Our church and Jesus Dolls

A heathen is an individual from an unbelieving nation or an irreligious person, I thought you were trying to reach lost children by preaching the gospel with the dolls, were you not?

No one has condemned you to Hell.

 

How does one play with a toy Jesus anyway? Girls might have him dating Barbie, but boys will surely have him fighting G.I. Joe in the sandbox. Shoot, he may even become a target for a BB gun. (Just remembering how I played with toys.)

Now if I had to treat this toy with reverence, it wouldn't be much fun, and then how would it differ from the Mary figurine on the Valdez' end table next door? (And I'll bet if I polled the recipients of this doll, I would find the parents feeling that they should treat this toy different than any other.)

You really think this is reaching children?

 

While I disagree with the dolls I do respect Tim's decision and his motives. But I think some of the charges being laid at his door have been pretty harsh.

As for how the dolls will be treated. I can't see that as a valid argument. What about all those terrible people who print Scripture on cheap paper with badly drawn clipart and hand them out to sinners only to have them screw them up and throw them away.

In both instances the Word (written and "Living") are being wrongly treated.

How they are treated is a void argument as far as I am concerned, but that's just my opinion.

And as an old friend of mine used to say, "Opinions are like armpits, every body has them, and they all stink!"

 

God's best to you tim....that's why I posted some less-than-serious responses in here...IMO there were some folks taking this further than I thought was appropriate...

I should know better than to bring silly string to a knife fight!:laugh:

 

Actually, the toy in my hypothesis is being treated just as a toy should be treated, but you illustrated my point beautifully. You have elevated this Jesus toy above the other toys by refering to it as the "living" Word. By doing so, you have made it a religious icon differing nothing than statues of Mary or any of the Saints.

I hope to Heaven the kids really do have him dating Barbie and fighting G.I. Joe. At least they'd playing with the toy as a toy should be played with, and they would be regarding them as images should be regarded—as nothing. Though it brings Christ down in their eyes, and hearts, I think that's to be preferred to something akin to idolatry.

 

Aaron, I think you misunderstood my meaning.

My point was for those who are elevating the toy to a higher status and as such conferring on it the necessity for special treatment do they follow through with this reasoning when putting Scripture on paper that will be thrown in the trash.

Its a toy, perhaps some are fine with it also being a tool for evangelism.

 

Somewhere in a strange world called America...

I used to have a Mexican kid up the street mow my yard named Jesus. He had named his dog Allah and made him bow to him on command. Now that kid was a real doll. I miss him. He did a good job on the lawn.

 

[

The expression "graven image" has nothing to do with worship. A barbie doll is a graven image of a bimbo, a Jesus doll is a graven image of a Saviour. Thus, what we are discussing here are, in fact, graven images. As I have stated on the nativity thread, the scripture that's most applicable in this instance, to me at least, is not Exodus 20 but Acts 17. What the plastic and ceramic Jesus promoters need to come up with, is an argument that demonstrates why we, as the offspring of God, should think that the Godhead is like gold, silver, or stone graven by art and man's device. It's man's device that has created these works of art and just as the root of the nativity scenes are not through Christian men, neither are these dolls.

"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." - Acts 17:29
​

[/quote]
I think my brother needs to consider that the "Jesus doll" represents the incarnate Son of Man. There's a big difference between attempting to make images of God and making an image of the body that Our Lord bore. I do not believe it is idolatrous to make pictures or statues of Christ in his humanity for the sake of art or of education. Our Lord was a real man and a real historic figure. A painting of Christ teaching the multitudes is no different than a painting of Napoleon on his horse. A statue of Shakespeare in the park is no different than a statue of Jesus. It is when we associate these images with worship that we cross the line into idolatry.
That being said, I'm not sure it is necessarily a good idea to distribute Jesus dolls, but not because of idolatry. As someone else pointed out, it might not be a good idea to create a situation where jr. is throwing Jesus around or sissie is marrying Jesus off to Barbie.

 

I would agree with that last part - a doll (usually) is a toy. How complicated it is to explain to a child, "Yes this (the "Jesus doll") is a toy, but it's not like Barbie, Action Man and the rest - you must not play or 'make believe' with the 'Jesus doll,'" while at the same time not giving the idea that the doll itself (rather than the One it is said to represent) is somehow special. (I hope I'm right in assuming that no one is suggesting we give the idea that Jesus is a plaything).

However, although I wholeheartedly agree that Jesus Christ is fully Man, and an historical figure, I cannot agree that a painting of Him is no different to a painting of Napoleon on his horse, or that a statue of Him is no differento to a statue of William Shakespeare. Jesus Christ is unique. Could the words of Colossians 1.15-19 be applied to Shakespeare of Napoleon?

15 Who [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell​

Can any human artist, sculptor or toymaker represent such deity and majesty?

The ancient Romans and Greeks surrounded themselves with models or statues of their "gods", but not once do we read in the bible of the apostles suggesting that they make statues of Jesus to help them understand Him better.

Why not explain to children that Jesus Christ is so special that it is impossible to make a model or picture of Him?

God bless you throughout the New Year!

 

Thanks, Dave, for citing those beautiful passages in Colossians about the majesty and glory of Our Lord. My point was in showing representations of Christ in His humanity as the truly Incarnate Man. I'm wondering if you oppose any paintings of Christ?

 

Yes, those verses in Colossians are amazing, aren't they?

I am in full agreement (as I trust everyone on this Board is) that Jesus is fully God and fully Man. But His deity affects His humanity, in the sense that every word He uttered, every gesture, every facial expression, was completely without the marring influence of sin. How can even the greatest artist or sculptor even begin to represent that?

Besides that, we don't know what Jesus looked like, and it's all too easy, especially for children, to see some representation of Jesus, and to imagine that's what He actually looked like. I speak from experience. I was brought up as a child in the Church of England (similar to the Episcopal church in America). The first pictures I saw of Christ were in stained glass windows. For many years, I imagined Jesus with fair hair, white clothes, and a halo.

So yes, I am opposed to pictures of Christ, but I must stress that I respect the reasoning of those who do not agree with me.

May God richly bless you in 2007,