I don’t think Luther himself thought sacred images were inherently wrong, but other early German protestants did. Especially Karlstadt, who was very influential: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Karlstadt#Iconoclasm_and_Marian_viewsMaybe I missed something… but why is this news? Lutherans have never been iconoclasts.![]()
I don’t think most evangelicals are against sacred images. Some Baptists say they are, but I don’t think it’s a majority position even among fundamentalists.As a citizen of the USA I wonder what our Evangelicals will have to say about it–if anything. After all, they definitely are iconoclasts.![]()
As a former member of the Assemblies of God, who had close ties to Evangelicals of all types, they very much were against images except for a cross or maybe a picture of Jesus, but none of them had statues of any saint–not even of Jesus–because they so feared violating their interpretation of the first two of the Ten Commandments (as they number them).I don’t think most evangelicals are against sacred images. Some Baptists say they are, but I don’t think it’s a majority position even among fundamentalists.
Karlstadt was decidedly not Lutheran.I don’t think Luther himself thought sacred images were inherently wrong, but other early German protestants did. Especially Karlstadt, who was very influential: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Karlstadt#Iconoclasm_and_Marian_views
I think we need to be careful not to cram “Protestantism” into one basket. Reformed Protestants destroyed images and even entire churches because of their iconoclast views. Lutherans, on the other hand, were never iconoclasts. Luther did advocate the destruction of certain monasteries that did not contribute to public life and made money off of poor, uneducated pilgrims – but that is an entirely separate issue. If the Wikis are conflating these drastically different points, then they are not painting a proper picture of history.It is my understanding that German sacred imagery was destroyed or merely removed from liturgical use when the Protestant princes of Germany destroyed many Catholic churches and monasteries. Martin Luther contributed to this, though he did not say to destroy the images, when he wrote the following requests to the German princes: “The forest chapels and rustic churches must be utterly destroyed, – those, namely, to which the recent pilgrimages have been directed, – Wilsnack, Sternberg, Trier, the Grimmenthal, and now Regensburg and a goodly number of others.” source
He did not say to destroy the images at the sites of pilgrimage, but it is my understanding that that is what happened anyway. And the churches themselves were a form of religious art, and they were destroyed, so that’s a form of iconoclasm too.
Perhaps the Lutherans merely wanted to add their voice in support of the Evangelicals–to advance ecumenical efforts between all parties? Just a thought.That’s why this is so perplexing to me. Why report this as “Lutheran and other Protestant communities,” when Lutherans have always had sacred art? Non-news.
It is among fundamentalists.I don’t think most evangelicals are against sacred images. Some Baptists say they are, but I don’t think it’s a majority position even among fundamentalists.
“Evangelical” is probably a translation of “Evangelisch” which means “Protestant” (especially Lutheran but often also Reformed), not what Americans call “evangelicals.”Perhaps the Lutherans merely wanted to add their voice in support of the Evangelicals–to advance ecumenical efforts between all parties? Just a thought.![]()
Thank you, Ed.“Evangelical” is probably a translation of “Evangelisch” which means “Protestant” (especially Lutheran but often also Reformed), not what Americans call “evangelicals.”
Edwin
Yes, in a German context “Evangelical” typically means Lutheran. Not even remotely in the same camp as American Evangelicals.“Evangelical” is probably a translation of “Evangelisch” which means “Protestant” (especially Lutheran but often also Reformed), not what Americans call “evangelicals.”
Edwin