This Sunday marks “Sunday of Orthodoxy,” also known as “Triumph of Orthodoxy,” a date that meant nothing to me a few years ago because it is only observed in the liturgical calendar of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Two of my close friends, one who converted to Orthodoxy from his Nazarene background and the other who plans to convert from his Methodist background, acquainted me with this date.
Beginning the first Sunday of Great Lent, six Sundays before Pascha (Easter), Sunday of Orthodoxy celebrates—in the words of Greek iconographer Photios Kontoglou—“the restoration of the Icons and the victory of true religion over the Iconoclasts.” Notice the trumpet blast of ecclesial superiority in the description of this date: “true religion” does not refer to “mere Christianity,” the “Great Tradition,” or the “invisible church.” It refers to a single, visible church: Eastern Orthodoxy.
Protestants who either reject or conditionally accept the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Second Council of Nicea), which sanctioned the veneration of icons, are implicitly regarded as heretics and thus anathematized during the service on Sunday of Orthodoxy. For this Reformed Christian, the anathemas are hair-raising:
To those who reject the Councils of the holy fathers and their traditions, which are agreeable to divine revelation and kept piously by the Orthodox Catholic Church, Anathema!
To those who mock and profane the holy images and relics which the holy Church receives as revelations of God’s work and of those pleasing to Him, to inspire their beholders with piety, and to arouse them to follow these examples; and to those who say that they are idols, Anathema!
Is veneration of the icons “agreeable to divine revelation”? It entirely depends on what is meant by “divine revelation.” If it means the Orthodox theology of incarnation, the answer is “Yes.” If it means the Seventh Ecumenical Council, elevated to the same authority as the Holy Scriptures, the answer is “Yes.” But if it means the Holy Scriptures alone, the answer is “No.” There are no “commands of God” to venerate icons; in the absence of such commands, I choose to abstain from what I regard as “traditions of men,” traditions which might facilitate worship or idolatry, a judgment that only God is fit to make (Mk. 7:6-8). I do not bend my knee before icons because I behold the image of God in the mirror of the Gospel, as John Calvin said. Abstention from the use of icons in worship is different than “those who mock and profane the holy images and relics.” Abstention is not a neutral position, but nor is it hostile. So I might not be a heretic after all—at least on this count.
Questions emerge that are both personal and pressing because of my friendships. Should the use of icons split the household of faith? Are the differences between iconoclasts and iconodules at the center or periphery of Christian faith?
To explore these questions in a broader context, I turn to a fascinating passage from James Davison Hunter’s forthcoming book, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (Oxford, March 2010). Comparing American Christians in late modernity to Jews in Babylon (Jeremiah 29), Hunter urges the church to not only live with the tensions of exile, but to “deliberately and actively cultivate” them. Why? God is at work in the place of exile. If God’s purposes are being realized through the circumstances of late modernity, then “the welfare of those with whom we share a world is tied to our own welfare.” As Jews “pursued the shalom of Babylon, God would provide shalom for his people.” So too, Christians should pursue shalom in secular America.
The church has tensions with itself and with the world. Regarding the tensions with itself, Hunter observes that one tension “arises from its passion for truth and the way such passions tend to justify internal factionalizing. Unfortunately, schism seem to be part and parcel of Christianity and Christians, being who they are, this is not likely to change any time soon. Put differently, the problem of difference is an inescapable feature of its own identity and witness.”
Applied to the schism above, the “passion for truth” justifies the “internal factionalizing” between a Reformed Christian like myself, who is skeptical about veneration of icons, and an Orthodox Christian like my friend, who is resolute about veneration of icons. For me, the skepticism hinges on the Orthodox belief that the Incarnation repeals the Decalogue’s commandment against graven images, which creates an intractable dilemma in Christology, as William Baldwin writes:
It’s an amazing leap of logic from the premise (God has revealed himself once for all in his Son) to the conclusion (we may now make images of God). Yet the Orthodox do not seem to notice that they have leaped at all. They barely attempt to explain how to get from the premise to the conclusion. To them, the conclusion is obvious. And when they do attempt an explanation, they stumble into Nestorianism [the doctrine that there were two separate persons, one human and one divine, in the incarnate Christ]. This is almost inevitable. The only alternative is Monophysitism [the doctrine that there was only one nature in the incarnate Christ, wholly divine or subordinately human], of which they have an even greater horror. Yet one or the other error awaits them. To say that the Incarnation legitimizes icons is either to say that God’s nature changed when he became a man and thus is now depictable. Or it is to say that God became depictable as a man but remained undepictable as God.
What should we do with a schism that is “an inescapable feature of [our] own identity and witness”? Hunter offers a salutary answer:
The first implication is that a vision of the new city commons rooted in a theology of faithful presence would lead believers to hold many of these differences lightly. It is important to remember that Christianity—in its beliefs and practices—is defined from the center out. This is not to say that particularities on the periphery don’t matter—they do: they give social life complexity and personal life richness, and in so many respects we are defined by these particularities. But those particularities on the periphery matter less in a context of exile on at least two fronts. They matter less on the issue of formation and they matter less on the issue of public engagement. In the context of exile, and on these two matters, many of the schisms that have divided the church over time have become functionally irrelevant. This would include the great schism of the sixteenth century that divided Protestants and Catholics. It would also include the divisions between the Western Church and Eastern Church as well. Within the confessions of historic Christian faith—and on the matters of formation and engagement—the particularities on the margins of faith really do matter less. Unity around the core beliefs and practices of Christian faith can only serve the larger purposes of making disciples, on the one hand, and serving the common good, on the other.
The second implication is simply this: where differences remain there is the challenge to demonstrate love toward the other. Clearly, if Christians cannot extend grace and love through faithful presence within the body of believers, they certainly will not be able to extend grace to those outside.
When Christian beliefs and practices are defined “from the center out,” does the veneration of icons qualify as a particularity on the periphery? Our answer depends on what we affirm at the center. Regarding beliefs, I agree with Reformed theologian Michael Horton: “The Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds still provide us with the best definition of orthodoxy. These creeds do not say everything we want to say, of course, but therein lies their strength.” Regarding practices, I submit that the ministry of Word and Sacrament (Baptism and Lord’s Supper) still provides us with the best examples of orthopraxy. I would also add the inward disciplines (meditation, prayer, fasting, study), outward disciplines (simplicity, solitude, submission, service), and corporate disciplines (confession, worship, guidance, celebration).
Based on the above delineation of beliefs and practices at the center, the veneration of icons is “a particularity on the periphery.” I anticipate that my Orthodox friends will object to this classification because the word “periphery” can—but need not—suggest insignificance. As Hunter reminds us, particularities on the periphery matter because “they give social life complexity and personal life richness, and in so many respects we are defined by these particularities. But those particularities on the periphery matter less in a context of exile.” The language here is one of degree: discerning what matters more or less. Even if Orthodox Christians insist that the devotional use of icons is a core practice, they are still challenged to “extend grace and love through faithful presence within the body of believers.” And what better proof is there of this grace and love than to desist from anathematizing Christians who do not venerate icons. Iconoclasm is no longer an existential threat to the Orthodox church, so the time is ripe to celebrate a different kind of triumph on Sunday of Orthodoxy: the triumph of love thy enemy.
Everything cannot be at the center, so we have a choice—as exiles—to band together in order to make disciples (formation) and serve the common good (public engagement) or to banish each other. We have a choice—as exiles—to hold our differences lightly, which is what the apostle Paul means when he exhorts us “to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:1-3), or to hold our differences tightly, which unleashes “corrupting talk” that grieves the Holy Spirit of God (Eph. 4:29-30).
I earnestly hope that those who use icons and those who do not will put away “all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander,” so they can “be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you” (Eph. 4:31-32). Love makes our schisms “functionally irrelevant.” As Michael Horton puts it, “In spite of the important differences between Christian churches, there is a place to stand together—like Athanasius—against the world for the world.”
Further Online Reading:
- William Baldwin, Eastern Orthodoxy, Icons, and Christology.
- Robert Arakaki, Calvin vs. The Icon.
- Daniel Siedell, Protestants and Pictures.
- Lance Nixon, Images of Redemption.
February 20th, 2010 | 1:59 pm | #1
I commend you on this fair-minded post. I am an Orthodox Christian, some of whose best friends are serious Evangelicals. While we have some disagreements about theology, I personally would never say they are heretics. They are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I actually do a Bible study with them though I know of several Orthodox Christians (mainly converts) who tell me not to do such a thing because I will not be exposed to Orthodox thought. And those people, in my opinion, are both incredibly insecure in their faith and haughty in their beliefs.
February 20th, 2010 | 7:45 pm | #2
I’m Anglo-Catholic rather than Orthodox, but my church has icons and I also have icons in my own home (though I probably use them more indirectly in worship than the Orthodox do). I also thought your post was pretty fair-minded. In particular, I think it is helpful to make a distinction between claiming that icons are inherently idolatrous, and refraining from using them in worship because of personal concerns.
I would agree with the Orthodox in saying that iconoclasm is heretical. To say that we cannot have images of Jesus is to deny the Incarnation. When we look upon Jesus, we look upon God. When we see an image of Jesus, it is an image of God. So although the use of icons is not directly referred to in Scripture, it follows from Scripture.
The distinction is that icons aid us in worship, but are not objects of worship. (The latter would be idolatry.)
I think it is interesting that icon makers refer to what they do as writing icons, not drawing or painting them. This is a direct connection to Jesus as the Word made flesh.
