God will continue to chastise Christians who venerate icons...Douglas Wilson WOW!

[Rosie_0801]

I was talking to you but apparently there's a brick wall in the way. And I'm equally bored with it. So alrighty then.

 

Yes, the brick wall is made of "No, I didn't say that. No, I didn't say that either. I wonder why she keeps speaking as though I said that when I didn't." 

 

 

:cheers2:

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

Mostly though, what I think is irrelevant, because this is phase two in the 'let's get albeto' wars. People are suggesting albeto worships science and want to have a 'gotcha' moment over it.

No, this is about phase seven in the 'let's shut down all Christian conversation' campaign.  

[JenniferB]

Isn't Wilson a Christian?

 

Yes, that's the point of the question, or so I thought.  Wilson is a Christian, so how do we other (Christians) know he's wrong since he's presumably following the Holy Spirit and the Bible, etc.?  I answered by saying that we, Orthodox Christians, know because Wilson has made statements contrary to historical practice, councils, cannons, and the basic beliefs of the first 1,000 years of united, ecumenical Christianity, meaning that the practice of veneration of icons was acceptable to Christians of East and West, continuously and holistically through history.  He is wrong because he has stated an innovation, meaning a new invention to the faith that is not accepted by the councils of Bishops.

[JenniferB]

I'm curious about voting this thread 1 star.  Is it the tone, the way it went off course, the subject, DW and his antics?  I would agree that it's not a great thread, but 1 star?  We have some pretty good conversation going about an interesting topic.  Just curious...

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yes, that's the point of the question, or so I thought.  Wilson is a Christian, so how do we other (Christians) know he's wrong since he's presumably following the Holy Spirit and the Bible, etc.?  I answered by saying that we, Orthodox Christians, know because Wilson has made statements contrary to historical practice, councils, cannons, and the basic beliefs of the first 1,000 years of united, ecumenical Christianity, meaning that the practice of veneration of icons was acceptable to Christians of East and West, continuously and holistically through history.  He is wrong because he has stated an innovation, meaning a new invention to the faith that is not accepted by the councils of Bishops.

 

Except you said "we Christians" when I believe you actually meant Eastern Orthodox Christians.  There are Christian denominations that don't believe that what some decided previously is correct.  Which I think is albeto's point - you keep coming back to "X said Y in the past therefore everyone else is wrong" which is not a compelling argument to anyone who does not believe X gets the final say.

[Guest]

One star: that was me. I was learning to usemynew pen pad and I goofed up. I can't fix it, but it was totally a mistake of my physical coordination. I'm sorry!!!!

 

FWIW, I don't think I've ever rated a conversation.

[speedmom4]

Interesting timing. I just came home from my parish's weekly Novena Mass where we venerate the icon of Our Mother of Perpetual Help.

 

Is DW's view a commonly held one among Reformed Christians regarding icon veneration?

 

Thanks!

[JenniferB]

Except you said "we Christians" when I believe you actually meant Eastern Orthodox Christians. There are Christian denominations that don't believe that what some decided previously is correct. Which I think is albeto's point - you keep coming back to "X said Y in the past therefore everyone else is wrong" which is not a compelling argument to anyone who does not believe X gets the final say.

No, I said "we Christians" to refer to the question and "we Orthodox" to refer to my answer. I answered with my/Orthodox method, which won't be the same as other methods Which I stated from the beginning that I realize.

 

I would be happy to hear how other Christians come to the conclusion that Wilson is either a) wrong or b) not wrong. I can't answer for other methods of discerning truth I can only answer for my method of discerning truth I am extremely interested in hearing other methods this fascinates me. This is precisely the reason I thought it was a good question to begin with. I thought we would be hearing and reading about different methods of why Doug Wilson is either right or wrong.

[EmseB]

Interesting timing. I just came home from my parish's weekly Novena Mass where we venerate the icon of Our Mother of Perpetual Help.

 

Is DW's view a commonly held one among Reformed Christians regarding icon veneration?

 

Thanks!

Yes. I would say protestants in general, but I'm sure someone will come along to correct me on that one.

 

Eta: I know quite a few people who are very strict about the "no graven images" commandment. No books or children's bibles with pictures of Jesus, no nativity sets, etc.

[mommaduck]

Yes. I would say protestants in general, but I'm sure someone will come along to correct me on that one.

 

Eta: I know quite a few people who are very strict about the "no graven images" commandment. No books or children's bibles with pictures of Jesus, no nativity sets, etc.

