Imagine you are driving down a busy thorough fare in your home town. Your son in the back seat yells, "Daddy, look at that!" You look out your car window and see this 72 foot monument. What is the first thing you would think?
This Memphis area monument was constructed on private land using private money by a Memphis area mega church. The background story is here. No laws have been violated.
According to pastor Williams, this statue is intended to "to declare to passersby that Jesus is the only way to salvation." In your opinion, does it do that?
I tell you exactly what my first thought would be. It would be, "that money could have funded hundreds of career missionaries who are waiting to go overseas but can't because of lack of money."
That is the same sort of feeling I get when I see a $20 million church complex being built, or a $1 million pipe organ. I get this heavy feeling in the pit of my stomach.
My neice is headed to China as a full time missionary. She is raising support. She is short on her support, and there are hundreds like her who need money to go. Why do American churches spend money on statues instead of investing it into the kingdom? *sigh*
My second thought would be, what is the intent? What is the symbolism? My "thin slice" on the symbolism would be that the creators of the monument think that America is a nation that lifts up Christ. In case you have been living under a rock, I have got news for you. America does not lift up Christ. I love my country, but let's be honest for a second. America is a land of idolators who worship the pursuit of comfort and the avoidance of pain. A land of idolators who worship self-autonomy above all else. It is a country where the weakest among us are slaughtered by the millions because they are unwanted, expensive and inconvenient. It is a land where the push is to offer a helping hand in the killing of those whose quality of life has dipped below the worthy of living line. It is a land headed toward harvesting the unborn for their body parts in the name of cures. It is true that there are many who claim the title Christian in this country, but let's be honest. They bow down to the same idol of self as everyone else.
Now, as it turns out, the statue has a tear drop on it that obviously does not show up in this picture. The tear drop "represents God's response to the nation's ills". Well, okay. The nation's ills are listed as "abortion, a lack of prayer in schools and New Age philosophy". Those are surface things. The idol to cry about is the idol of self.
I would have one more thought. It would be, "what would my atheist friends say to me if we were in the same car and saw this statue at the same time". I suspect they would make a joke about being the buckle in the Bible belt. Perhaps they would offer this statue as further evidence that America really is 80 percent Christian. Maybe they would just laugh, or maybe they would imitate the statue and cry.
I tell you what I would do though. I think God can use cheesy things like a 72 foot monument in Memphis to start a good conversation about important things. I would seize the moment and say, "hey, look at that statue over there. What in the world do you think someone was trying to say?"
(Thanks to Tgirsch for sending the cool pic. He took it. Check out David's $0.02 too.)
My thought was, "If this sort of thing isn't what the second commandment was intended to prohibit, then I don't know what is."
And I disagree with your thin-slice on the intent, agreeing more with David. The message it is intended to send is not that America "lifts up Christ," but that America is a Christian nation (and a particular kind of Christian, at that), and that non-Christians are at worst unwelcome and at best second-class citizens.
I've joked that they should have put a swivel motion in the cross-bearing arm, so that the statue would have "beat people over the head with the cross action!"
On matters of religion, we don't agree on much. I'm glad we can (mostly) agree on this. When you, me, Kevin, David, and Joe Carter are all on the same side of an issue, that truly says something.
Posted by: tgirsch | July 18, 2006 at 12:51
Well, Mary anointed Jesus, and "When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked. "This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor. Aware of this, Jesus said to them, "Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me."
So I don't think it's necessarily wrong to spend money for things whose primary purpose is worship, like organs and buildings, as long as we also fund the missionaries and such. In all fairness, that church might have a big missions budget too.
But I DO agree that the money should be spend tastefully. That statue just looks awful. And I would prefer cathedrals to mega-churches that look like malls.
Posted by: John M. | July 18, 2006 at 13:02
As far as what I think it communicates:
When I first saw it I thought it was someone trying to communicate that true freedom is found at the cross and there only. (Seeing as how the Statue of Liberty represents our freedom in the USA.)
It is certainly not something I would want linked to me in any way. And I do question any church board of directors who, as a group, would say this is the most spiritual thing they could do with a whole lotta $$$!!! And what about the members of the congregation? Did they feel great about the way their $$$ was being spent? I could not see myself sticking around any group of leaders and directors who think that this is somehow a spiritual thing to do.
Posted by: Danny Kaye | July 18, 2006 at 14:47
I hacked this off the internet:
"The Statue of Liberty is a monumental sculpture, portraying a woman escaping the chains of tyranny, which lie at her feet. Held aloft in her right hand is a flaming torch, representing liberty. Her left hand grasps a tablet on which is inscribed in roman numerals, the date the United States declared its independence, "July 4, 1776." She wears flowing robes, and the seven rays of her spiked crown that jets out into the sky symbolizes the seven seas and continents."
What better symbolizes our escape from tyranny but the Cross of Christ?
On a sidenote, I think it is awful, but I could see the right intentions being there. It could be misconstrued many ways and this is not the time and place for it.
Posted by: Carl Holmes | July 18, 2006 at 16:34
Carl:
There's a name for using symbolism in place of what's important -- it's called idolatry.
Posted by: tgirsch | July 18, 2006 at 17:09
"In all fairness, that church might have a big missions budget too."
If you read the linked article, they do claim to have a sizable budget and that they are giving to the poor (and I assume missions).
John, while I agree that it is okay to spend money on worship, I don't think the scripture you cited is the best proof texting for that point.