It’s worth noting as well that the style of icons is deliberately non-realistic. It’s not that the ancient Byzantines, etc., couldn’t represent Jesus and the saints more “realistically” but rather that the semi-abstract, symbolic style helps us remember to look through the icon, rather than at it. In this way, a real icon is much more helpful than what I’ve seen as devotional art that attempts to be realistic. I have an icon of Jesus above my desk as I write, but I don’t pretend to think that this is a realistic representation of what Jesus actually looked like. (What he really looks like in the flesh I will know only when I meet him face to face.) But the icon, which is themed around Jesus’ command “Follow Me,” serves to remind me that He really does call me, personally, to follow Him, personally.
I believe that Paul outlines the appropriate response perfectly in Romans 14. “One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.”
Personally, I find having icons in my home, and seeing them in the church during worship, helps me in my worship. I am reminded that God is not an idea; He became flesh and remains incarnate in his Resurrection body. Likewise, my relationship with God is not something that occurs just in my own head; He made me, loves me, and has redeemed me in body, mind, and soul. Icons also remind me of the communion of saints, and encourage me to reflect on the faithfulness of those who have gone before me, and to strive to emulate their faith.
As an academic, I need help staying grounded; left to my own devices, I would probably stray off into gnosticism. Icons are helpful in correcting my intellectualizing tendency. On the other hand, others might have a very different direction in which they tend to drift, and a bare, unadorned style of worship might be more helpful for them.
February 21st, 2010 | 10:32 am | #3
“Since you saw no form on the day the LORD spoke you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure…” Dt 4:15-16
A qualified command, and Jesus was seen, wasn’t he?
February 21st, 2010 | 3:08 pm | #4
Mr. Benson,
I’ve enjoyed all of your posts on beauty, art, and now icons. You’re certainly right to point out that these are traditionally things that Protestants (especially of the Reformed variety) have been either lazy, negligent, or wrong in dealing with through much of our history.
I have three quick questions for you:
1) Is it useful to emphasize that this distinction between our different views of worship does not necessarily extend to issues of secular art and beauty? (i.e. There were very few Protestants who objected to Gibson’s Passion of the Christ on 2nd Commandment grounds, and even fewer who object to paintings and sculpture that may be religious, but are not intended for worship.) Or would making this distinction be a distraction from the main issue?
2) If we are to use images or icons in church- and I think we’re safe in saying that we are going to to some extent, even the most Reformed churches I’ve been in have at the very least used flannelgraphs and coloring books- how do we reconcile this with Scripture, particularly the passage Mike M quoted in Deuteronomy 4:15-20? How do we draw the distinction between “using an image for instruction” and “including the image in worship”? Because I do think the point of that passage is in verse 20: “But as for you, the Lord took you and brought you out of the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt, to be the people of his inheritance, as you now are.” In other words, it was God who did it, and we are not to include images of creation in our worship of our God, because they had nothing to do with our salvation…
Or am I totally missing something here?
3) Are you familiar with Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism, particularly his lecture on art? If so, where do you think his ideas might fit in in this discussion? (If not, question cheerfully withdrawn!)
Thanks again, keep up the good blogging :)
February 21st, 2010 | 4:31 pm | #5
Coyle, do you really think that Christians who use visual images of our Lord worship those images?
February 21st, 2010 | 4:42 pm | #6
Christopher, thanks for sharing the Calvin quote, providing very good evidence for the iconoclastic nature of classic Calvinism.
February 21st, 2010 | 5:16 pm | #7
In reading over the comments to this post, I would say that Ms. Ordway articulately expresses many of the beliefs I hold. I see the value of venerating icons, and I am an iconodule; I would also argue that iconoclasm salvation alone is possible. Therefore, in this instance, I would say that my Church holds a stronger belief as an institution about those who do not use icons in worship than I personally do.
As Rev. McCain hints at in his comment, anyone who thinks that Orthodox Christians worship those images in their worship has very little understanding of what icons are. As Ms. Ordway points out, icons are only possible because they point to the Incarnation of Christ. In addition, they are not written in a realistic manner, and they are created to point toward the greater reality of heaven.
February 21st, 2010 | 6:40 pm | #8
Rev. McCain,
Coyle, do you really think that Christians who use visual images of our Lord worship those images?
Obviously, that’s going to depend on the individual Christian. I don’t think that the use of images or statues in a church service automatically means that idols are being worshipped. I think it’s playing with fire, but it’s not a foregone conclusion.
February 21st, 2010 | 6:45 pm | #9
[...] E. Sagers Fred Sanders Justin Taylor Frank Turk David Wayne Jared C. Wilson Recent Comments Sunday of Orthodoxy: Or, When Schisms Are Functionally Irrelevant (12)Coyle: Rev. McCain, Coyle, do you really think… Attack of the Ugly Babies (25)RS: Well, in keeping [...]
February 21st, 2010 | 8:08 pm | #10
Coyle, really? I mean, seriously. You believe, for example, that a portrait of Christ and His passion is the object of worship? Explain, please. I can find no example before the Zwinglian/Calvinist movements of sterility in worship spaces. Why do you think that is? Images in worship spaces date way, way, way back into the very earliest years of the Church. Is it your contention that Christians since at least the 200s, if not even earlier, went horribly wrong on this from nearly the get-go? Or is it possible that Zwingli and Calvin and their iconoclasm represents an unfortunate development, not a reformation, but a deformation of the Church?
February 21st, 2010 | 9:20 pm | #11
Rev. McCain,
You believe, for example, that a portrait of Christ and His passion is the object of worship?
If you’re talking about using it in worship, it could be. If you just mean decoration then I think that’s a different issue. But I was under the impression that this discussion was centered around the use of images specifically in worship, not mere art. Did I miss something here?
I can find no example before the Zwinglian/Calvinist movements of sterility in worship spaces.
Well, other than the whole iconoclast movement mentioned in the discussion, which was centered around not using images (and which admittedly involved other, more heretical issues like Nestorianism and the Monophysite controversy).
Images in worship spaces date way, way, way back into the very earliest years of the Church.
Probably true, given that the earliest church met in public forums, temples, and private houses (see the book of Acts), though I highly doubt that those are the sorts of images you’re appealing to :)
As far as specifically Christian buildings, by the time they start being built there certainly were various difficulties in church doctrines (I don’t think I’d say things went exactly “horribly wrong”, but as a Lutheran undoubtedly you’d also agree that the Church Fathers aren’t infallible) including questions of the use of images and other objects like relics.
But even those early church buildings as far as we can tell tended more towards simplicity than towards imagery (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Saint_Simeon_Stylites).
Or is it possible that Zwingli and Calvin and their iconoclasm represents an unfortunate development, not a reformation, but a deformation of the Church?
Again, I think I’d agree that the Reformed have gone too far in rejecting or ignoring art and questions of beauty, and to that end writers like Abraham Kuyper and Marilynne Robinson (despite her borderline Neo-orthodoxy) are a welcome relief.
But the question remains, is the use of images in a worship service permitted or idolatry? In that, the opinion of the church fathers, Calvin, Zwingli, Luther, or any other Christian writer has to give way before the teaching of Scripture. And that is what I’d like to hear a clearer answer on from each side: does Scripture prohibit or permit the use of images in a worship service?
I would suggest that while the use of images is not explicitly forbidden, the worship of them is. And the line between those two things is a fine and dangerous one. I’ve seen enough abuse of images that I would be nervous attending a church that embraced and used them extensively, even if I agreed with all its other doctrines… But I’m also open to correction on that, should you care to prove me wrong from Scripture.
Thanks for the thoughtful questions!
February 21st, 2010 | 9:32 pm | #12
If you’re talking about using it in worship, it could be.
Please explain further. For instance, help me understand how Lutherans are “worshiping” a crucifix. You are asserting that depictions of our Lord’s life and ministry, images, are being worshiped. Please explain how.
Probably true, given that the earliest church met in public forums, temples, and private houses (see the book of Acts), though I highly doubt that those are the sorts of images you’re appealing to :)
We know, for a fact, that Christians have been using images in their places of worship since very, very early on. Dura-Europas is an example of such a worship space. We are not talking something in the 300s, but much earlier, dating as far back as we can find evidence in the history of the Church.
But the question remains, is the use of images in a worship service permitted or idolatry?
Scripture does not forbid using images in worship spaces. God Himself commanded their use in the design of Tabernacle and Temple. Refer to the Holy of Holies itself. What is forbidden is the use of idols.
I would suggest that while the use of images is not explicitly forbidden, the worship of them is.
Not “explicitly” forbidden, means they are not forbidden. The history of the Church, from OT through NT and its use of visual arts in worship spaces refutes your position, which is simply nothing more than raw legalism in the final analysis.
care to prove me wrong from Scripture.
Done.
February 21st, 2010 | 10:15 pm | #13
For instance, help me understand how Lutherans are “worshiping” a crucifix. You are asserting that depictions of our Lord’s life and ministry, images, are being worshiped. Please explain how.
I’m not saying that the existence of crucifixes or any other form of religious art is automatically idolatry. I am saying that it could be. To explain this Biblically, I would use 1 John 5:20-21 and suggest that the use of any object (v21) to try to gain access to eternal life (v20) is idolatry. So, having a crucifix hanging on your wall or in your church because it looks nice I think is fair game and is not idolatry. Treating that crucifix like it’s involved in your salvation is.
We know, for a fact, that Christians have been using images in their places of worship since very, very early on.
Some did, some didn’t, with increasingly more being in the “did” category until the iconoclast controversy arose. (See Eusebius for an example of an early Christian opposed to it- Clement of Alexandria had his reservations as well.) But again, I’m much more concerned with the question of whether or not Scripture permits or forbids than with the question of early church practice.
Scripture does not forbid using images in worship spaces. God Himself commanded their use in the design of Tabernacle and Temple. Refer to the Holy of Holies itself.
