There has been an interesting conversation between Andrew Morris, John Smuts and myself over the growth of interest in [Eastern] Orthodoxy by protestants in England.
The original post is here: http://p-b-c-blog.blogspot.com/2008/08/are-you-orthodox-enough.html
The conversation has veered to range more broadly over the role of iconography, words and (performative) actions in Christian worship.
The points so far have centred on two good questions posed by John:
"1. doctrine of scripture - what difference should it make that God left us words as our primary referent to The Word?
2. To what degree is our job to communicate in more accessible ways to others? Or should we, like the Puritans, see our job to teach people how to learn through words?"
So where do the lines fall?
6 comments:
Hi friends and all who are participating/listening-in to this extended conversation re: orthodoxy/icons/idolatry!
On a related note, this year's New College Lectures @ UNSW will be on 'God and the Artist: Human Creativity in Theological Perspective'.
The blurb from the New College website:
"The relationship between creativity, imagination and belief is a rich topic that has been explored by theologians and artists alike for many centuries. Drawing on the work of Shakespeare, Shelley, Cervantes, Tolkien and others, Professor Trevor Hart will address this topic at the 22nd annual New College Lecture series."
Link: http://www.newcollege.unsw.edu.au/newcollege_lectures.html
So where's the discussion then?
Now I have 5 minutes spare to read your erudite comments and ...
Remy et Andy just aren't up for it!
Sorry guys,
i have been pretty busy and following the first winter school last night have suddenly begun to understand the gravity of the task that i have signed up to...
I will leave the last post on speech acts that you posted remy till another time (or else until it resurfaces in the course of the discussion..at which point you are welcome to direct me back to it :o)
However on the post primarily concerned with idolatry.
I think it is helpful how you have broadened/clarified the definition of idolatry to include the general rejection of god as king in favour of something subordinate. I agree entirely. Since it is popular to quote blencowisms (and produce neologisms), an example of a "doctrine idol" would be "playing the saved by grace card" I understand would be a form of an idol
However, a number of questions/comments.
1. Concerning "God abhors images of the true God because humans are themselves supposed to be images of the true God." Could you flesh this out a bit more. In my mind i don't see how the two are immediately connected.
For me, my gut instinct in finishing the sentence "God abhors images of the true God.." is "because nothing can adequately represent the true God...." (however, we can know him because of the way he has spoken..perhaps this is where the two separate discussion posts converge)
In terms of us being made in God's image, i primarily understand this to be us being given kingship over creation under God, something that then becomes realised in the true Son of God and Son of Man, Jesus (Gen 2, psalm 8, Daniel 7, hebrews 2). If you agree broadly with this idea of being made in the image of God, how does it relate to not making idols. Is it because in worshipping an idol we are reversing the order in creation (ie God, humanity, other stuff he made (days 1-5))?
Secondly, given my particular background, it is easy for me to see how say a steps to discipleship program could be used in assisting Christian image bearing. How would you propose using an icon/ stations of the cross/ tree/ flower in the task.
To answer your last question about using something/anything redemptively, my answer is possibly.
I hope i have understood you
Andrew
ay carumba! i just spent my only free period today on this... hehe. so i hope it's helpful :-)
I must confess I borrowed heavily from Middleton and Walsh’s Transforming Vision, Al Wolters’ Creation Regained and Francis Schaeffer’s Art and the Bible when I made the comment re: humans as the image-bearers of God’s creative rule. The point was to point out that idolatry is not simply about artistic representation, but rather about an abdication of true worship which consists of (1) right living before (2) the true God. M & W suggest that idolatry is the service of “another master” / “two masters” as Jesus pointed out.
Idolatry is the service of someone/something instead of God – so my emphasis was on not collapsing idolatry into “representational art only” AND to point out that the main problem with idols was that they stood in place of human responsibility under God. The Bible uses the word image for both human beings and idols – which explains why Israel becomes like the foreign gods she worships, cruel and unjust.
So in being made in God’s image I agree with the notion of kingship over creation. However, this Kingship is not just an existential state of authority/social order, but rather a continuing and creative sustenance of what is “good” (GEN1, PSM95, JOB38-41, PSM 104…etc).