So much so, that when we had to live with Baptist friends, I was not allowed to bring any icons into the house, not even in a room that had been designated for my family's use...possible some belief that they were possessed or of demonic nature. I'm surprised I was allowed my Bible (that has iconography in it). I sat out on the cold porch with my prayer rope to pray instead.

[Carol in Cal.]

Lutherans hold to the historic ordering of the 10 commandments that subsumes the 'graven images' line under 'Thou shalt have no other gods before Me' and interprets it, as the historic Church does, as objecting to the manufacture and worship of idols as opposed to a simple issue of representation.  Our older churches are quite ornate.  The stained glass windows in the church in which I grew up were gorgeous and very representational.  Before I could read, I stared at them and thought about them.  There are some liturgical chants that when I hear them the windows still pop into my mind to this day, despite not having seen them IRL for almost 20 years.

[8circles]

Yes. I would say protestants in general, but I'm sure someone will come along to correct me on that one.

 

Eta: I know quite a few people who are very strict about the "no graven images" commandment. No books or children's bibles with pictures of Jesus, no nativity sets, etc.

I disagree. I don't personally venerate icons and do not agree with the Orthodox Church regarding icons in general. But I don't agree with DW's opinion on this in any way. Not even a bit. My opinion is not rare among other xians in my protestant circle.

[EmseB]

So much so, that when we had to live with Baptist friends, I was not allowed to bring any icons into the house, not even in a room that had been designated for my family's use...possible some belief that they were possessed or of demonic nature. I'm surprised I was allowed my Bible (that has iconography in it). I sat out on the cold porch with my prayer rope to pray instead.

No, there's not to my knowledge any concern about demons or possession among mainstream denominations. They believe the bible says not to make them or pray to them.

[EmseB]

I disagree. I don't personally venerate icons and do not agree with the Orthodox Church regarding icons in general. But I don't agree with DW's opinion on this in any way. Not even a bit. My opinion is not rare among other xians in my protestant circle.

Ah, I misinterpreted the question then. I thought it was more generally about not venerating icons. So I was trying to say I don't think DW's view on the "why not" of icon veneration is unorthodox (lowercase "o") among protestant theologians our those who have studied why we don't practice it.

[EmseB]

Lutherans hold to the historic ordering of the 10 commandments that subsumes the 'graven images' line under 'Thou shalt have no other gods before Me'

Wouldn't that mean there's technically only 9 commandments then?

[JenniferB]

Wouldn't that mean there's technically only 9 commandments then?

No, "graven image", is the KJV translation and doesn't give the whole picture / idea. The more correct English translation is "Thou shalt not make to yourself an idol." The Greek word "eidolon" means idol. The word "idolatry" comes from "eidolon." Icons are not idols. In ancient times the problem that the commandment corrected was the practice of idol worship which included the belief that the idol itself was a god and the worship of it. The commandment was to correct this practice and eliminate it from the Hebrew people because it was a problem.

[Guest]

Graven images can be objects of idolatry, but they do no have to be. That is one of my beefs with the Wilson claim. I disagree with the practice of iconography generally, but you are correct in your translation and interpretation of it. Idols and icons are not exactly the same - but there can definitely be crossover and that is what one must guard their heart against, as with all idolatry :)

[JenniferB]

Idolatry is the worship of an idol or a physical object as a representation of a god.

 

So, unless one believes the icon itself is a god, it's not idolatry.

 

Idolatry is not subjective. One would either believe that the icon was a god (God forbid), or not. In Orthodoxy I have not met anyone who thinks the icon is a god.

[Guest]

No, my contention is that we can easily elevate an image of God to idolatrous levels, as with anything. An icon can become an idol to one who treats it as such. That has been an issue in multiple religions. An idol can be our own free agency and self importance, power, praise, objects such as food or wealth, station, a job - anything that we would sin to acquire or place in the station God has reserved for himself. If our conception of Jesus is defined by an image or description of him other than the one he has given himself in Holy scripture, it's treading the line. Some (I'd argue, based on scripture) plainly cross over it in activities such as veneration and pilgrimage.

 

But where I disagree with trolls like Wilson is that an icon automatically means idolatrous worship. That is going way too far. If we are not aware of the pitfall, however, it can make it difficult to avoid. Most idolatry isn't overt or even intentional, but as with much sin it is creeping and insidious until it has us fully trapped and not realizing how far we have let it go.

 

I'm adamantly not EO, so I'd expect we disagree on this. But I think one can disagree on iconography and idolatry without jumping the shark and declaring everyone else a heretic responsible for the ruination of millions of lives across multiple countries and centures (as with Wilson).