I suspect that this is really what the argument comes down to. The Old Testament use of objects in the services of the Tabernacle and the Temple. I would argue that these objects were types and shadows that pointed to Christ, and that when He appeared their use was finished. The new symbols He established to remind us of what He did on the cross were explicitly not objects to be worshipped, but rather actions that we take: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Those are to be our “images” for use in worship, our declarations of who Christ is and what He has done for us in saving us from our sins.
Not “explicitly” forbidden, means they are not forbidden.
Rev. McCain, you know you don’t hold to that kind of argument. After all, polygamy isn’t explicitly forbidden to any except elders of the church, are you willing to hold that it is permitted for the laity?
If the Bible teaches clearly that we are not to commit idolatry, whether or not the use of images in church is idolatry is a fair question.
The history of the Church, from OT through NT and its use of visual arts in worship spaces refutes your position, which is simply nothing more than raw legalism in the final analysis.
Again, I’m not against the use of images as art, not even in “worship spaces.” In fact, there are few even among the Reformed who are against it (note the Calvin quote Mr. Benson shared never condemned the use of images except when used frivolously in church). What we’re concerned with is the question of whether images are proper to use in terms of worship itself. I attend a non-Protestant university (is that vague enough? :), and when I see students kneeling before a statue of Mary on their way to class, or visitors prostrating themselves in front of relics and pictures in the Basilica, has a line been crossed? I submit that it has, and that decorative “art” has for some of these people become open idolatry.
February 21st, 2010 | 10:23 pm | #14
So, having a crucifix hanging on your wall or in your church because it looks nice I think is fair game and is not idolatry. Treating that crucifix like it’s involved in your salvation is.
And if a crucifix is not treated this way, then you are not opposed to a crucifix being used in homes and in churches?
February 21st, 2010 | 10:41 pm | #15
And if a crucifix is not treated this way, then you are not opposed to a crucifix being used in homes and in churches?
None whatsoever. In that case, I think it’s a matter of local church autonomy and individual conscience.
February 22nd, 2010 | 8:22 am | #16
This is an interesting post, and I greatly appreciate the implicit ecumenical spirit within it. Although I must note the tinge of irony in the use of Michael Horton who cannot even bring himself to sign the Manhattan Declaration for fear he might dilute the gospel. Horton, R. C. Sproul, and John MacArthur still seem to be fighting the Reformation in rather stringent ways.
I also rather doubt Hunter’s claim about functional irrelevance because, at minimum, it flies in the face a several decades of ecumenism as well as the fact that Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants still cannot share one Eucharist. There is a functional irrelevance on matters of mission, but not on what it means to be the church.
I also find it interesting that certain spiritual practices are placed in the center, but not use of icons in worship. I personally see icons as merely an extension of such practices. In this sense, I guess one could say that while prayer is central the kind of prayer (centering prayer, lectio divina, petitionary, etc.) need not be so.
I also want to take seriously the fact that the ancient pentarchy, including Rome and Constantinople, signed off on the 7th ecumenical council. Almost the entire church accepted it at the time with the exception of Charlemagne’s court.
It seems to me to be in keeping with the 7th ecumenical council simply to embrace icons as a legitimate expression of worship when properly understood. In this way, Protestants can celebrate the Triumph of Orthodoxy as a return to freedom in worship so central to our own identity. Religious freedom is a triumph it seems to me, and the Reformed know this all to well.
February 22nd, 2010 | 9:07 am | #17
In response to Mr. Benson’s desire to evoke Davidson Hunter, I would say there is still the problem of the fact that many people do not hold their differences lightly. And the claim that they should be help lightly is a proposition that many simply do not agree about. There are many Christians in America that believe their distinctives are essential, if not for salvation, for the avoidance of dilution or eviscerating secondary consequences to Christianity’s vitality in their communion in modern life.
The eccuminism of hte faithful will have to be different than that of the 20th century liberal, and I’m not sure we know what that is going to look like yet, but I think the Manhattan Declaration is a worth consideration of the kind of thing we can gather for. Hopefully we can work on this kind of thing, and even someday woo the Mike Horton’s of our family.
February 22nd, 2010 | 10:19 am | #18
Christopher, I personally would not call my friends heretical for not venerating icons, and I am uncomfortable with the use of the word “anathema.” Therefore my personal view here is, in fact, in conflict with the the view of my Church. And if I am completely honest, I would say early on after I converted and many times these days, I find myself thinking, “Well Evangelicals don’t have this right.” And then my priest, close Orthodox friends who are far wiser in the faith than I am, and my Evangelical friends would and will remind me that such thinking is condescending–Evangelicals worship the same God that I do, and they love Him and make Him the foundation of their lives just as I do. I believe that Orthodoxy represents the fullness of Christianity, and for this reason I worship in this Church. Nonetheless I need to be careful to say others are wrong in their belief unless they are blatantly espousing heresy–for instance by arguing that Christ is one of many ways to heaven. (And it is for this reason that Frank Turk claims that I have personalized my catechism, and perhaps I have.)
Like Hunter, I do believe it is time for Christians to come together on some fronts and provide a united witness to the world. As I recall, CS Lewis claimed that the divided world of Christianity makes it difficult for nonbelievers to take us seriously.
I personally am grateful for my Evangelical friends because they do exhibit Christ’s love in a way that is quite remarkable to me–and many in my own church could learn from them (because, in fact, I learn from them). And I will always be grateful to my Evangelical brethren because they are the ones who led me to Christ in the first place.
February 22nd, 2010 | 10:19 am | #19
(1) Yes. We must reject the Orthodox view of offering veneration to icons. I’ve read the carefully nuanced arguments put forward by Orthodox believers, and particularly converts, who find comfort in these nuanced explanation, but the very firmly entrenched reality of the use of icons across Orthdoxy clearly demonstrates the the veneration of icons is seen as vital to the Christian life and in some manner meritorious in God’s eyes. This is false doctrine that can not be tolerated.
(2) In as much as the veneration of icons in any way displaces or adds to the merits of Christ, yet, it is at the center.
(3) It is not for us to dictate to the Orthodox what feasts, festivals and observances they choose to use in their Church. If I were them, I would see the point of the day.
February 22nd, 2010 | 11:47 am | #20
I’m Anglican and I love tradition and the reality of one Church. I hate schisms and divisions, though I do not know how to solve it, nor do I believe I have the power. I would be willing to become Orthodox, but what has turned me away is the priest of the local Greek Orthodox church (the only Orthodox church in my town/city-there is a Coptic church, too, so I guess it’s fair to say there are two even thought the Greeks and Coptics are not in communion with each other). The priest here is more legalistic and authoritarian than any Protestant fundamentalist I have ever met. I really don’t get it. For him there is no middle ground. A friend of mine who is a member there no longer comes to my Bible study, has get-togethers that I no longer get invited to, and will not even accept my baptism as valid. The priest has told my friend that if he ever wants to attend a wedding of a non-Orthodox couple, then he must ask permission and receive a blessing to go.
If that’s Orthodoxy, I’m happily not Orthodox.
February 22nd, 2010 | 11:54 am | #21
Mr. Benson,
(1) and (2), I completely agree with Rev. McCain’s answers.
On (3), I also agree with Rev. McCain up to a point. I’m big on local church autonomy, so if local churches want to hold certain kinds of practices I endorse their freedom to do so. However, given the public nature of these “feasts, festivals, and observances” and the fact that they are doing them in the name of Christ, I would also want to maintain my own freedom and the freedom of my own local church to publically disagree with them and gently remind them of the Gospel. But as Rev. McCain says, there should certainly be no “dictation” going on at all. Only mutual conversation and encouragement.
February 22nd, 2010 | 1:20 pm | #22
In response to orthodoxdj’s comment, I find your friend’s Orthodox priest problematic as well. If my priest ever tried to restrict my friendships and the people with whom I have Bible studies, then I would also run the other way. And that is simply ludicrous that your friend cannot attend a wedding of a nonOrthodox Christian without a blessing. Under the Orthodox canon, an Orthodox Christian can remain in communion with the Church, if he/she marries someone baptized in the name of the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost.”
Such legalism on the part of your friend’s priest does not provide a good witness for Orthodoxy. However, I personally know several Orthodox Christians (mostly converts) who think that anyone who is not Orthodox is a heretic and refuse to have any kind of Bible study with them. To which I want to respond, “Gee, it is so good that you know the mind of God!”
I truly believe my brothers and sisters and Christ are not limited to Orthodox Christians, but sadly many people remain restricted and narrow in their thoughts.
February 22nd, 2010 | 1:37 pm | #23
Alison,
Thank you. I know that not all Orthodox Christians are that way. I’m a big fan of Frederica Mathews Green. She’s been a big blessing to me.
February 22nd, 2010 | 6:49 pm | #24
Mr. Benson (I now see you would prefer to be called that), I appreciate your quote, and I have found it edifying. I also want to stress again that I believe you have been fair-minded in this post and in the string of comments despite your disagreement with my theological views. I appreciate the fact that you can disagree with me in a spirit of charity rather than allowing your comments to devolve into a discussion of how you are right and how I am wrong.
February 22nd, 2010 | 7:34 pm | #25
Thanks for the correction on Hunter. The more I thought about that short paragraph, the more it seemed that I most likely misspoke. Hunter is a sophisticated thinker, and I need to read the whole book before making such judgments.
On the Horton reference, I could not read your attempt to build a bridge as a complete endorsement of Horton. As I noted, it’s just an irony.
In any case, I believe in receptive ecumenism so I’m glad to see its endorsement.
