When I think of ways to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, showing the defeat of Death, and the inauguration of a new era of history, I have a lot of ideas. I have to admit that a Lego Jesus statue is not one of them.
Churchgoers had donated nearly 30,000 Lego bricks to build the 1.78 metre (5.8 foot) high statue, said Per Wilder, the pastor of the Oensta Gryta Church in Vaesteras, about 110 kilometres (70 miles) west of Stockholm.Being from a Protestant New England tradition, I have to say my first reaction is iconoclastic. But I guess that is an overreaction to something which in the end is pretty much just silly.
"This work began a year and a half ago so we saw that the initiation date was fitting in well (with this year's Easter holiday)," Wilder said....
The model was based on Danish sculptor Bertel Thorvaldsens's 19th century work Christus, which depicts the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
7 comments:
I loved the NPR story... They made a point of saying it is all white, but inside are lego's of many colors:D
My reaction isn't iconoclastic at all, I wish more protestant churches would utilize the arts and sculpture.
I am just disturbed (reading thru the Pentateuch now) how close this comes to a "graven image." But I know Christians have gone overboard with that in the past, so I reserve judgement. If this were done by a Christian organization and put outside a church, I'd be much more comfortable with it. Putting it INSIDE a church makes it seem like an object of veneration.
But again, I am from a very image-free tradition, so I tend to overreact here.
We are not to make an image of God because He was other. I don't think that holds true for the God-man, Jesus Christ. would it be wrong to take a picture of him?
Personally, I think it is pretty cool and a LOT of hard work.
I don't think it is quite the same. You'll note (I know all of you have noted, because you're all Seminarians) that neither the gospels or the letters give us ANY physical description of Jesus. Revelation is about the only one that describes Him in any way, and even there it is highly symbolic language that does not translate into a specific image of a specific person.
If the N.T. refuses to give us a specific image in words - and is quite specific about NOT producing an image in the O.T. - shouldn't we be conservative about producing images?
The Bible says both that His looks were nothing and that He has beauty. Not exactly descriptive.
Still, I think this is neat. I doubt that the Lego image will be worshiped.
I also come from a Puritan church background, but this is a fleeting thing. Temporary.
The OT is more about not making an image of anything and calling it God and worshiping it, either as God or as another god. It isn't as concerned with showing or describing what God looks like. It can be argued that there are descriptions of God throughout the OT. One is in Ezekiel and is pretty descriptive. Others are descriptions of how He appears to people, which is basically the same thing.
Check out an excellent book by Meredith Kline called "Images of the Spirit" about just that, the descriptions of the Spirit of God contained in the Bible.
So I'd say it's more about the attitude. Don't create something and call it God, even if you mean the true God, and worship it than it is about not making an image or statue, even if it is in a church.
I was going to write something longer, but I think Nick has covered it well.
Post a Comment