to make this decision, whatever path they have chosen.

I will leave you with this passage from Psalm 82:3-4, “Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the rights of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”