[EmseB]

Hmm..I don't think a lot of people believe(d) their home idols are gods, rather that they represent(ed) gods who acted in the world. Baal worshippers had little idols to represent baal, but they didn't think the idols *were* baal. That's the whole point; they believed their gods could be represented as little things and prayed to or worshipped in that way.

 

Idolatry can be used in a general sense where seeking anything (money, comfort, etc) above the glory of God is considered idolatry (you shall have no other gods before me). It doesn't have to come in the form of making a golden calf and dancing around it, specifically.

 

And I agree that representation is a different thing than idolatry, which is different from veneration, but again, "no graven images" taken as meaning no representation isn't a view that is so far out there that no one believes it. I was in a mainline denomination where people absolutely loved the idea of the Jesus story bible, but would not use it because of cartoon Jesus. And, just like any other commandment, they do believe God judges those who break them. Not that there isn't redemption for those who would repent and ask forgiveness, but they viewed it on par with breaking any other of the 10.

[EmseB]

No, my contention is that we can easily elevate an image of God to idolatrous levels, as with anything. An icon can become an idol to one who treats it as such. That has been an issue in multiple religions. An idol can be our own free agency and self importance, power, praise, objects such as food or wealth, station, a job - anything that we would sin to acquire or place in the station God has reserved for himself. If our conception of Jesus is defined by an image or description of him other than the one he has given himself in Holy scripture, it's treading the line. Some (I'd argue, based on scripture) plainly cross over it in activities such as veneration and pilgrimage.

 

But where I disagree with trolls like Wilson is that an icon automatically means idolatrous worship. That is going way too far. If we are not aware of the pitfall, however, it can make it difficult to avoid. Most idolatry isn't overt or even intentional, but as with much sin it is creeping and insidious until it has us fully trapped and not realizing how far we have let it go.

 

I'm adamantly not EO, so I'd expect we disagree on this. But I think one can disagree on iconography and idolatry without jumping the shark and declaring everyone else a heretic responsible for the ruination of millions of lives across multiple countries and centures (as with Wilson).

I think, though, in most reformed denominations and most protestant denominations iconography and idolatry are considered heretical views. (Heretical meaning unorthodox or incompatible with joining and/or leading the church) Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

[Guest]

I've been in those denominations my whole life. Most don't consider an image of Jesus to be inherently sinful - the creation of an image isn't sin. It is imbuing it with qualities reserved for God or using it in worship activities like prayer that is an issue.

 

For most, a felt board baby Jesus cutout for Sunday school or a book telling the story of Easter with a drawing of Jesus and any of the disciples isn't sinful. Neither is a crucifix necklace. But focusing these in the ritual of worship at all is a problem. I've spent my life in Southern Baptist and Non-Denom Bible Churches, all of a reformed flavor. We generally eschew depictions of Jesus except in things like a Christmas cantata or bible lesson. But except for certain (I'd argue legalistic) groups like many KJ-onlyism churches, there is no outright prohibition of an image of Jesus used in teaching or decoration.

 

To avoid the pitfalls of idolatry many tread lightly, but in and of itself a graven image isn't sin. That's going beyond what is written when you break it down.

[EmseB]

No, "graven image", is the KJV translation and doesn't give the whole picture / idea. The more correct English translation is "Thou shalt not make to yourself an idol." The Greek word "eidolon" means idol. The word "idolatry" comes from "eidolon." Icons are not idols. In ancient times the problem that the commandment corrected was the practice of idol worship which included the belief that the idol itself was a god and the worship of it. The commandment was to correct this practice and eliminate it from the Hebrew people because it was a problem.

I guess I'm still not understanding why it would be ok to make a graven image of God then? And historically idols are representations, as far as I've studied. Until this thread I've never heard of the physical idol actually believed as *being* the god itself. I don't think it would be an idol if it was the god itself, in terms of the actual definition of the word. I guess I learn something new everyday.

[Guest]

We cant make an image of God the Father or if the Holy Spirit We can make an image of Christ because Gr took on material flesh and indeed is seated at the right hand if the Father bearing human flesh. What has been made manifest can be represented in icons.

[EmseB]

I've been in those denominations my whole life. Most don't consider an image of Jesus to be inherently sinful - the creation of an image isn't sin. It is imbuing it with qualities reserved for God or using it in worship activities like prayer that is an issue.

 

For most, a felt board baby Jesus cutout for Sunday school or a book telling the story of Easter with a drawing of Jesus and any of the disciples isn't sinful. Neither is a crucifix necklace. But focusing these in the ritual of worship at all is a problem. I've spent my life in Southern Baptist and Non-Denom Bible Churches, all of a reformed flavor. We generally eschew depictions of Jesus except in things like a Christmas cantata or bible lesson. But except for certain (I'd argue legalistic) groups like many KJ-onlyism churches, there is no outright prohibition of an image of Jesus used in teaching or decoration.