February 22nd, 2010 | 7:39 pm | #26
I should mention that His All Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew has a nice homily for the Sunday of Orthodoxy. He calls for ecumenical engagement, which sounds like it could go toward the “love one’s enemy” being called for here.
See the homily at: http://www.ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=gr&id=1168&tla=en
There is a final paragraph where the Patriarch is actually chastising those within Orthodoxy who are spreading rumors to stifle ecumenical dialogue. It addresses a debate happening behind the scenes within the Orthodox communion.
February 22nd, 2010 | 8:50 pm | #27
Final comment: In looking back over my string of comments I was unclear. I meant to say in Comment 10 that I believe salvation is possible for those who are not iconodules. And I emphasized the whole worshipping icons idea in response to Coyle; you were clear in your post. I hope I appropriately answered your question of experiencing dissonance with my the views of my Church (because I do). And I believe that your post did what it accomplished (“Glory to Jesus Christ,” as we Orthodox say :-) )
February 22nd, 2010 | 9:47 pm | #28
[...] A Response (42)David Paul Regier: Yeah, I know. When a Catholic friend explained prayers to… Sunday of Orthodoxy: Or, When Schisms Are Functionally Irrelevant (34)Alison: Final comment: In looking back over my… Evangelicals and Icons: A Response (42)Rev. Paul [...]
February 22nd, 2010 | 11:36 pm | #29
I think the bigger question in the discussion for me is: can others see the work (image and likeness) of Christ in your own life? Can you see the work (image and likeness) of Christ in your brother’s or sister’s life? Can you see you see the work (image and likeness) of Christ amongst those who have completed their journey on Earth? Who do you look for when it comes to seeking Christian examples? Where do you receive the instruction in the faith?
The Holy Scriptures, in and of themselves, are given to us to serve as an Ikon that points us towards God. I do not know of anyone suggesting that we throw the Bible out of worship because it happens to be a physical object with which we can interact. Indeed, testimonies of martyrs have involved them meeting their end in joyful veneration and adoration of Christ, even as they lovingly kiss their Bible that has been mistreated by the hands of those who oppose Christ.
Now to be sure, I happen to be a person who enjoys the rich tradition of imagery that captures vibrant scenes from people living lives in Christ, particularly if the image involves something present in the life of Christ. One of my absolute joys of an image is Christ praying in the Garden of Gethsemane with His disciples asleep when they should be watching. It calls me to repentance and considering how Christ calls me to surrender my whole life to Him and follow Him even to uncomfortable places. And for this reminder, I rejoice.
I enjoy knowing about the obscure persons striving to live faithful lives in Christ. Seeing their image creates within my spirit a desire to know how this person lived in full cooperation with the Holy Spirit.
We assume that we live in an age where everyone can read words on a page. Moreover, we live in an age where we assume that words on a page can capture the fullness of an experience.
Yet one of the principle uses of icons in Church spaces is to offer instruction to the faithful in the ways of Christ. I’m not going to fault the 4yr old in Sunday School who wants to “give Christ a kiss” when it’s time for the flannelgraph story of Christ receiving the little children. And in all honesty, I want that faith of a child that will enable me to receive Christ’s kingdom with joy.
Christ is indeed in our midst; we remember through gathering together as a community, partaking of His gifts imparted to us, and recalling the examples of how the triune God moved and acted to empower us to live faithful lives in Him.
There are plenty of “iconodules” who are resolutely Evangelicals; their main icon of veneration is Holy Scripture. And indeed, may they not come to worship these writings, but instead may these writings inspire them towards reflecting the True God.
February 23rd, 2010 | 1:56 am | #30
I weigh in on this discussion having just come from a very wonderful evening with a Mormon couple that are close personal friends of mine. We just attended a talk by Frederica Mathewes-Green on “Christians in American Culture” in a very intimate and welcoming setting. The message of the talk was, despite Mathewes-Green’s eloquence, quite simple: the best way to change the culture is to transform your inner life from within so that love for your neighbor is reflected outwards towards others. This, to respond to Anna Lindsey’s wonderful post, amounts to what I would call what “matters” (I use that word in the double sense of “importance” and “flesh, substance, image”) right in front of us, a discovery of the icon (image, likeness) of God and Christ in our neighbor. Condemnation of any kind is antithetical to that discovery, particularly that type that comes before investigation.
Afterwards, my Mormon friends and I, an inquirer in the Orthodox Church soon to become a catechumen, had a very charitable and ecumenical dialogue, which I believe is in the spirit of Mr. Benson’s original post. I showed my friend and his wife into the sanctuary and answered their questions about saints, icons, and the Holy Trinity, while I also asked them about their faith: church polity, status of God the Father and Christ the Son, and theory of apostolic succession. At the end of the discussion, my friend said something that still resonates with me: “It’s remarkable that so many people have so many different opinions about faith that they hold to with conviction and piety. I always think that if you got everyone together and had them talk together, one big truth would come out of it.”
At the risk of offending many people on this blog space (the mere mention that I am breaking bread with Mormons may have already done so to some), I dare say that’s closer to the true “icon” (image) of things than many people would like to admit. Perhaps the only difference between my view and that of a “21st century liberal” (somebody used this term disparagingly in these postings, I just can’t find whom), besides the firm stances on moral issues that the liberal may not be willing to make, is that mine requires the reality and person of Christ the Son of God as the incarnation of that truth, revealed by the Scriptures and safeguarded by the Church and Traditions. I am, however, not willing to regard the “belief that there are many ways to God besides Christ” as a “heresy” either— though such a one should certainly not profess to be a Christian, do I really in my heart of hearts have the certainty that allows me to condemn the practitioners of other religions or beliefs?
In closing, I recommend this selection of St. John of Damascus’s wonderful defenses “Of Holy Images ” which can be found at the following link:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/johndam-icons.html
By the way, I am greatly heartened by the post about Patriarch Bartholomew’s homily and the posts by other Orthodox Christians here. I attended an interdiocesine liturgy of the Antiochan and Greek Orthodox Churches on the Sunday of Orthodoxy this past weekend in my area, and I am glad to report that no anathemas were pronounced. Instead, at the end of the liturgy a procession of priests, children, and young adults went around the church to the altar holding up with pride and gratitude their icons, which have begun to become a cherished part of my own attendance at Orthodox worship services. The fact that the Church may be moving away from the pronouncement of anathemas is indeed a welcome development to me, who have for a time now regarded the practice as a stumbling block on my path to Orthodoxy.
February 23rd, 2010 | 9:45 am | #31
“One big truth would come out of it” — yes, and that “truth” would be error.
February 23rd, 2010 | 10:53 am | #32
I do think it is important to identify the teachings that are other than that of what we receive as Christians. To be sure, in the last 2000 years, many false teachers have arose. Like all lies, these false teachings begin in truth and then twist it. Yet, from my experience, I find it much easier to identify the falsehoods others hold to rather than the falsehoods I hold to so intensely. Pronouncing the anathemas are a way of saying “This teaching differs from what we believe.” For a much better discussion on the meaning of anathema, I refer you to this sermon by St John Maximovitch: http://preachersinstitute.com/2010/02/anathema-the-word-and-its-meaning-st-john-maximovitch/ Indeed, much of the original post anathematizes Orthodox Christians for embracing icons in their corporate life of worship as the Evangelical author says essentially “I cannot and will not embrace this teaching and here’s why.”
What saddens me to the point of being immensely troubled is how so many who say they follow Christ gloss over the reality of Christ as the Incarnate God to the point where it becomes at best a historical footnote. After all, how can we become “little Christs” or more commonly, “Christians” if we resolutely deny that He became one of us? If we neglect the faithful men and women who have gone before us to show us the ways our lives might conform to the image and likeness of Christ, then we exalt other images in our minds, hearts, bodies and souls.
I long to know what captivates Evangelicals to sit for hours watching preachers on TV, to produce contemporary Christian music, to create a unique Christian subculture, to surround themselves with Christian images of their own construction. Why would anyone do this other than for an unquenchable thirst to see Christ indeed in our midst? But I suspect that the rise of the Christian subculture in America is more about purity, more about establishing an elaborate sense of what is acceptable, more about maintaining appearances, and more about surrounding oneself in a myriad of ideas about Christ to be able to choose the Christ most appealing to oneself.
Lord have mercy and call us to Your Son in all of His fullness +
February 23rd, 2010 | 11:42 am | #33
Rev. McCain,
To repeat from my blog, “Condemnation of any kind is antithetical to th[e] discovery [of Christ in my neighbor], particularly that type that comes before investigation.”
February 23rd, 2010 | 12:47 pm | #34
The Icon is essential to the Incarnation because Jesus Christ is one God-Man. Christ had two natures, separate but inseparable, while he had one physical being. God was not dwelling inside a human body, God became a human body. To depict that hypostatic union is proof that God became incarnate man, and that Christ in his physical being was *fully* God. To not depict Christ is to say that his physical being was only part of it, and his transcendent “God-ness” was elsewhere. No, Christ is very God, as the Creed says. The unbound God was bound in flesh.
Furthermore, if God became physical matter, then physical matter has been redeemed and can be a means of transmitting salvific grace. That is why Orthodox venerate holy objects, because they are a means of grace.
There was a comment made that we should not venerate a cross as if it is involved in our salvation. In Orthodoxy, we believe that the honor proceeds to the prototype, as St John of Damascus wrote in his defense of the holy icons. By venerating a cross, we are not saying anything about the mere type of the Cross we are touching, we are venerating the actual Cross on which Christ died, which certainly was involved in our salvation.
It’s no different from a sweet old woman who kisses a photograph of her husband. She is not kissing emulsion and paper, she is kissing her husband. It’s a very logical and human expression of love and honor for someone who is not physically present. To say it’s somehow idolatry is rather ridiculous.
