Category Archives: Church

Who is Catholic, but not Roman?

Posted on by
9

I was a little surprised when Bill, in a comment here at Gentle Wisdom, seemed unsure of what I meant by “Catholic”, as a description of Doug Chaplin. Here is my response:

Bill, Doug is Catholic, i.e. a member of the catholic = universal church, but not Roman Catholic. Of course on that definition you and I are also Catholic. But within Anglican circles at least “Catholic” is used of Christians who put a high value on moving towards unity with Rome, and with the Eastern Orthodox. At least that is my perception – Doug may well want to clarify.

I was aware that this use of word “Catholic” is peculiarly Anglican. Now Bill, if I remember correctly, is a former Episcopalian. Is this terminology not used in The Episcopal Church? If so, it must be in even narrower use than I thought.

Probably all of us good Anglicans (at least the English speaking ones) recite regularly these lines from the creeds: from the Apostles’ Creed:

I believe in … the holy catholic Church;

from the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

Quite often these lines cause comment from newcomers to my church, and my vicar has to explain that we are not Roman Catholics, that “catholic” in this context means “universal”. And this is indeed one of the dictionary definitions of the word. Indeed even in the context of the church, the following definitions are given of the word with a capital “C”:

  1. Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church.
  2. Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
  3. Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church.
  4. Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church.

But who uses this definition d? The “holy catholic Church” which Roman Catholics believe in is only their own church, and all other Christian groups are mere “ecclesial communities”. Similarly the Eastern Orthodox believe that only their own churches are the true Church. It is as far as I know mainly we Anglicans who believe that our own church is just a part of “the holy catholic Church” along with the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox  – although there are other small groups such as the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church which appear to have similar beliefs.

We Anglicans might differ over whether we consider other Protestant denominations and independent congregations to be part of the Catholic Church. Some of us, especially those who would self-identify as Catholics, deny them this status because they don’t have the apostolic succession and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons. Ironically this is the same argument which the Roman Catholics use to put Anglicans outside the Catholic Church.

But there is still something strange about the description I have used of Doug Chaplin as Catholic, or I might call him Anglo-Catholic. If he is a Catholic in the sense of “A member of a Catholic church”, then for him I as a fellow Anglican am also a Catholic.  But I would call myself not a Catholic, as I am not on that wing of the Church of England, but an evangelical.

So, if Doug is described as a Catholic and I am not, is this based on a definition of “Catholic” which needs to be added to the dictionary? Or does this indicate a basic split in Anglicanism between those who identify themselves with a visible “holy catholic Church” and those who, like me, believe that this is a spiritual entity not identical to any earthly group or set of groups?

Jesus does speak about Christian leaders

Posted on by
Reply

My recent posts Leading or Lording and Is it wrong to refer to someone as “pastor”? have generated quite a lot of interest and comment, especially about A. Amos Love’s rather long-winded contributions.

Amos certainly makes some good points. But he also goes too far. For example, in an extract I quoted before, he wrote:

Jesus told His disciples not to be called master/leader …

He also wrote in a recent comment

“the tradition of men” declares we “must” have “overseers/elders/leaders.” …

Jesus told his disciples “not” to be called “leader”

But actually that is not quite correct. What he actually said in Matthew 23:8-10 was that his disciples are not to be called “Rabbi”, or “Father”, or “Teacher/Master”. The last of these words is difficult: kathēgētēs, a word used in the New Testament only in 23:10 – not the usual Greek word for “teacher”, didaskalos, as in Ephesians 4:11, but also not the word for “master” or “lord”, kurios, in Ephesians 6:5. The word is related to English “hegemony” but also to “exegete”, and I guess that illustrates its ambiguity in Greek. But D.A. Carson, writing on this verse in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, says:

it seems wiser to take kathēgētēs as a synonym for didaskalos.

In other words, one of the world’s top exegetes agrees that this word means not “master” but “teacher”, as rendered in NIV and TNIV, cf. NRSV “instructor”.

(By the way, I think that NIV and TNIV are wrong to translate didaskalos as “Master” in 23:8, and I have submitted a suggestion of a change to “Teacher” through Wayne Leman’s NIV revision suggestion website, as promoted at Better Bibles Blog.)

So I don’t think we have any real evidence that “Jesus told His disciples not to be called master/leader”. But even if we do accept the KJV and RSV rendering “master” this does not imply that Jesus was rejecting all leadership. After all, this passage in Matthew seems to me to be about accepting titles, not about executing functions. I’m sure he didn’t intend to forbid teaching in the church or the secular world, still less to forbid fatherhood! So, even if he did forbid the use of titles like “master” or even “leader”, his point was not to forbid people from exercising leadership functions.