John 12
3 Mary therefore took a pound of expensive ointment made from pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” 6 He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it. 7 Jesus said, “Leave her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of my burial. 8 The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.”
It is pretty clear from the context that this is not a passage dealing with stewardship issues and missions giving versus worship giving.
I agree with your basic premise -- and I would grant liberty to others who want to spend money on musical instruments for worship. I might personally vote against it (if I were on the session, for example), but I would not maintain that others who voted for the expensive piano were in sin or anything like that.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | July 18, 2006 at 18:05
T,
Exodus 20
2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3 “You shall have no other gods before me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
A violation of the second commandment? Are people from his church really bowing down to this statue? Maybe this is more serious than I thought. I did not pick that up from the article.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | July 18, 2006 at 18:09
"When I first saw it I thought it was someone trying to communicate that true freedom is found at the cross and there only. (Seeing as how the Statue of Liberty represents our freedom in the USA.)"
Ok. That is fair. Maybe I was thrown off by the fact that lady liberty is way bigger than the cross -- she is holding the cross in fact. She is not at the foot of the cross, in other words.
I am overanalyzing, of course. :-)
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | July 18, 2006 at 18:13
"What better symbolizes our escape from tyranny but the Cross of Christ?"
Nothing.
I didn't realize all of the statue of liberty symbolism. To me, it either means America or it means Ellis Island. I did not associate it with defeating tyranny.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | July 18, 2006 at 18:15
While I can see the points made by previous posters, the message I would have gotten would have been "Lady Liberty is weeping because America has turned her back on God."
The obvious variety of messages perceived from this statue is indicative of its ambiguity, and that, to me at least, is a large part of the problem. Regardless the message you intend, there is too much room for misperception.
Would I invest a major portion of money into a means of communication that was so unclear? No. Apparently the leadership of this church would. That's their choice and responsibility.
Posted by: Nephos | July 19, 2006 at 11:43
Jeff:
I suppose it depends on how one defines "idolatry." If you're talking about things that people literally bow down before and worship, I don't think this qualifies. But if you believe idolatry includes elevating the earthly to the level of the heavenly, you can certainly make a case for this. Further, I think this qualifies because it conflates nationalism with spritualism, against the spirit of the "render unto Caesar" lesson.
Finally, I think it's misguided because it's at least as much a political statement as it is a spiritual one (and I'd argue much more so). By conflating religion and politics this way, you only cheapen religion, in my view.
Posted by: tgirsch | July 19, 2006 at 15:20
Further, on the defining idolatry issue, I'm not sure verse 4 is dependent upon verse 5. In other words, I don't read that as "graven images are okay as long as you don't bow down before them..."
Posted by: tgirsch | July 19, 2006 at 15:21
Reminds me of Constantine's "In Hoc Signo." Well, at least it's not in a vat of urine...
Posted by: Lingamish | July 20, 2006 at 13:23
You know, I am a little bit surprised that anyone could think this wasn't an attack on non-Protestant Christians. They have taken an American symbol and modified it so that the two most symbolic parts -- those representing liberty and welcomness to all people -- and replaced them with symbols exclusive to their subset of Chritianity (they have the cross and the ten commandments wrong :) ). The modifications remove the symbols of all americans and replace them with the symbols of a small subset of America. How else are people supposed to read that?
Posted by: kevin | July 21, 2006 at 15:20
Ohh, and the real shame of this is it replaced a rather elegant, understand wall and garden, umm, thingy, that I always found quite pretty.
Posted by: kevin | July 21, 2006 at 15:21
My first thought upon seeing the picture was, " *Snort* - someone's gonna get ticked at that!"
Posted by: W. E. Messamore | July 21, 2006 at 22:34
To me, to show the Statue of Liberty, a major American icon, holding up a cross in place of the torch suggests that America holds up the guiding light of Christ, which is only partially true. It mixes Christianity up with nationalism. And I agree with Kevin that the cross is too Protestant. I am a Protestant, but I much prefer a Catholic crucifix, which has Christ actually on it.
This statue is kind of creepy, actually, because it exploits both of the important symbols it uses.
Posted by: Bonnie | July 21, 2006 at 23:13
Bonnie:
Here is some interesting reading on the cross-vs.-crucifix divide:More important is that the cross and the crucifix represent two very different understandings of Christ's atonement for sin. Both Catholics and evangelical Protestants believe that Christ died to pay the penalty for sin. The difference is that Protestants believe that Christ's work was finished on the cross, and Catholics believe it continues. For Catholics, the appearance of Christ on the crucifix represents the fact that Christ's atoning work is still going on. ... For Protestants, the empty cross demonstrates that Christ's sacrificial work is completed, and there is no more sacrifice for sin.
Also, ironically, early protestants used an empty cross out of fear that putting Christ on the cross constituted idolatry:One minor reason that Protestants use an empty cross is that some early Protestant reformers were very cautious about images of Christ. Crosses are frequent in places of worship, but these reformers believed that using images of God in worship was a violation of the second commandment.
Posted by: tgirsch | July 25, 2006 at 21:59
I didn't read through all the comments on this page so someone my have already said this but I would wonder if people really think of this as a way to state a message or a way for the church to say, "Hey look what we made." Then it becomes less about honoring God and more about showing the Churches accomplishments (which every person and group on earth does) That's jsut what I would think.
Posted by: Matt | August 03, 2006 at 23:24