February 23rd, 2010 | 12:57 pm | #35
“Of old, God the incorporeal and uncircumscribed was never depicted. Now, however, when God is seen clothed in flesh, and conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter, I worship the God of matter, who became matter for my sake, and deigned to inhabit matter, who worked out my salvation through matter. I will not cease from honouring that matter which works my salvation.”
-St John of Damascus
February 23rd, 2010 | 1:27 pm | #36
What he said
February 23rd, 2010 | 1:35 pm | #37
David, as an Orthodox Christian who steadfastly holds to Christian beliefs, I would argue that you can condemn the beliefs of others, yet still hold that you can see the image of Christ in them (because we do not believe that humans are utterly depraved and we always look for some good in others). Scripture clearly warns against false teaching (the book of Jude and portions of James). Mormons are not Christians, and their beliefs do not lead to “one big truth.” And I do have the certainty to condemn the practice of other religions–this is in fact what the Fathers of the Church died for.
February 23rd, 2010 | 1:42 pm | #38
This is gooey sentimentalism, not a Biblical attitude.
February 23rd, 2010 | 2:46 pm | #39
Alison and Rev. M., I’m sorry, but I’ll let God do the condemning. Mormons are not Christians? How much do you know about Mormonism? If you’re basing your belief on the hearsay of others, then this falls under the category of “condemnation prior to investigation.”
I don’t want to turn this into an argument, because I feel this is straying far from the point of the original blog, the unity of Christian believers despite differences. We will all have to defend what we said and did on earth before the judgement seat of Christ. Lord have mercy on us all.
February 23rd, 2010 | 2:47 pm | #40
The let me put this in Biblical words: According to the words of Christ in the gospel of John: “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” That is clear to me. And Paul points out in his epistles and in Romans particularly the necessity of believing in Christ. (And I was pointing out that in Orthodoxy we believe that we can always find some good in others despite the flaws, sin, depravity that might exist in them–that is part of our theology.)
February 23rd, 2010 | 3:11 pm | #41
David,
I appreciate what you say and some of it resonates with me. That being said, I think it is important to hold to BOTH the reality that people outside of the fold may indeed find salvation AND that sincere people who are not Christian are in fact NOT CHRISTIAN and because of that Christians cannot embrace them as Christians.
February 23rd, 2010 | 3:42 pm | #42
David, perhaps a separate post on “Is Mormonism Christian?” would be appropriate, but if you are going to try to suggest here that Mormonism is a Christian faith, then it must be said, without any qualification or hesitation: No, absolutely not. The god of Mormonism, is by no means the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but a fictitious god cobbled together by Joseph Smith. If there are Mormons who are Christians, it is not because of Mormonism, but quite in spite of Mormonism.
Mormonism is not Christian and anyone who adheres to Mormonism is not a Christian.
February 23rd, 2010 | 6:18 pm | #43
Rev. McCain, Alison, and orthodoxdj,
You seem certain, and so I will respect your certainty in this matter, although I do not possess the same certainty myself.
February 23rd, 2010 | 7:25 pm | #44
David,
I’m finding it hard to understand what the issue is. Like I said, I think it’s okay to hold a “wider hope” view. If God is anything, He’s loving and merciful. I fail to see how that leads to “Mormonism is Christianity”.
February 23rd, 2010 | 9:15 pm | #45
The “issue,” orthodoxdj, is that every Mormon I’ve ever spoken to considers themself a Christian. To them, Joseph Smith received a direct revelation to become the newest apostle in the line of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, since the authority in the Church according to Mormons has been hopelessly bungled since the days of the first apostles.
Now, I do not personally agree with this, and I find their theology and practices suspect. I personally would most likely never become a Mormon.
But I just have to emphasize the “most likely,” because in the final analysis, I have absolute certainty in this life about absolutely nothing. To be sure, we should not make a false dichotomy between “faith” (“believing something to be true”) and “knowledge” (“factually being certain that something is true”). Incidentally, Calvin’s definition of faith in the Institutes as a “certain knowledge” brought about by the revelation of the Holy Spirit is helpful here. But then, the Mormon could just as easily claim this for himself as well.
Mr. Benson, I submit that, according to the terms of your post, I am an inveterate “individualist” and “pietist,” since in this language game we are always playing with each other, it seems we must establish labels.
February 23rd, 2010 | 9:50 pm | #46
Mr. Benson, in response to your comments about Ms. Lindsey’s post, you should know that in Orthodox Christianity, refusal to venerate icons is not a neutral position, and usage of icons is not optional. Indeed, the Supplicatory Canon to the Mother of God includes this phrase:
“Speechless be the lips of the ungodly, who refuse to venerate thy most honourable Icon…”
I cannot speak for your disagreement with Ms. Lindsey, but the Orthodox Church is very clear in stating that refusal to venerate icons is a denial of the Incarnation.
If you read “Apologia Against Those Who Decry Holy Images” by St John of Damascus (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/johndamascus-images.html), you will have all your questions answered and understand that the prohibition on idols does not apply to icons. Icons are not idols, so they cannot be prohibited by the Decalogue.
(Unless, by “graven images”, you mean *all* images, in the way Muslims interpret the command, which prohibits all depictions of animals and humans. In that case, you got us. We say that command applies to idols, and since Icons are not idols, it is fine.)
February 23rd, 2010 | 11:07 pm | #47
Mr Benson, your distinction between hearing and reading the words contained in Holy Scripture as an act in the Reformed tradition sounds just about as nit-picky as you accuse the Orthodox of being in regard to veneration and worship. Moreover, when I have attended services in the Reformed tradition, I have been encouraged to bring my Bible, to read along with the pastor preaching, and have had critical verses projected on the screen during the services. Furthermore, I have participated in sponsored corporate Bible studies with people in these traditions where they interact heavily with the text (marking and annotating) during the study. The availability of the Holy Scriptures in print is a critical feature of the worship experience in the Reformed Tradition. If one were to take away the Holy Scriptures from persons in the Reformed Tradition, then the Reformed Tradition would cry foul.
And one does not need to yield an ax to be an iconoclast; indeed simply repeated vocalization of displeasure can be a prime candidate to change another’s behaviors.
To be sure, no Orthodox Christian in their right mind would ask an Evangelical to violate their conscience and venerate an icon in Church if they are uncomfortable doing so. I entreat my friends whenever they visit services to not do anything that makes them uncomfortable, but I do instruct them in the basic practice and meaning of the Sign of the Cross as occasionally they feel so moved to do so in worship.
Yes I know that one of the first things Reformed Christians notice when they attend Orthodox services is that Orthodox Churches have a great deal many more pictures. Indeed, my father who is not a Christian of any stripe actually spent a great deal of time speaking with my priests about Christ because my dad was intrigued by all the pictures. Yet I would also say that Orthodox practice encourages more hearing of the Scriptures. However, I have noticed that most Christians in the Reformed Tradition accuse Orthodox Christians of not being bible literate because Orthodox Christians cannot recite chapter and verse, features that one would only notice if one was reading the text.
I do not seek to judge your heart Mr Benson. I do seek to highlight some areas where your criticism of a tradition that is not your own can be likewise pointed towards one that you are a part of. In no way am I suggesting that Reformed Christians should take the Bible out of their services. I do have hope that they might see the benefit of helping the stories become more real with images rooted in reality.
February 24th, 2010 | 6:13 am | #48
Sadly, you are trying to make uncertainty a virtue. It is not.
February 24th, 2010 | 4:22 pm | #49
I recognize that “in Orthodox Christianity, refusal to venerate icons is not a neutral position, and usage of icons is not optional.” But I do not belong to Orthodox Christianity, so the point of my blog post was to explore whether icon-using Orthodox Christians and icon-abstaining Protestant Christians can (1) hold their differences lightly and (2) demonstrate love toward other for the larger purposes of formation (making disciples) and public engagement (serving the common good). Alison, Dale Coulter, and Holly Ordway give me hope. I am less encouraged by the entrenched postures of Jeff and Anna Lindsey, who seem to think that what is good for the Orthodox must be good for everyone. That is not maintaining unity in the Spirit but striving for uniformity, a goal that is neither desirable nor achievable.
A few points:
1. My decision to abstain from using icons does not dictate that Orthodox Christians should abstain from using icons.
2. To express skepticism about the use of icons is not iconoclasm per se: the breaking or profaning of icons.
3. I have read St. John of Damascus’ apologia for icons and I do not find “all [my] questions answered.”
4. There are auditory and visual dimensions in every ecclesial tradition. As a general observation, there is an auditory priority in the Reformed tradition (hearing the Word) whereas there is a visual priority in the Orthodox tradition (seeing the Word).
February 24th, 2010 | 4:35 pm | #50
Christopher,
I’d offer one small correction/remark on your last statement regarding a visual priority in the Orthodox tradition. That is that it isn’t a “visual” priority, but a sensorial expansion. That is that sight, sound (spoken/chanted/sung), motion/touch (prostration, kneeling, crossing, kissing), smell and taste all are engaged in our worship experience and our seeking God.
February 24th, 2010 | 4:40 pm | #51
Mr. Olson: I welcome your correction. Based on my visits to Orthodox churches, the experience is more than visual: it is tactile, olfactory, and kinetic. By contrast, we Reformed Christians seem motionless, hence the internal joke about “the frozen chosen.”
