The Burr in the Burgh

Fellow blogger, Rev. Paul McCain, has posted an exceptional piece answering whether Lutherans prefer crucifixes or bare crosses. Go here for that. It is a frequent misconception that Lutherans, lumped in with Reformed churches, oppose the use of a crucifix (that is a cross with the statue of Jesus on it). Nothing could be further from the truth. Crucifixes universally adorned Lutheran altars until about 50 years ago.

I did hear a Lutheran pastor one time say that we shouldn't use the crucifix because, y'know, Jesus isn't still on the cross. This is to suggest that a bare cross somehow reflects the bodily resurrection of Jesus. But I have NEVER understood this reasoning. Rev. McCain rightly points out that the cross would have been empty whether Jesus rose from the tomb or not. I have also often noted that Christians who object to the crucifix on the grounds that Jesus is not still on the cross seem to have no trouble with nativity scenes. Is Jesus still in the manger?

I think the real problem is a malady that I have termed Romo-phobia. (This is the new favorite word of fellow Pgh blogger Ales Rarus.) Frankly, I think we should leave the matter up to Christian liberty. But my personal vote is for the crucifix as a superior means of illustrating the basis of our salvation.