This is made clear from Jesus’ teaching elsewhere. For example, in Luke 22:26 (TNIV) he teaches

the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.

“The one who rules” in Greek is ho hēgoumenos, rendered “he that is chief” in KJV and “the leader” in RSV and NRSV. In Matthew’s parallel, 20:27, and in Mark’s, 10:44, Jesus’ words (perhaps spoken on a different occasion) are presented as “whoever wants to be first”.

The Greek words ho hēgoumenos are again related to the English “hegemony”. But it is significant that this is not the noun hēgemōn “ruler”, used for example of secular governors in Luke 21:12. Rather, it is the participle of the verb hēgeomai “rule”, and so is correctly rendered “the one who rules”, suggesting a role which might be temporary rather than a permanent position of authority. But since the word “rule” is used in current English mainly of secular authority, perhaps “the one who leads” would be better in context.

The same participle form is used in Hebrews 13:7,17,24, rendered “your leaders” in TNIV, but perhaps I should suggest a change to “those who lead you”. Acts 14:12 (TNIV “chief”) and 15:22 (TNIV “leaders”) appear to be the only other uses in the New Testament of the hēgeomai word group relating to Christian leadership.

So Jesus clearly spoke here about his disciples ruling, or at least exercising leadership. He also gave strict instructions about how that leadership was to be exercised. But he did not have in mind what my commented Amos seems to promote, leaderless congregations.

Controversial rector resigns over 'theological differences'

Posted on by
Reply

The front page of today’s Essex Chronicle, my local newspaper, and the front page of its website, carries the following story:

GREAT BADDOW: Controversial rector resigns over ‘theological differences’

Thursday, September 03, 2009, 09:39

A VILLAGE rector at the centre of a row over his controversial opinions on homosexuality has resigned.

Alan Comfort, 44, cited “theological differences” with his congregation as the reason for leaving his post at St Mary’s Church, Great Baddow.

The former professional footballer angered members of his congregation with comments on same-sex relationships in July. …

Read the full story.

I commented on what Alan Comfort said about homosexuality in this post. In fact the announcement of his departure was made in the church on 9th August, but has only reached the newspaper today. But Alan’s departure from his parish was noted some weeks ago by my fellow bloggers MadPriest and John Richardson, who have little in common except that they are both blogging Anglican priests.

Alan Comfort had been the Team Rector of the parish including my church for just over four months. I used to attend the parish church, St Mary’s, where he had his main responsibilities – and that is where I will be married in October. But I had never met Alan personally.

I do not intend discuss this matter publicly.

Is it wrong to refer to someone as “pastor”?

Posted on by
37

My post Leading or Lording has attracted quite a lot of comment. The most prolific commenter has been a certain A. Amos Love, who I know nothing else about except that he links to a website called God’s Words of Comfort and Healing (this is not an endorsement). Indeed I infer from the idiosyncratic writing style that this Amos is the author of the articles on the site as well as of the comments.

In his often long comments Amos takes a strong position that there should be no leaders in the church, for example:

If Jesus told His disciples
not to be called master/leader
and someone calls them self a leader
or thinks they are a leader;

are they a disciple of Christ?

Titles become idols and
pastors become masters.

I don’t accept Amos’ complete rejection of the fivefold ministry of Ephesians 4:11. But I do accept a need to look carefully at how these five ministries, or at least some of them, have becomes offices and positions of honour in the church, and whether this is biblical.

I wasn’t sure how to answer Amos on some of his points. I am not entirely opposed to his position, but I feel that he is unnecessarily negative about many humble pastors and others who serve the church faithfully without thought for their own positions and titles. So I thought what Amos writes would make a good discussion starter for a wider audience. So here, with Amos’ permission, is one of his lengthy comments in full, slightly reformatted. This is a response to my question which he quotes at the beginning. How would any of you my readers respond to this?

Peter

“But is it wrong to refer to someone e.g. as “pastor” if he or she is truly gifted by God for that ministry?”

The fast answer now is; Yes, it is wrong. Very wrong. If someone wants to call you “pastor” run as fast as you can… They tried making Jesus king, he said no, and he was qualified to be king, Yes? Just because you have gifts and are qualified should you accept the title? Do “Titles become Idols” of the heart? Do “Pastors become Masters/leaders?”  Trust and obey – Not think and decide.