February 24th, 2010 | 4:56 pm | #52
Mr Benson,
My experience in the Reformed Tradition was that people were quick to deny that I was created in the image and likeness of God and thereby kicked me out of their churches. I work regularly with Protestants, Catholics, and adherents of various faith traditions towards an array of professional ends. I do not expose my Reformed Tradition friends to my faith practices; I wrote my posts to say that perhaps you may indeed have something in common with an Orthodox iconodule from which to advance deeper love and appreciation of your Orthodox brother and sister.
If I erred in posting the homily from St John Maxovitch, then I deeply apologize. It was the first clarification of the word “anathema” that I had heard that was not akin to calling someone who believed differently a heretic, but I understand that the word is sensitive.
I find it important when working with diverse groups of people to identify both regions of overlap to the point of being able to make distinctions in order to grow in love and respect for one another.
But I can appreciate it if you see nothing of the image and likeness of Christ in me. I know I am a sinner without a doubt and that it’s most likely my pride that suggests that you may be able to see any features of Christ in me. You’re in good company amongst the Reformed Christians I know; yet I do try very much to hold fast to the hope that Christ can redeem even the likes of myself, even if that means striving to live a faithful Orthodox life.
February 24th, 2010 | 5:07 pm | #53
Ms. Lindsey: Are you reading the words I’ve actually written or reading into the words? Where do I ever say that “[I] see nothing of the image and likeness of Christ in [you]“? One of my closest friends is an Orthodox Christian. Another close friend may convert to Orthodoxy. I see the image of Christ in both of them. I’m sorry to hear that you were “kicked out” of Reformed churches, but you shouldn’t infer that all Reformed Christians are anti-Orthodox anymore than I shouldn’t infer that all Orthodox Christians are anti-Protestant.
February 24th, 2010 | 6:27 pm | #54
Mr Benson,
You described my position as “entrenched” and that I failed to give you hope in this dialog. As Christ calls us towards a ministry of reconciliation, your assessment of my comments says that Christ is not at work and that I am operating as a sinner. Fair enough.
I was recently received in the Orthodox Church through baptism, but it was not my views on icons that lead me to seek the Orthodox Church. My journey to Christ started in churches variously attached to Reformed Traditions. Yet, it was resolutely denied to me that I could in any way, shape or form participate in the life of Christ to the point where I was disallowed from attending services in my previous churches. Suffice it to say that I did not do anything other than seek pastoral counsel in those churches. As someone who valued the contemporary, I have learned to see the value in the traditional. As someone who valued spontaneity, I have learned to see the value in the ordered. As someone who valued sharing a message with others, I have learned to see the value in silence. As someone who valued a sense of shaping the life of the Church, I have learned to see the value of letting the Church shape me. I could not have come to the Orthodox Church through any door but repentance, but at last I found a community at least willing to journey with me.
And yes, I will always need to repent. Christ’s first call to us is His consistent, faithful call to us: “Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand.” Lord, have mercy on us.
February 24th, 2010 | 6:49 pm | #55
Mr. Benson: I apologize if I went down a rabbit trail and missed the point of your post.
I am a convert to Orthodoxy from a Reformed denomination, so I do understand where you are coming from.
I think the ecumenical desire you expressed is probably not possible. As you probably know, Orthodox Christianity teaches that the Orthodox Church in herself is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which retains the fullness of truth and revelation about God.
We should love all people, and stepping back I can appreciate what you’re doing by saying that you disagree but we’re all still Christians. However, we cannot accept doctrines which we hold to be anathema and say we’re all in the same “invisible church”, as no such thing exists in our view. That would be unloving, and in our view, deceive people into believing less than the truth by our assent to it.
Thus, there is no “unity” to be had outside the Orthodox Church, because there is only one Church. If people want to join the Church we are more than pleased, but aside from that, there is not much to say about finding middle ground or coming to mutual understandings.
That is why uniformity is indeed desirable: there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, and one Church. There must be total harmony in every way, otherwise the body is fighting itself and is cancerous. And of course it is achievable, as our Lord promised to be with us always, as our Head, and we are led by the Holy Spirit into all truth. We take those promises very seriously, and that is why we believe (though individuals may err) the universal witness and teachings of the Church are infallible.
Enough of that rant. What kind of issues did St John not address? Did it make sense what I said, that since Icons are not idols or false gods, they are not prohibited by the Decalogue?
February 24th, 2010 | 7:00 pm | #56
Jeff: “Enough of that rant.”
I suppose if you want to call it a rant, you could.
Personally, I appreciate the honesty. I disagree with you (being a 5-Sola Reform Protestant), but I prefer honest disagreement.
Perry Robinson, another former Protestant turned Orthodox Church member, is another person whose honesty I appreciate.
I find honest disagreements to be more or less helpful, although they do come at a high price, more often than not!!
February 24th, 2010 | 7:30 pm | #57
Jeff: A point of clarification. You said:
You can’t say we’re all in the “invisible church”. Can you say, “We’re still both in the Body of Christ” to someone who rejects the use of icons?
As for this:
I don’t think that is a reasonable prediction.
I’m going to point to something that has become an almost cliched counterexample in the last few years: The Together For the Gospel crowd, which includes people who are united in common understanding of the gospel (the matter of first importance). This, in spite of their differences on matters that are important, but less so–such as infant baptism, spiritual gifts, and church polity. Their unity in the gospel doesn’t mean they don’t bother arguing the other matters; it does not imply relativism; it does not mean they are “assenting” to the other view.
February 24th, 2010 | 9:09 pm | #58
The differences between Orthodox Christians and Protestant Christians go far beyond using icons. It makes no sense to speak of a Protestant Church; even a moniker like the Reformed Tradition does not garner much by way of the theology professed. In particular, there are critical differences between the way the Incarnation is professed between groups, which strikes me as an essential difference as to why it does not make sense to gloss over the differences between the Orthodox theology of the Ikon.
Mr Benson speaks of being of the Reformed Tradition, but under what reformers? Luther for instance held to real Presence of Christ in the Mystical Elements of the Eucharist; Zwingli did not. Most adherents to the Reformed Tradition hold under Zwingli.
If Christ does not show Himself to be in our midst through Holy Ikons, if He does not show Himself to be in our midst through the Eucharist, if He does not show Himself to be in our midst through the Holy Scriptures… then what possibly remains to say that Christ today is still Emmanuel (meaning Christ in our midst)? If nothing says that Christ is in our midst, then what defense is there of the Incarnation?
If I’m splitting hairs over a difference I should hold lightly, then someone please articulate to me why Christ becoming Incarnate is not an essential matter of Christian belief.
February 25th, 2010 | 10:24 am | #59
Jugulum: As the original post by Mr. Benson pointed out, the 7th Ecumenical Council requires Christians to honor Holy Icons. They are inspired sources of divine teaching and revelation, and in our view, to reject icons would be the same as rejecting the Bible.
As to the “Body of Christ”, what is a body? A body is a physical organism, not a mere fellowship of members. Since we are not in communion anyone who rejects icons, we cannot say they are part of the Body of Christ.
We cannot, however, say they are not Christians (“followers of Christ”), and we cannot say they will not be saved. We don’t know what happens to people outside the Church, but God is merciful and at every divine service we pray for the unity and salvation of all men.
To your second point, it would indeed be deceptive. We are not in communion with any Protestant group, and communion is the standard. If we are not in communion, then our dogmatic differences and beliefs about the gospel are so substantial that unity is not possible. To us, it is illogical to say we are guided by the Holy Spirit, but a view mutually-exclusive to ours is just as valid as ours.
Mr. Benson: The Holy Spirit has revealed that the use of Icons is essential to the Christian faith, and all Christians agreed on this point for well over 1000 years until the Reformation. On those grounds alone, to say it is somehow wrong or to not take part, is essentially saying the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church to heresy, and such a thing is not possible.
I am not a bishop so I cannot declare anyone a heretic. Strictly speaking, we cannot call anyone a heretic who is not Orthodox. The Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 declared John Calvin’s teachings heretical.
If I was declared a heretic by Calvinists, I would honestly not care because the Calvinist churches have no bishops and no power to bind and loose. And as I am not in communion with their sacraments, it would not affect me anyway.
In response to Mr. Horton’s points:
The collective revelation to the Church is Holy Tradition. Holy Scripture is the pre-eminent part of Holy Tradition. It also includes the Fathers, Iconography, and the Divine Services. All of these things are in agreement. If a Father is in disagreement with the Scripture on a point, then the Father is wrong.
About Succession, it is a succession of authority, which includes both the man himself and his ministry. This is evident from the Apostolic Fathers’ (some of whom were contemporaries of the Apostles) writings about the bishops.
The problem is that Protestantism is reductionist – if something is not in the Bible, it is prohibited. We disagree, because the Bible was never meant to be a carefully-calibrated scale to weigh the church by. That’s not what it is. The Epistles especially, they are pastoral letters responding to problems in, not exhaustive church manuals. Furthermore, the church existed before there was a New Testament, and from the Apostolic Fathers we can see all of this structure arose under the Apostles’ guidance. But because it’s not in the Bible, it is thrown out by Protestants.
Scripture justifies extracanonical norms because the Church, not the Bible, is the source of authority. The Church gives the Bible teeth, not vice-versa. The Bible does not claim exclusive or exhaustive authority for itself. It only claims authority, and we give it that.
The Holy Spirit guides the Church, thus the Church cannot err. Individual bishops may (and have), but the universal teaching of the Church is infallible. The Church is clear in Biblical interpretation because the Church created the Bible. Why are there conflicting interpretations of the Bible by Protestants if the Bible interpreted itself?
Thus, the Bible is understood in the light of the Church, not vice-versa. Whenever Christ speaks disparagingly on these points, he is speaking of the Jews, not Christians. The Holy Tradition is alive and Spirit-guided, not dead traditions of men like the Jews had.
