Excellent Essay on the Crucifix

I enjoyed this essay by Rev. Lloyd E. Gross. He has been pastor of Christ Lutheran Church in Cleveland, OH since 1979, and my dad for longer than that!

Why I Prefer the Crucifix

Within Lutheran circles you will hear those who prefer the empty cross and those who prefer the crucifix. Today I would like to explain my preference for the latter. In case anyone doesn't know what this means, a crucifix is a representation of the cross with the body of Jesus on it. It is the body of Jesus in His State of Humiliation, dying, or perhaps already dead. The empty cross, on the other hand, had no body on it, and is usually stylized, not realistic.

The crucifix has always been the target of iconoclasts, those ecclesiastic vigilantes who believe they are called by God to destroy anything that's holy. They don't seem to realize that we aren't still living in the Old Testament. They first appeared in Constantinople in the 8th century, making real trouble when the Emperor Leo became converted to their position. He began a huge controversy, which was finally resolved when the Eastern Orthodox Church compromised by forbidding statues but permitting flat icons. During the period of the Reformation, iconoclasm appeared again. This time the rapacious state made war on the church to increase its revenues. Many of the Reformed Protestants thought this was a good thing. They wanted to reduce Christianity to a philosophy be getting rid of the sensuous elements in it. Therefore they frequently led the way in turning the Church into an arm of the state by reducing its mysteries. It was from this time that churches began to display the empty cross. The art of the time even depicted an ethereal Christ ascending, more like a ghost than a Person. The Reformed had no use for the mysteries of God. They demanded an intellectual faith. The historical philosopher G. F. W. Hegel saw this move as the real meaning of the Reformation.

Today we have one more assault of iconoclasm. This is the extreme delicacy of the gatekeepers when it comes to the details of the Passion. They don't want to be reminded of the demands of the Law which caused up to be healed by Jesus' stripes. While modern man is quick to make what capital he can of the torn veil in the Temple, he refuses to look at the blood with which the High Priest entered the heavenly temple. Here the crucifix performs for us the most salutary service. It unmistakably focuses us on the sacrifice for sins. Without that sacrifice the veil would be intact today. Those who so loudly proclaim universal access to the Father must understand that such access comes from Him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

there is something very incomplete about the empty cross. If one desires an antiseptic faith, if one emphasizes the teachings of Jesus rather than His sacrifice, if one is too delicate to focus on the pain of the Passion, then an empty cross is better than none. But we want to emphasize the physical. Our relationship to Jesus is physical. We are joined to Him by a washing with physical water, and receive His body and blood in physical bread and wine. We eat the sacrificial victim, as Israel did at the peace offering. We sing the Agnus Dei as we approach the Holy Eucharist to identify Jesus with the Passover Lamb whose blood protected Israel from the Destroyer. In Holy Baptism the Red Sea opens for us as we flee from the devil and his hosts. The Word was made flesh. Never forget that. The Word was made flesh, not philosophy.

Those who prefer the empty cross have said that they want to emphasize the resurrection. That is a laudable goal, so long as we understand that both the crucifixion and resurrection were completely physical. But we live in an age that requires a witness to the concrete and particular in God's revelation. The resurrected Jesus must be depicted with His wounds. He must be shown eating and drinking, making the point strongly as possible that he is not a ghost, not "really on the astral plane," but a physical man, who died and is alive again.

We live in an age when people do not want to hear the Law. Therefore they long for a sterile redemption, performed primarily by teaching. We sinners need far more than that. We need forgiveness which can only come by the Atonement Jesus made. The horror of the Passion might make us think of the horror of eternal damnation. As long as that leads us to repent, that is a good thing. Such horror can be abused, of course, as the history of the Church reveals in many places. The point is not to manipulate you, or our society. The sympathy with the crucified which Christian charity might call forth is a true fruit of faith. And the repentance which the horror might call forth is necessary if we are to benefit from the Atonement.

LEG