We need to protect ourselves from wrongly seeing Christ as some actor or faulty illustration we have seen, how much more should we protect our children? We should strongly object to the thought that images “can be spiritually helpful for our children.” I contend just the opposite: they can easily draw our children into sin.

A debate has been stirring in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) on whether using pictures or images of Jesus is appropriate or a violation of the second commandment. There has been an apparent increase in the number of candidates for licensure and ordination taking a stated difference with Larger Catechism 109[1], in which they state that they see no problem with using pictures of Jesus for “pedagogical purposes.” Recently, I heard of one man who not only saw no issues with using images of Jesus to teach children, but also stated that using such images, “can be spiritually helpful for our children.”
That got me thinking, is it really a good thing to have pictures of Jesus, especially for our children? Or might it actually cause harm? I offer three reasons why those who think there is nothing wrong with this, may want to reconsider their view.
To Uphold God’s Glory
First, we should uphold God’s glory as we teach our children; using pictures of Jesus distorts the reality of his glory. We have all seen the kinds of pictures that are used in children’s material to depict our Lord. Every picture, no matter how well intended, detracts from God’s glory. Most likely you have seen the pictures I’m talking about. Everything from the Caucasian Hippy Jesus to the Precious Moments Jesus. I simply contend that it is dishonoring to the Lord to depict the Lion of the Tribe of Judah as a Precious Moments figurine. Illustrations commonly used in children’s literature and Sunday School curriculum inadvertently cause our children to think of the second person of the Godhead in terms of cartoon representations at worst, or as one-sided, inaccurate attempts to illustrate Christ’s human nature, separated from His divine nature. This division of the natures of Christ takes away from God’s glory and dishonors Him.
Let us remember that God is jealous of His glory:
I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.  Isaiah 42:8.
To Obey God
Second, the  reason we should not use pictures of Jesus is to obey God. Even if we were able to perfectly depict Christ in all of His glory, God’s Word is clear, we are not to make images of God:
Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female.… Deuteronomy 4:15-16.
Several times in the Old Testament, God manifested Himself physically through visions and dreams. He manifested Himself physically before Abraham in Genesis 18. And yet it was always clear that the Old Testament church was not to create images of God. Even though, in Isaiah 6, Isaiah saw “the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up;” He was not to make an image of God as he saw Him. And Isaiah actually saw a manifestation of God. How much more are we forbidden to make an image of Christ, whom none of us has seen in the flesh.
The common testimony of Scripture is that making images of God is forbidden. And since Jesus is God, we are not to make images of Him.
To Protect Our Children
Third, we should not use pictures of Jesus with our children is to protect our children. The Westminster Larger Catechism answer 109, says in part, “The sins forbidden in the second commandment are… the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever.” Some have said that it is difficult to avoid forming mental representations of Christ as we read the gospel narratives. Let us remind ourselves that the difficulty of a command never negates the necessity of obeying God. We are all called to be Holy as our Father in heaven is holy. As Augustine famously said, “God command what you will and grant what you command.”
As adults, we recognize how difficult it can be to separate images we have seen from the reality of our Lord. We know He didn’t look like whatever picture we may have seen. We know better than to pray to that image or to worship that false image in our minds. But what about our children?
How often have parents pointed to illustrations in a Bible story book and said, “There’s Jesus feeding the 5,000” or “There’s Jesus healing the blind man”?
We need to protect ourselves from wrongly seeing Christ as some actor or faulty illustration we have seen, how much more should we protect our children? We should strongly object to the thought that images “can be spiritually helpful for our children.” I contend just the opposite: they can easily draw our children into sin.
Let us remember the words of our Lord in Mark 9:42,
Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
I have been encouraged by stories of pastors who, at one time, had no problem with images of Jesus. Then after a time of studying the issue came to embrace our standards on this issue. It is my hope and prayer that others will also come to see that we should not use images of Jesus as a matter of God’s glory, as a matter of obedience, and as a matter of protecting our children.
Terry Carnes is a Ruling Elder in Christ Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Warminster, Penn.
[1] Question 109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature: Whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense: Whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God has appointed.

Related Posts:

The sources to which “gay Christians” constantly appeal—secular psychology, sociological data, identity theory, and the personal experiences of people who identify as sexual minorities—are not sufficient to guide us into all truth…If the Bible is God’s holy, inerrant, and clear revelation, then it is the foundation of all that we should believe and do—regardless of anyone’s contrary personal experience.