Christ left us a Church, he did not leave us a book. The Church produced a book later on, but the direct action of Christ was the creation of a Church with bishops who had the authority and “power of attorney” to act on earth in his behalf.
When the Apostles died or moved to another town, they set up a new bishop and passed to him this authority, hence apostolic succession. This is plain from reading the Apostolic Fathers. St Ignatius of Antioch, bishop of Antioch and disciple of the Apostle John, explains this quite clearly in his epistles from around 100 AD. Unless you are prepared to say the Church went into apostasy the moment the Apostles died (like Mormons do), then I don’t see how that works.
There is some diversity in practice, but there is unity in faith. And there is room for opinion on things that are not fully revealed, such as what exactly occurs after death. As far as dogmatic belief, there is unity.
To finish, the Scriptures do overrule the Fathers when they are in conflict. However, the actions of the universal Church are always consistent with the divine revelation in scripture.
February 25th, 2010 | 12:20 pm | #60
Jeff,
Why is a proper view of icons necessary to be a member of the Body of Christ? I thought baptism was the means of becoming a part of the Body. It seems like Orthodoxy is giving with its right and taking with its left. I’ve heard Orthodox folks say that Catholicism goes to far by introducing elements of the Faith that are not consistent with “Always, everywhere, and by all.” I don’t see how the beliefs about icons passes the test.
I’m not saying icons are inconsistent with Scripture, the Church, Tradition, etc. I’m simply saying it sounds strange to say “If you do not believe what the Orthodox believe about icons, you are not a member of the Body of Christ.”
February 25th, 2010 | 12:59 pm | #61
Jeff,
That’s a fascinating claim, regarding “body of Christ” vs “Christians”. It is the first time I have ever heard anyone of any tradition drive a wedge between those terms–that one can be saved through faith in the gospel of Christ, and yet not be in the body of Christ.
I wonder if it is your own idiosyncratic articulation, or a common Orthodox perspective, or an accepted, “official” Orthodox perspective.
We’re talking past each other, then. I said nothing about a mutually-exclusive views being “equally valid”.
Certainly, it is deceptive to say such a thing. But when we speak of “unity”, we do not speak of a unity that denies the importance of the differences that exist, or that the different sides are equally valid. We are saying that it is possible to have meaningful unity with Christian who are mistaken in some things. Unity does not presuppose perfect understanding in all parties.
You may reject that possibility, but do not misunderstand us.
As for the guidance of the Spirit, we also have a different view of what that means, as Christopher Benson just indicated. The Spirit guides the Church of Christ, but does not promise to ensure that all members of his Church are preserved from all error. He keeps us on the secure, well-paved, right path–but He does not prevent our cloaks from ever falling into the dirt to the side.
February 25th, 2010 | 1:54 pm | #62
Mr. Benson:
You are right that we start from completely different places, so it is difficult to find common ground.
And we hold that the decisions of the Councils, by virtue of being the consensus of the Church, were inspired by the Holy Spirit, following in the footsteps of Acts 15. The human-only understanding of the Councils that Protestants hold strike Orthodox as saying the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church to heresy.
And since the Biblical canon was decided at a Council, and the Trinitarian formula, and the Nicene Creed, we consider it cafeteria Christianity to pick and choose what parts of councils we accept as divinely inspired.
If Christ is present when two or three are gathered, surely when all the bishops of the Church come together and come to a consensus on behalf of all Christianity, the Holy Spirit is there?
The Scriptures are the centerpiece of Tradition. But they arose from out of Church Tradition, and the only reason we have the Gospels and Epistles is because Holy Tradition decided they were important. Surely the Apostles wrote many other letters, but none survived.
The Church decided that we needed a canon at all. The Church decided what that canon would consist of, based on the Tradition taught by the bishops.
We do not look diminutively on the Scriptures! Indeed, the Gospel is an Icon of Christ the same way that a painting is, and we venerate it as such. But we do not believe the Scriptures are everything, and we do not believe it was ever intended to be.
Christ left his words with the Apostles, and after several decades they were inspired to record what they saw and heard. (Although, as the end of St John’s Gospel notes, He taught many other things that were not recorded, which also lends itself to Tradition’s influence.) So Christ did not leave us a book, the Church gave us a book, which flowed out of the Holy Tradition that had already begun to take shape.
Considering that all the New Testament writings were not universally available until decades or centuries after the Apostles had departed this life, it is illogical to say that the early Church sat around and studied the New Testament, which is the Protestant model for teaching. Such a thing simply could not exist until at least the 5th century, when the canon was actually decided. What was leading the Church all that time, if there was no Bible to speak of?
It was the Tradition of the Church. As you rightly point out, we are exhorted to follow the teachings of the Church, whether by word (tradition) or epistle (scripture). They are placed side-by-side. They are always consistent. The Divine Services cannot conflict with the Fathers’ consensus, the Scriptures cannot conflict with the Councils. All of it is consistent.
And there is no reason to say that Holy Tradition ceased to be all of those things after the Scriptures became widely available.
We do not say Orthodoxy = Elect. The elect are those who are faithful. Being Orthodox is no guarantee of heaven, and not being Orthodox is no guarantee of hell. Being Orthodox is a guarantee to the grace of the Sacraments, but it is not a guarantee of salvation.
February 25th, 2010 | 2:04 pm | #63
orthodoxdj:
Orthodoxy does not speak to the validity of other Christians’ sacraments. We do not know if they impart that grace or not.
We have a twofold initiation sacrament, Baptism and Chrismation (anointing with oil). For those who were already baptised in the name of the Trinity, their Baptism is retroactively validated in Chrismation. But whether non-Orthodox Baptisms are inherently valid, some think they are, some think they are not, most admit we don’t know for sure.
There are several steps between those two, it is not a direct conclusion.
If you do not share our beliefs about icons, you are not Orthodox. If you are not Orthodox, you are not a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That Church is the Body of Christ, and a physical, not an imaginary, entity.
February 25th, 2010 | 2:26 pm | #64
I see where you’re coming from, and I’m thankful for what you’ve said. After years of study and inquiry I’m starting to be thankful that I have not become Orthodox. That’s not intended as a put down.
February 25th, 2010 | 2:27 pm | #65
Jugulum:
God can save whoever he wants to. We do not pontificate about people’s eternal destination, as a rule. The thief on the cross was saved by a “deathbed” conversion, the people in Hades who were freed by Christ were saved thousands of years after their deaths, meanwhile an Orthodox Christian who is a baptized and participating part of the Body but disregards Christ’s teachings may not be saved.
We have no type of Magisterium which would make such pronouncements of official beliefs. I admit I am more conservative than some on this matter.
You are more likely to simply get the response “We don’t know the state of those outside the Church.” Which is probably safer, and I should probably reconsider taking as hard a line on this as I do. My perspective is not unprecedented however, especially in the Slavic Orthodox Churches this view is more common than in the Byzantine Churches.
Certainly not. St John Chrysostom once said, “The road to Hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, and the bishops are the signposts.”
Individuals certainly may err on occasion. Bishops, despite their special apostolic graces, do err, sometimes many of them, sometimes badly. They are not demigods, they are humans like us. (Which is why we cannot prooftext the Fathers any more than we can prooftext the Bible.)
However, the Church’s universal teaching is inspired and infallible. When the bishops have a consensus, and the laity grants their assent with Axios! (Worthy!), we know that the Holy Spirit has led us to that truth.
February 25th, 2010 | 2:39 pm | #66
orthodoxdj:
If I have caused any offense, forgive me. It is unfortunate that we often learn about each other, especially online, by discussing differences instead of similarities. Orthodoxy is a beautiful faith, but that doesn’t usually come across in theological discussions.
It is helpful to consider it in a pre-denominational mindset. The seeming exclusivity is not meant to be hurtful, any more than Orthodox Christians wanted to hurt or offend Arian or Nestorian lay people. It’s just asserting the truth we believe we have been given, which in today’s world simply isn’t always easy to do without stirring things up.
I hope you are happy wherever you feel you are led.
February 25th, 2010 | 2:54 pm | #67
Jeff: “We do not say Orthodoxy = Elect. The elect are those who are faithful. Being Orthodox is no guarantee of heaven, and not being Orthodox is no guarantee of hell. Being Orthodox is a guarantee to the grace of the Sacraments, but it is not a guarantee of salvation.”
Hi Jeff,
I, more or less, agree with you on this paragraph!
And thanks for your comments on this thread. I don’t agree with much of what you write, but I prefer clarity when agreement is not possible. And you have been very clear on Orthodoxy, and contra Christopher Benson, you have shown that schisms are not and have not been “irrelevant.”
February 25th, 2010 | 3:04 pm | #68
I get what you’re saying about the pre-denominational concept. It makes total sense to me. My problem is that given that neither you nor I created the modern mess we find ourselves in, it’s difficult for me to understand the insensitivity I have found amongst Orthodox folks, some converts, some cradle. I’ve witnessed it first hand as I led a friend of mine to see the concepts of apostolic succession, sacraments, etc., and he ended up checking out the local Orthodox church. He ended up becoming Orthodox, after which he and I have not been nearly as close spiritually, and I often feel looked down upon because he has the truth and I obviously don’t.
Deep down I yearn for one expression of the faith. I year for unity. I tried to build bridges to help people understand each other. I even started a group that meets regularly and it’s called “Mere Christian Fellowship”. I intend to go back into radio (I was in it ten years ago) and I want to have a show called “Mere Christian Radio”. Eventually I hope to own my station. The station will feature Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox speakers and teachers. Although I feel rejected by many in the Orthodox community, I won’t return the rejection. John mark Reynolds is one of my living heroes, as is Frederica Matthews-Green. My patron saint is Saint Patrick. How I long to attend an ancient Celtic church!