I’ve come to understand the danger to both those who think they are a “shepherd.” And those taught, they are “only” “sheep” and need a human “shepherd” to lead and guide them.

In the Bible, How many people… have the title pastor?
In the Bible, How many people are… referred to as pastor?
In the Bible, How many people are… ordained as a pastor?
In the Bible, How many congregations are… led by a pastor?

Every titled “pastor” I’ve met also had the “title” reverend. Can’t find that one in the KJV either; Can you?

Now the Anglicans really have a slew of titles; Don’t they? Father, priest, pastor, rector, vicar, reverend, most right reverend. Had a friend. Teased him all the time. Who are you today? { ; o ) And he wore a dress and got paid for giving 15 minute sermonetts. Ah! Religion, It’s a beautiful thing…

If no one in the Bible is “called or has the title” “pastor” don’t I help “perpetrate a myth” that is not in the Bible and help “the traditions of men” make the Word of non effect when I call or refer to someone as pastor?

I believe you already know the word “pastor” is Greek for “shepherd.” “Shepherd” was a low place then, but… “Pastor” is now a high place, a title, a profession, a salaried position and accepted by the world system. Where is that in the Bible? Tradition of men? Nullify the Word of God?

Along with the “title pastor” comes, (a few things we didn’t ask for?) power, profit, prestige, prominence, position, recognition, reputation, honor, self importance, self worth, etc. (and leaness to the soul?) Yes, God, gives you what you ask for – and something extra. Hmmm?

Could these be, “those things that are highly esteemed among men
but is an abomination in the sight of God?” Luke 16:15

Could these be, “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, not of the Father, but is of the world?” 1John 2:16

Most, that I’ve met, started out wanting to serve Christ. They didn’t want to steal the glory that belonged only to Jesus. They just didn’t refuse it when the glory came. The tests had begun.

A man that flattereth his neighbour spreadeth a net for his feet. Pr 29:5

Bread of deceit is sweet to a man; but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel. Pr 20:17

Yes, I’ve failed a lot of tests and eaten a lot of gravel myself. Ouch! { : o (….

“The Lord is “my” shepherd.” Psalm 23. I’m happy being a sheep now. And the servants get to see the miracles. John2:9 Ahhh! Peace, Joy, Love!!!

You’ll have to admit there is a tremendous amount of “shepherd” burn out, for him and his family, in the religious system. The shepherd and his family live in this glass bubble and have to watch everything they do. They have to “act” in a way that either pleases the people (fear of man) or keeps the people in line.(Lord it over)

Either way it is different from who they really are. (Hypocrites?) It’s almost impossible to heard a hundred people sheep. They don’t seem to respond like sheep sheep.

Alan Knox – “it is not easy to lead without “lording it over” other people” It’s impoosible. (Just my very humble opinion.) Leaders=Lord it over=always. But, if you see yourself as a servant you let Jesus do His thing, Let Him be Lord.

I’ve had friends of mine who just couldn’t do it anymore. They had to leave for their own well being. An Episcople priest, an Assemblies of God pastor,
a Baptist pastor and evangelists who traveled the country.

Lot’s of ugly stuff going on behind the scenes. You know what I mean. Oh, not on sunday morning of course. That’s the entertainment. The show. Sunday we “act” like we’re really christians. It’s the law. Look over there…Is that Jesus crying over what people are calling, His Church? Is this what he had in mind for His bride to look like? His temple? My,My…

They were in an “office” and “position” that’s not in the scriptures. Pastors in pulpits, preaching, to people in pews. And it better be good…. Every week… My, my… stress, stress… CEO… Councelor… Team captain… Smiley face… etc.,etc…

They had to try and serve three masters. Oy vey! Jesus, the denomination, and the congregation. No wonder there is so much burnout.

Jesus already knows how to shepherd His sheep. He does a much better job then we ever could.

I’m getting long winded and I’m just getting started. Still have to cover the dangers for “the sheep” led by a man. Hmmm? Those who are led by the Spirit? Are they the sons of God?

Well done thou good and faithful; leader? pastor?

Love and peace.

Leading or Lording

Posted on by
29

Bill Heroman, in a break from his interesting series on Jesus in Nazareth, has published challenging posts Lording it Over and Leading, not Lording. Bill is responding to a post by Alan Knox, to which he also replies in the comments. Here is a quote from Bill’s former post:

If anyone provides leadership in the body of Christ, they do a great thing, providing a wonderful service for both God and the saints. But if someone leads constantly, or exclusively, or holds permanent veto power over all decisions, then by definition I think we need to realize that such a person IS (de facto) “lording it over” the people of God. It doesn’t matter one bit whether their style is gracious or domineering. If you give all the orders, or permit all the orders, then you have, in practice, assumed the position of an earthly lord.

I have a lot of sympathy with what Bill is saying here. Lord Acton’s dictum (originally addressed to a bishop)

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely

applies in the church just as much as in the political realm, if the Holy Spirit is not allowed to correct the situation. Sadly very many church leaders start out with strong individual ministries led by the Holy Spirit, but as the Spirit’s power fades they start to operate in their own power, which if not controlled quickly corrupts them and their churches.

The problem with Bill’s position is that the New Testament does teach that the church should have elders, pastors, overseers and deacons, without clarifying how these offices relate to one another. Bill’s suggestion that the role of a pastor in Ephesians 4:11 is “an exception for a very young church” is not tenable. He defends this in his second post with

But there is an “until” in Ephesians 4.

Indeed, but that “until” in verse 13 refers to the time when we “attain[] to the whole measure of the fulness of Christ” (TNIV). That is not something I have seen in typical middle-aged churches – it is something we can look forward to only in the kingdom of God. Until then Christians still need to be equipped and the body of Christ still needs to be built up (verse 12), and so the fivefold ministry of verse 11, including apostolic ministry, is still required.

Perhaps a more balanced position is that of Alan Knox:

Don’t misunderstand me, as an elder, it is not easy to lead without “lording it over” other people, but Jesus said, “It shall not be so among you.” So, it does me no good to state that I should NOT have authority over others, then go ahead and exercise authority. I must try to work this into my life.

Yes, the church does need spiritually gifted leaders. Ephesians 4:14 describes the alternative, what is likely to happen to a group of believers where the fivefold ministry is not exercised: they don’t grow out of infancy. Sadly this looks very like many churches today. What the church needs is not an absence of leadership, but leading which is not lording it but follows the proper biblical pattern.

What is my real Christian tradition?

Posted on by
Reply

I just took a new quiz Christian Traditions Selector, recommended by Kevin Sam – not on Facebook I am glad to say, but the advertising images I saw in the sidebar are a bit suggestive.

As I correctly predicted before viewing my results, my number 1 result is “Pentecostal/Charismatic/Assemblies of God”. I’m also not surprised that “Anabaptist (Mennonite/Quaker etc.)” came second. It is a bit worrying that “Anglican/Episcopal/Church of England” came as low as 8th place, when I have been a lifelong member, although in a very untypical congregation for the last 24 years. Perhaps this confirms what I am already beginning to think, that I am in the wrong denomination.

Here are my full results:

(100%) 1: Pentecostal/Charismatic/Assemblies of God 
(86%) 2: Anabaptist (Mennonite/Quaker etc.) 
(81%) 3: Baptist (non-Calvinistic)/Plymouth Brethren/Fundamentalist 
(74%) 4: Church of Christ/Campbellite 
(70%) 5: Seventh-Day Adventist 
(64%) 6: Methodist/Wesleyan/Nazarene 
(63%) 7: Lutheran 
(57%) 8: Anglican/Episcopal/Church of England 
(57%) 9: Congregational/United Church of Christ 
(54%) 10: Eastern Orthodox 
(47%) 11: Baptist (Reformed/Particular/Calvinistic) 
(42%) 12: Presbyterian/Reformed 
(32%) 13: Roman Catholic

The Theology of Proof Texting

Posted on by
14

Frank Viola, of whose book Reimagining Church I wrote an incomplete review last year, has just posted a link to an online (PDF) version of part of a chapter from an earlier book which he wrote with George Barna, Pagan Christianity. The chapter is called Reapproaching the New Testament: The Bible is Not a Jigsaw Puzzle.

Proof texting is a phenomenon I am very aware of. I know very well how it is used by preachers and others, including bloggers, sometimes apparently allowing them to “prove” almost anything they want to prove from Scripture. I have criticised this approach before; indeed it underlines the fundamentalist approach to the Bible which I discussed in this blog series. But I have never before seen any attempt to justify proof texting theologically. That is not of course what Viola and Barna are doing, but in at the beginning of their chapter (pp. 2-3 of the PDF) they give an interesting explanation of the theology behind it:

The approach most commonly used among contemporary Christians when studying the Bible is called “proof texting.” The origin of proof texting goes back to the late 1590s. A group of men called Protestant scholastics took the teachings of the Reformers and systematized them according to the rules of Aristotelian logic.