So in bearing the image of God we reflect God’s rule over creation by redeeming its “good-ness” post-fall because all creation praises God (PSM148). All that is good in creation is to be redeemed by God (JHN3.16-17, ROM8, PSM96.11-13).
God’s promise is to one day establish his righteous rule over all creation (e.g ISA42, HAB2) in entirety, and to rid it of the evil that has caused death and decay through his servant Israel (ISA53). This promise is indeed realised in Jesus.
So sounding like a ‘Reformed Calvinist’ (an 'idol'?) as opposed to a more “puritan”/dualist worldview (let’s call me Kuyper… hehe), I share the opinion of Al Wolters in Creation Regained that (1) the Structure of Creation is made by God and good, (2) that the direction of Creation is fallen and hence used not for the worship of God but other things, (3) the task of followers of Jesus is to participate in God’s redemption of his Creation, which he has achieved by defeating sin and evil on the cross and inaugurating the New Creation by his resurrection. All of creation is to be redeemed and re-directed to the Creator, every inch will be in its rightful place in the eschaton.
So what about flowers/icons/art/dance/stations of the cross/jazz/novels? I’d say they are “very good” and can be redeemed if they point to the Truth that is Christ. The Stations of the Cross for example enables us to draw out the narrative of Christ’s suffering, and in using drama and kinesthetic form, reflect and communicate the reality of Christ’s suffering to the People of God. Why? Soli Deo Gloria (esp. for those who are illiterate and mentally disadvantaged, which was why liturgies/icons/stained glass windows were made in the first place)
Well, I can’t put it any better than Francis Schaeffer in Art and the Bible, so I’ll insert some excerpts in the next post…
Francis Schaeffer (and others in the Reformed skool) suggest:
“As evangelical Christians, we have tended to relegate art to the very fringe of life. The rest of human life we feel is more important. Despite our constant talk about the Lordship of Christ, we have narrowed its scope to a very small area of reality.
We have misunderstood the concept of the Lordship of Christ over the whole of man and the whole of the universe and have not taken to us the riches that the Bible gives us for ourselves, for our lives, and for our culture.
The Lordship of Christ over the whole of life means that there are no Platonic areas in Christianity, no dichotomy or hierarchy between the body and the soul. God made the body as well as the soul, and redemption is for the whole man.
If Christianity is really true, then it involves the whole man, including his intellect and creativeness. Christianity is not just "dogmatically" true or "doctrinally" true. Rather, it is true to what is there, true in the whole area of the whole man in all of life.
God commanded Moses to fashion a tabernacle in a way [that] would involve almost every form of representational art that men have ever known.” In Exodus 25, for example, God instructs Moses to make for the Holy of Holies “two cherubim of gold; of beaten work shalt thou make them."
In other words, God was commanding that works of art be made: a statuary representation of angels.
Outside the Holy of Holies, lampstands were to be placed—that is, candlesticks of pure gold, decorated with representations of nature: almond blossoms and flowers.
And then we have the descriptions of the priestly garments. Upon their skirts were to be designed pomegranates of blue, purple, and scarlet.
Consider the two columns Solomon set up before the Temple. He decorated them with a hundred pomegranates fastened upon chains, as God commanded. These two free-standing columns supported no architectural weight and had no engineering significance. They were there only because God said they should be there as a thing of beauty.
…those ugly church buildings we often build. No wonder non-Christians often remark on the ugliness of our churches—an ugliness that is off-putting to anyone sensitive to beauty. We have forgotten that beauty is not achieved, as some argue, just to draw people into the church, but because it is a form of praise to the God who designed and created magnificent mountains, delicate flowers, and our beautiful children."
Hi Remy, sorry it has taken me a long time to reply. I wrote a post and then realised i was repeating what i had said previously rather than dealing with your answer. I will endeavour to post when i get the chance.
one thing i did notice, in the schaeffer quote and examples of art in the old testament, it becomes obvious that God gave one representation for himself... which was in a box on a tablet behind a couple of angels. I know it is anecdotal, but it still gives me reservations for representing God apart from his word (as in the case of the stations of the cross)
btw i enjoyed watching the stations of the cross in sydney but felt the emphasis had been shifted from what i see would be central to the passion narrative. btw this isn't an argument for not doing them
Andy
Post a Comment