“God has always saved the church, not by theological pacifists,but by sturdy defenders for the truth.”  J. Gresham Machen
An abundance of books today addresses Christians.  I just finished one—one I’m compelled to recommend every lay church elder be provided and required to read.  Why emphasize “lay” elders?  Throughout Church history, heresies or straying from God’s divine revelation came mainly through clerical leaders—not the laity. In Reformed Faith churches, lay elders may be the bulwark defending the church from vulnerability to straying.  This is not intended to be anti-clerical—simply recognizing a historical reality that is unrelenting yet today.  Sadly, reports coming out of trusted conservative seminaries indicate the threat exists; this article is not about that phenomenon.  Rather it’s about a book promoting biblical analysis and discernment that elders need to be sensitive to and on guard against a present danger.
The book is Dangerous Affirmation: The Threat of “Gay Christianity written by M. D. Perkins. I received it courtesy of David H. Linden to whom the book is dedicated with these words: “. . . who . . . taught me that life is too short and Christ is too precious to remain silent when His church is under attack.”  The author and to whom it’s dedicated are both “sturdy defenders for the truth.”
Anyone reading The Aquila Report and other Christian resources is aware a battle has come to the church via the LGBT activists and agenda.  It’s not only related to sexual morality.  It relates to a misnomer of Christian identity, i.e., “gay Christian” or “same-sex attracted Christian.”  It’s tearing churches and denominations apart.  Many congregations remain ignorant of how serious an issue it is.  Members lack clear instruction via sermons, oral instruction, or published communications.  If lay elders were informed and aware of the seriousness, perhaps congregations would become more instructed and discerning.
Packed with innumerable facts and biblical truths, justice cannot be attained in a simple review; but I’ll attempt to cite certain key points not to be ignored.  First, an important lost principle.  Much emphasis is directed on loving the sinner, making the sinner comfortable, welcoming the sinner in our churches and times of worship that the inordinate heinousness of certain dishonorable, indecent, shameful sexual desires, lusts, passions, and sexual acts are softened or ignored.  It was Jesus’ Father who described all of the above with harsh terms.  God’s love enters as a result of a lost sinner experiencing remorse, shame and sorrow for sin, confession, desiring to repent and cease from sin, and desiring deliverance and redemption.  That’s true for all of us regardless of sinful propensities.  Balancing truth with love and truth in love to all realizing how far from God’s holy character they are and what God hates is primary in receiving Christ’s atonement.  We mustn’t get the cart before the horse.”
Now to some of the author’s revealing facts:

The sources to which “gay Christians” constantly appeal—secular psychology, sociological data, identity theory, and the personal experiences of people who identify as sexual minorities—are not sufficient to guide us into all truth. . . If the Bible is God’s holy, inerrant, and clear revelation, then it is the foundation of all that we should believe and do—regardless of anyone’s contrary personal experience.
. . . the purpose of Christian theology is to know God.
Gay celibate theology wants to essentialize homosexual temptation to the point it is left untouched by the work of the Holy Spirit.
Love and truth are redefined. The majesty of God is minimized and the holiness of God is outright blasphemed.
As Christians, our primary concern should be the character of God—and questioning the integrity of His Word is the first step toward impugning the character of God.
Romans 1 is the central text in understanding the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality. The passage mentions the desire/orientation (“dishonorable passions”) as well as the behavior (“committing shameless acts”) lesbianism (“for their women”) . . . and the connection of sexual lust and rejecting God (“God gave them up”).
This comes as a rebuke to anyone who claims their homosexuality is innate and immutable, which is why even “gay celibate Christians” resist this reading of 1 Corinthians 6:11.
Words matter, and God’s words matter more than any others.
It is not loving to call something good and right that the Bible labels an “abomination,” “dishonorable passion,” or “shameless act”
. . . same -sex attraction . . . it is a phrase that removes the moral framework that Paul embeds in the term dishonorable passions (Romans 1: 26)
Because homosexuality is wicked and defiling, Christians are right to be disgusted at its normalization and celebration (Isaiah 5:20)
If we look carefully, we see that the charge of homophobia is ultimately an attempt to replace the shame of homosexuality with the approval stamp of victimhood.
What if our attempts to adjust the worship of God to make people feel more comfortable at church are an offense to the One who established the church?
What’s most amazing to me about the “born gay” phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter.
. . . but our temptations should not ultimately define us.
But the peace of Christ is available only to those who are surrendered to Christ by faith (Isaiah 26: 3)
False teachers always appeal to our senses, to our emotions, and to our base instincts. They minimize scripture, reframe it, change the emphasis, and twist it until it is forced to confess a lie.
Can the Christian faith and the LGBT movement really live in harmony? “For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness?  Or what fellowship has light with darkness?  (2 Corinthians 6:14)

The aforementioned represents just some of the rich and vast coverage the author gives in order to grapple with the multitude of issues requiring attention for the sake of the church as well as the individual believers.  There’s so much more to inform and instruct.  Lay elders, encourage the godly men and women of the church to be “sturdy defenders for the truth” along with you.
“I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to  the saints. For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”  (Jude 1: 3-4)
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa.
Related Posts:

The filmmakers insist 1946 is “not an attack on Christianity or the Bible” but rather “a quest to discover biblical truth and honor God’s Word.” However well-intentioned the film might be, its ultimate claim does not stand up to linguistic and historical critique.

“What if the word ‘homosexual’ was never meant to be in the Bible?” That is the question the new documentary 1946: The Mistranslation that Shifted a Culture is dedicated to answering.
The documentary explores the linguistic history of the word “homosexual” and its appearance in the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible, first published on February 11, 1946. In short, the film seeks to show that the RSV’s use of the term “homosexuals” instead of “sexual perverts” is an inaccurate translation of the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. (It is worth noting that although recent editions of the RSV have reverted to using “sexual perverts,” many other translations still translate it as “homosexuals.”) According to the documentary, homosexual sex is biblically permissible, and the RSV’s “mistranslation” has influenced subsequent English translations of the Bible, resulting in Western society believing that “sexual and gender minorities must choose between their faith and their identity.”
The filmmakers insist 1946 is “not an attack on Christianity or the Bible” but rather “a quest to discover biblical truth and honor God’s Word.” However well-intentioned the film might be, its ultimate claim does not stand up to linguistic and historical critique. 1946 undermines biblical sexual ethics under the guise of honest hermeneutics.
Evaluating the “Mistranslation” Allegation
Alan Shlemon from the Christian apologetics ministry Stand to Reason writes that, despite 1946’s captivating premise where power-hungry white men oppress “sexual minorities” through Bible translation, “Even if the film’s claims are true, it doesn’t matter. The entire documentary is a non sequitur.”
There are many reasons the film 1946 fails to be intellectually compelling, including:

subsequent Bible translators did not use the RSV’s English translation unchecked;
the prohibition of homosexual sex is found elsewhere in the Bible and is well-attested throughout church history, not just since 1946; and
one young seminary student, whom the film follows, would not have had the expertise to truly dispute the RSV translation committee.

Despite these realities, the documentary is often cited as proof that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality and that the church should re-examine its view on sexual ethics.
To address the film’s claim that same-sex relations are not prohibited in the Bible, we will answer three questions:

What do the allegedly mistranslated words in 1 Corinthians 6:9 mean?
What is the biblical sexual ethic?
Why is the biblical sexual ethic good news for everyone?

By answering these questions, Christians can refute the radical claim that the Bible permits homosexual sex with knowledge, clarity, grace, and love.
What Do the Allegedly Mistranslated Words in 1 Corinthians 6:9 Mean?
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 states:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (ESV, emphasis added)
The contested phrase translated “men who practice homosexuality” comes from the Greek “ο¿τε μαλακο¿ ο¿τε ¿ρσενοκο¿ται,” transliterated as oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai. The phrase oute…oute means “neither…nor,” so the verse is saying “neither _____  nor _____ … will inherit the kingdom of God.” So, we must fill in the blanks. What do malakoi and arsenokoitai mean?
In his book The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon explains that the term malakoi can carry a variety of meanings depending on the author and context. Often it meant “soft” or “effeminate.” In ancient usage, malakos could range from those who had a penchant for “soft” or decadent living, to those averse to the rigor of a philosopher’s life, to the passive partner in homosexual intercourse. Thus, while at first glance it might seem challenging to know exactly how Paul is using the term in this passage, context is key. Based on the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9—a list of unrepentant sins displayed by those who will not inherit the kingdom of God—and Jewish understanding of the term at the time, Paul’s intent is clear. As Gagnon summarizes, “In 1 Cor. 6:9, malakoi should be understood as the passive partners in homosexual intercourse” (p. 312).
Read More