The Protestant scholastics held that not only is the Scripture the Word of God, but every part of it is the Word of God in and of itself—irrespective of context. This set the stage for the idea that if we lift a verse out of the Bible, it is true in its own right and can be used to prove a doctrine or a practice.

When John Nelson Darby emerged in the mid-1800s, he built a theology based on this approach. Darby raised proof texting to an art form. In fact, it was Darby who gave fundamentalist and evangelical Christians a good deal of their presently accepted teachings. All of them are built on the proof-texting method. Proof texting, then, became the common way that we contemporary Christians approach the Bible.

As a result, we Christians rarely, if ever, get to see the New Testament as a whole. Rather, we are served up a dish of fragmented thoughts that are drawn together by means of fallen human logic. The fruit of this approach is that we have strayed far afield from the principles of the New Testament church. Yet we still believe we are being biblical.

Ouch!

After an introduction to how the books of the Bible are arranged and divided, Viola and Barna list eight ways in which “We Christians have been taught to approach the Bible”. All of them are varieties of David Ker‘s Alexander’s Sword method. They continue (p. 10):

Now look at this list again. Which of these approaches have you used? Look again: Notice how each is highly individualistic. All of them put you, the individual Christian, at the center. Each approach ignores the fact that most of the New Testament was written to corporate bodies of people (churches), not to individuals.

But that is not all. Each of these approaches is built on isolated proof texting. Each treats the New Testament like a manual and blinds us to its real message.

A bit later they write (p. 12):

You could call our method of studying the New Testament the “clipboard approach.” If you are familiar with computers, you are aware of the clipboard component. If you happen to be in a word processor, you may cut and paste a piece of text via the clipboard. The clipboard allows you to cut a sentence from one document and paste it into another.

Pastors, seminarians, and laymen alike have been conditioned by the clipboard approach when studying the Bible. This is how we justify our man-made, encased traditions and pass them off as biblical. It is why we routinely miss what the early church was like whenever we open up our New Testaments. We see verses. We do not see the whole picture.

There are a few factual errors in the extract. For example, in 1227 Stephen Langton was not “a professor at the University of Paris” but Archbishop of Canterbury; a Wikipedia article suggests that in fact he divided the Bible into chapters in 1205, when, according to another Wikipedia page, he actually was a lecturer in Paris.

But these minor points do not detract from the strong message of this chapter. Viola and Barna clearly show how fundamentally flawed is the typical evangelical approach to Scripture, and so by implication how fundamentally flawed are many of the conclusions derived from it. As evangelicals we really do need to find a better way of understanding the Bible, if our claim to take it as the inspired and authoritative Word of God is to be meaningful and intellectually honest.

Gordon Brown: Christians should not have to hide faith

Posted on by
Reply

I thank TC Robinson for a link to this article in the British website Christian Today (not the US magazine Christianity Today, TC): Gordon Brown: Christians should not have to hide faith – based on an interview (17 minutes) our Prime Minister gave to Premier Christian Media, a British Christian radio and TV company.

TC’s reaction to this is that Political Endorsement of the Christian Faith is not A Good Idea. I agree with TC’s sentiment when politicians promote Christianity, and all the more any one particular variety of it, above other religions. I accept his point about:

Emperor Constantine the Great and his embrace of Christianity—an embrace which hurt instead of helped Christianity.

But I don’t think that is at all what Gordon Brown is doing here, from listening to the interview. He was very careful to talk about “faith” in general terms. The words in parentheses in the longest quote in Christian Today, “(for Christians to be expected to detach themselves from their faith as they work)”, are taken from a question he was asked. So he is in no way favouring Christianity above other faiths, and would probably say much the same to interviewers from other religions.

The interview was deliberately different from many others, as seen in this article about it. The interviewer writes:

I was given 15 minutes to interview Mr Brown, and I was also told what questions he wouldn’t answer. I wasn’t allowed to ask him about his own faith, his family, what he prays about or if he prays before making policy decisions.

Scrap first set of questions then….

However, there are still many issues Christians in the UK are concerned about that I could ask him: the fact many feel anti-Christian sentiment is increasing in Parliament, why talking about God is seen as dodgy territory for a British politician, and why many feel the government has become unbalanced in its approach to faith groups.