I didn’t create all this nonsense, and I don’t think I can fix it all. I’ll keep my eyes on Christ and by His grace I’ll go where He leads.
BTW, I’m Anglican. My “denomination” is in dialogue with OCA, but some Orthodox are radically opposed to the talks.
February 25th, 2010 | 3:06 pm | #69
I do want to say that Jeff is outlining one Orthodox view, although certainly not the only Orthodox view. The concept of sacramental validity is inherently a Western legal concept and it is language borrowed from Rome. Many Orthodox persons do not worry as much about sacramental validity but rather concern themselves with mystical fullness, where the Eucharist contains the mystical fullness. In this sense, Christ Himself in the Eucharist gives us the fullness of Himself. Regarding this particular treatment of the Eucharist Mystery of the Church, it is clear that many Protestants hold to a vastly different theology.
Even building on the Western formal understanding of sacramental validity, the chain goes like this:
If valid apostolic succession –> valid Mysteries
with its appropriate contrapositive being
If no valid Mysteries –> no valid apostolic succession
However, “valid Mysteries” and “no valid apostolic succession” are necessary clauses, not sufficient. If the sufficient clause is not met, then one cannot make a claim regarding the necessary clause. Orthodox bishops, who comprise the first clause within the Orthodox Church, can make claims regarding the Holy Mysteries (which are to be received in obedience after a determination has been made).
Personally, I prefer the famous quote of Florovsky that as Orthodox Christians: we know where the Church is but we do not know where She is not. (Full paper called “Limits of the Church” available at: http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/florovskys-limits-of-the-church/ ) Orthodox Christians confess that the Holy Spirit is everywhere present and filling all things alongside of a belief that all humankind is shaped in the image of God. Who knows what God is up to as He seeks to call all unto Himself through Christ?
Regarding salvation: I try to conduct myself according to St Anthony the Great when asked who will be saved. He replied “All men except for me; I alone will perish.” If anything is essential for anyone’s salvation, then I pray that God in His mercy will show that person what must happen. In terms of particulars, I am very aware of how very short I fall on any given day. Until I remove the plank from my own eye, I have little business helping someone else with their speck. Salvation in the Orthodox Church is not understood to be accomplished in one prayer; for a more eloquent view on this issue, Fr Stephen Freeman has quite a bit to offer at http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/the-slow-work-of-grace/ .
I would still appreciate someone from the Reformed Tradition offering something that speaks to how the Reformed Tradition upholds the Incarnation.
February 25th, 2010 | 3:07 pm | #70
OrthodoxDJ,
What Anglican denomination would that be? ACNA? If so, what part of ACNA?
February 25th, 2010 | 3:22 pm | #71
Yes, ACNA. I didn’t know there were other parts to it.
February 25th, 2010 | 3:41 pm | #72
I mean like REC, AMiA, etc… all coming together to form ACNA.
February 25th, 2010 | 4:53 pm | #73
Honestly, I don’t know. It was part of a liberal Episcopal body, then it broke away with and was realigned under and African bishop, then ultimately ACNA. I’ve been Anglican for only a year and a half. I really like it. I considered seminary for a while, but I believe my calling is in radio.
February 25th, 2010 | 5:01 pm | #74
Anna,
First off, beautiful name.
Second, your words give me hope. If I were to become Orthodox, I would not cease to hold to my conviction now, namely that there are many good Christians who are not Orthodox. That does not mean the Orthodox question is irrelevant; it just means God is good.
February 26th, 2010 | 8:07 am | #75
Mr Benson,
I was hoping for evidence from the corporate life as experienced by persons in the Reformed Tradition. Academic arguments can, by definition, defend falsehood and, equally by definition, are always in process.
Holy Ikons, the Gospel, and the Eucharist are all images of Christ in our midst in the Orthodox Church. We also regularly profess the Nicene Creed during prayer; the way we place our hand for the Sign of the Cross also points to the incarnate reality of Christ.
Forgive the reframing of the question, but I realized I asked it poorly. What evidence appears in the corporate life of a congregation within the Reformed Tradition to teach and uphold the reality of the Incarnation to the people gathered?
Thank you.
February 26th, 2010 | 11:00 am | #76
Mr Benson,
In taking your reading suggestions seriously, I investigated the first chapter you referenced. After reading the chapter you referenced, I am curious how does debating whether we should value Christ’s divinity more than His humanity (or vice versa), speculating on whether we can fully rationally understand the Incarnation, or questioning Jesus’ maleness using our studies of anthropology uphold the Mystery of the Incarnation?
February 26th, 2010 | 11:16 am | #77
Anna,
I think you make a great point. God does not simply want use to theorize and debate. He wants us to participate in Him.
February 26th, 2010 | 2:11 pm | #78
orthodoxdj:
Bishop Mark of Toledo had a very good sermon on the Sunday of Orthodoxy that talks about that very thing: http://audio.ancientfaith.com/houston/hca_2010-02-21a.mp3
In my zeal I may have lost sight of that point.
February 26th, 2010 | 2:22 pm | #79
Jeff,
In my early days as a Christian I, too, was more zealous to “prove” Christianity than to actually be like Christ. Even saying be like Christ doesn’t capture what we are intended to be. We are to be caught up in the life of God through the means He has determined. He’s not authoritarian for its own sake. He tells us what we NEED to hear, and He gives us what we NEED to receive. Many of the debates, battles over what passages mean, battles over “inerrancy”, fights about faith vs. works (which sound to me like the old beer commercial: “tastes great!”, “less filling!”), are often red herrings. Christ is infinitely more majestic and wonderful than much of the crap that we often call Christianity.
February 26th, 2010 | 2:25 pm | #80
As is this. http://audio.ancientfaith.com/houston/hca_2010-02-21b.mp3
February 26th, 2010 | 2:25 pm | #81
Good points, dj. Things to think about.
February 26th, 2010 | 2:27 pm | #82
[...] Sanders Justin Taylor Gayle Trotter Frank Turk David Wayne Jared C. Wilson Recent Comments Sunday of Orthodoxy: Or, When Schisms Are Functionally Irrelevant (94)Jeff: Good points, dj. Things to think about. Sunday of Orthodoxy: Or, When Schisms Are Functionally [...]
February 26th, 2010 | 3:17 pm | #83
After reading the chapter I do not think the Reformed Tradition is talking about the same Christ as the Orthodox Church. The chapter speaks about building on the first 4 ecumenical councils, but I know that such gatherings have no authority in the Reformed Tradition. I think the contemporary “challenges” as it were outline a very difference sense of Christ where it is essentially the individual’s job to figure Christ out. I do not see any sense of revealed corporate consciousness around *one* Christ, but rather a tendency towards a particular view or idea of some element of Christ that a person particularly gravitates towards.
Now, does that mean that the person of Jesus Christ is not active in the lives of some adherents of the Reformed Tradition? Certainly no. But the Christology of the Reformed Tradition seems to be a land where anything goes if it can be rationally articulated without any sense of rule or measure that can be judged in a non-academic context.
Also I am distressed at the divorce between the person of Christ and the Virgin Mary (particularly as regards the discussion of the 3rd ecumenical council, and even from the point of view of the Nicene Creed or the gospels). I also do not see how the person of Christ described in the chapter relates to the Christ revealed in the Gospels; I find it of great concern that anthropology can shed insight into the humanity of Christ, but that the Gospels are not clearly accepted as authority.
February 26th, 2010 | 11:54 pm | #84
Mr Benson,
Again, my principle question has been ignored. The principle question is: What evidence appears in the corporate life of a congregation within the Reformed Tradition to teach and uphold the reality of the Incarnation to the people gathered?
Please, if there is no evidence that appears in a corporate life of a congregation, then say that it does not exist. If the only evidence given to people is an intellectually constructed perspective where people can pick and choose their Christ, then that is incredibly distressing.
February 27th, 2010 | 12:51 am | #85
“To say that the Incarnation legitimizes icons is either to say that God’s nature changed when he became a man and thus is now depictable. Or it is to say that God became depictable as a man but remained undepictable as God.”
This false dichotomy can be put to rest by reading any of the scholarly works on icons currently available, or by consulting the early iconodule writers such as St. John Damascene and St. Theodore the Studite. The reason that the Orthodox (and by extension the Catholics) insist on veneration of icons is that iconoclasm invariably sells the Incarnation short, and this does affect Christology. The late Reformed writer/theologian David Chilton once said that no matter what you may think of veneration of icons per se, you can’t argue that it’s the iconodules, not the iconoclasts, who got their Christology right (pace the quote by William Baldwin in the article).
Hence, Orthodoxy insists on icons because of Christology.
February 27th, 2010 | 9:42 pm | #86
I would suggest that the evidence that appears in the corporate life of a congregation within the Reformed Tradition to teach and uphold the reality of the Incarnation to the people gathered is the Word preached.
The reality of the Incarnation is that Christ was incarnated for the sole purpose of dying in the place of, and rising for the justification of, His church, from thenceforth to sit at the right hand of The Majesty in Heaven and intercede on behalf of His church.
The Word preached reminds us again and again of what Christ did and does, and why that matters, and as the Word is preached, the Holy Spirit quickens it to our lives and changes us more and more into His image.
What else does one need as a reminder of the Incarnation? I mean, baptism and Communion also act as reminders but I think that sacramental churches take those things much farther than what I see in Scripture.
It seems to me that needing or looking for some further way to find “the Incarnate Christ” borders on idolatry.
Unless I’m totally missing what is meant by “the reality of the Incarnation”, which, as Chris pointed out earlier, could be a vocabulary issue.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact