Mark Dever on Dead Icons and the Living Icon

[The following post was originally published on 8/16/07.]

In the book Preaching the Cross (35), Mark Dever writes:

One friend of mine particularly likes icons- images of the prophets, apostles, even Jesus Christ. He explains his devotion to icons by the same reasoning that Eastern Orthodox theologians have used for more than a thousand years- if we don't have images of Christ, they reason, that must be rooted in a flesh-denying Gnosticism, and we, in effect, are denying the incarnation.

I, for one, am not persuaded. Jesus didn't train his disciples in sketching or painting. The first image we have of Christ [the first attempted depiction of Christ the history records] was written by a pagan mocking a Christian 'worshiping his god'- and the crude little drawing has a simple figure with a donkey's head hanging on a cross.

If we had a photograph of Jesus and the twelve disciples, I don't think we could tell which one was Jesus merely by his appearance. No glow; no halos. On the other hand, if that picture were to become a moving picture, then I think we could tell the identity of Christ very quickly by noticing which one gave himself in love to those around him. The sacrifice of love- that was the purpose of his incarnation, and that is the purpose of the church. God has left a witness for himself in you and in our congregations. Our physical natures are an aspect of our social natures, enabling our ability to interact with others in love and service.

Jesus said in John 13, "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (vv.34-35). God has forbidden statues to be made of him; Jesus had no icons of himself drawn or painted, but by his Spirit he fashions a representation of himself- and that is the church. In its holiness we see something of God's holiness; in its unity we see something of God's unity; in its love, we see something of God's love.

Brothers and sisters, let us heed the biblical teaching above. Let us encourage one another to forsake any unbiblical practice in worship and to instead to seek purity and gospel fellowship in God's church, which is the true, living representation of Christ in the world.

Dr. Robert Godfrey Warns Against Seeing Movies Depicting Jesus

During the 1st Q and A session at the 2014 Ligonier Conference, Dr. Robert Godfrey gave the following advice:

"Don't go to pictures where Jesus is represented. [Movies depicting Jesus] plant in the minds of yourself and others a picture of a person who is not Jesus. If I carry a picture around of a woman who's beautiful in my wallet and haul it out and say, 'This is my wife,' but it's not my wife, my wife might be upset about that. We don't know what Jesus looked like, and the Bible offers no encouragement to His pictorial representation."

The other panelists disagreed with Dr. Godfrey. R.C. Sproul immediately turned to John Calvin to support the idea that images of Jesus are permissible. (His use of Calvin in this regard is highly dubious in my opinion.) Other panelists turned to the idea of pre-literate peoples to try and support the idea that images are useful. However, no panelist who disagreed with Dr. Godfrey directly addressed his line of reasoning.

pretty, but non-functional.

Last week, I re-tweeted the following advertisement from Royal Dutch Airlines, which they had posted with the caption, "It doesn't matter who you click with." When I originally saw the advertisement posted on a friend's Facebook page, I didn't believe it could be real, but when I checked the Royal Dutch Airlines Twitter account, it turned out to be genuine. Surprised, my initial reaction was to comment: "It actually does matter."

Why would an airline use such an advertisement?

Well, as a non-evangelical friend of mine commented:

"When companies advertise in this way, they are advertising embracing equality in how they communicate with and serve their INTERNATIONAL customers. They are inviting people who are often rejected, turned away, put down, demonized, harassed, or even harmed, and letting them know that they will be given the same attention and fairness as the airline's straight guests, and ensure them that negative behavior from people of different beliefs and opinions will not be tolerated. 

"Companies advertise this way to make people feel welcomed and loved. They are offering them a safe, hassle free journey."

This must certainly be the motive behind the advertisement. However, I believe that the advertisement itself, which attempts to use pretty, but non-functional [in 2 out of 3 cases] seatbelts in order to make a political point, is emblematic of the mode of thought expressed in many of our cultural/political conversations today.

We are not trained to consider the proper functions of our institutions nor the rational end of our assertions. The original designer of the seatbelt did not create it in order to make a political statement. This applies to other areas of reality as well.

I believe that, like trying to use a pretty, though clearly non-functional, seatbelt to make a political point, certain affirmations, while perhaps providing some sense of emotional relief for certain people in the short-term, are actually out-of-step with reality/rationality. Allowing emotion to trump reality (rather than submitting our emotions to reality) is ultimately destructive for society and individuals within it.