I also added a few questions to the mix in an attempt to find out what Gordon Brown really cares about.

I was very pleased by this part of the interview, as summarised by Christian Today:

In the interview the Prime Minister also confirmed that the Government would still prioritise foreign aid for those in poverty despite the current worldwide recession. Mr Brown said, “We have responsibilities to those in need and in difficulty and we cannot walk by on the other side.”

He added, “Our responsibilities to the poor are even more acute and obvious at a time when people are facing difficulty.”

I also liked this quote, which can surely be applied to the church as it should be:

Community … is not the buildings but thousands of acts of friendship and generosity and support for people.

The important point here is that the Prime Minister is publicly taking a stand against the kind of position which seems all too common in more liberal circles here in Britain, and in some arms of his government: that religious belief must be kept a private matter and faith-based groups should not be involved in public life or receive public funds for their work. Mr Brown counters this by saying that people of faith cannot be expected to keep quiet

because when we talk about faith we are talking about what people believe in. We are talking about the values that underpin what they do. We are talking about the convictions that they have about how you can make for a better society.

It is when people put convictions like this into practice that a better society results. On that basis Gordon Brown offers his support for faith-based initiatives. As Christians, while being cautious about any restrictive conditions, we should accept public funding when it does actually help to promote our vision of a society built around God’s love.

Homicidal pews

Posted on by
2

An old friend of mine, Martin Jackson, is a vicar in the north of England, and blogs about life in his parish. This is in the diocese of Durham, so he recently had the honour of having his photo taken with the diocesan bishop N.T. Wright.

Today Martin has blogged on Dealing with homicidal pews. This sounds an improbable subject, but he reports the following exchange as genuinely overheard:

… an example of congregational nostalgia, implicit in an objection raised to the removal of a church pew: “Someone died in that pew.” To which the parish priest had replied, “Then it had better go before it kills someone else.” At which another priest leapt to her feet and shouted, “Let me have it – I can put it to good use in my parish….”

I’m glad that my church‘s building, dating from 1971, has never had pews. The mediaeval parish church (which is by the way where Lorenza and I are to be married – the date is now set for 24th October) had pews when I worshipped there, nearly 25 years ago now, but they were taken out and replaced with nice chairs about ten years ago.

At the cross I don't bow my knee

Posted on by
Reply

This is part of a great song At The Cross from the 2006 Hillsong album Mighty to Save:

At the cross I bow my knee
Where Your blood was shed for me
There’s no greater love than this
You have overcome the grave
Your glory fills the highest place
What can separate me now?

Or is it so great? I like the music, as we sang it in my church last night. But what about the words?

I am not thinking so much about the strange last line: separate me from what? After all, well taught Christians will immediately spot that this is an allusion to Romans 8:38-39 and “from the love of God” is implied.

The issue I have is with the first line that I quoted, “At the cross I bow my knee”. No, I don’t. I bow my knee only to God, and he is not on the cross. As the angel said to Mary (Matthew 28:6), “He is not here; he has risen”. OK, that was about the empty tomb, but surely it is all the more true of the cross: Jesus is no longer hanging on it, he is alive!

Protestant Christians give this as their reason for displaying empty crosses in their churches, rather than the crucifixes more typically used by Roman Catholics. But the cross is still given the central place in most church buildings, whereas the resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit are so often ignored in our church decoration.

The problem is that the Protestants have taken away from the image not the cross but Jesus! I am not actually advocating putting statues or pictures of Jesus in our churches, but there is a striking contrast here with the more typically Eastern Orthodox depictions of the living and reigning Jesus, such as Christ Pantocrator.

The danger with giving too much prominence to the empty cross is that it becomes an idol, something which we worship in place of the living God. It is not just a matter of the cross as a physical object or a symbol. In many branches of evangelicalism the cross, or what happened on it, is given so much prominence relative to the other events of salvation history that it becomes something of an idol in our thinking. Indeed surely it is this kind of thinking that lies behind the prominence we give to this symbol in our church buildings.

The bronze snake which Moses made in the wilderness was a great means of God’s deliverance (Numbers 21:8-9), and prefigured the cross itself (John 3:14). Nevertheless King Hezekiah had to destroy it because it had become an idol, an object of worship in itself (2 Kings 18:4). If the cross of Jesus has become an object of worship in itself, something which we bow down before rather than worshipping God, it too needs to be put in its proper place. If we bow down before the cross in a church building, it should only be because we recognise that God, the risen Jesus, is there.