 

To avoid the pitfalls of idolatry many tread lightly, but in and of itself a graven image isn't sin. That's going beyond what is written when you break it down.

I disagree simply because I've known people who are not legalistic in the least (unless you consider adhering to the 10 commandments legalistic) and aren't in KJ-only churches who do think that making any graven image of God is prohibited biblically. However, these are individuals and this is in reference to representation. It's not a denominational stance in any of them that representation is a sin. I don't think that is what DW was referring to.

 

BUT, veneration is going beyond representation, IMO, add that is what is considered a heretical view by the denomination(s) and at the very least incompatible with membership. I can think of some very big denominations that would say veneration is judged by God and that's why (among other reasons) it isn't practiced. I just don't think DW is alone in that view.

[EmseB]

We cant make an image of God the Father or if the Holy Spirit We can make an image of Christ because Gr took on material flesh and indeed is seated at the right hand if the Father bearing human flesh. What has been made manifest can be represented in icons.

I don't think the issue is with showing Jesus as man in a picture. It's recognizing that he is also fully God and that can't be depicted. At least that is how it has been explained to me from someone who does not use images of God in any form. But maybe you have some verses I could read about this aspect? I'd be interested in studying more.

[Guest]

Well, I didn't say it was only those churches, but a visual depiction doesn't have to equal veneration. I agree with you, that is where I draw the line and all my brethren in these congregations agree. An image isn't inherently idolatrous, but what one does with the image can be. That much is plainly true. Idolatry is an issue of heart first and foremost - and the graven images argument can be contested from the original languages and context. Jennifer was bang on in that.

 

I'd say we agree 95% on this. But I've never been convicted that pictures of Jesus on the cross or preaching outside the Sea of Galilee is crossing into worship and veneration by their very nature. We may agree to disagree on this.

[Guest]

I don't think the issue is with showing Jesus as man in a picture. It's recognizing that he is also fully God and that can't be depicted. At least that is how it has been explained to me from someone who does not use images of God in any form. But maybe you have some verses I could read about this aspect? I'd be interested in studying more.

Something that is interesting to me is that the first people's were convinced that Christ was divine but not human. The exact opposite of the discussion of modern times.

 

I will do a little research to answer your question as you asked it, but if you want to start poking around, you can google 7th Ecumenical Council and or St. John of Damascus.

 

My phone is low on juice and I'm not near my charger, but I will get after this tomorrow.

 

:0)

 

 

Or someone else can pipe up.

 

ETA the Wikipedia article on 7th Ecumenical Council does not stink. :0)

[EmseB]

Well, I didn't say it was only those churches, but a visual depiction doesn't have to equal veneration. I agree with you, that is where I draw the line and all my brethren in these congregations agree. An image isn't inherently idolatrous, but what one does with the image can be. That much is plainly true. Idolatry is an issue of heart first and foremost - and the graven images argument can be contested from the original languages and context. Jennifer was bang on in that.

 

I'd say we agree 95% on this. But I've never been convicted that pictures of Jesus on the cross or preaching outside the Sea of Galilee is crossing into worship and veneration by their very nature. We may agree to disagree on this.

 

No, I think we're just talking past each other.  I'm not being clear.  I agree 100% with the bolded.  The people I know who reject representation in all forms aren't basing it on the idea that it is necessarily because of idolotry/veneration/idol worship.  They simply think God said not to make graven images of Him.  So they don't, and they don't use teaching materials that do.  They don't think the people making the felt Jesus depictions are using them for idol worship; that isn't the basis of their objection.  (I'm trying to type it different ways to be more clear, probably not succeeding).  The person I was closest to, whom I had the most conversation about this issue, was not somehow thinking that I was worshiping the baby Jesus in our creche at Christmas, he just believe God said "don't make an image of me" and so he didn't.

 

DW (in that blog post, I'm not sure about any of his other writings) was specifically talking about "praying to paintings" which any denomination I've been a part of (reformed or not) rejects as veneration, and rejects veneration itself as heretical and something God does judge people for.  But it's a separate issue from representation; as I've been a part of churches who hold that position (veneration is heretical) but they looove cartoon Jesus in Sunday school and elsewhere.

[JenniferB]

I guess I'm still not understanding why it would be ok to make a graven image of God then? And historically idols are representations, as far as I've studied. Until this thread I've never heard of the physical idol actually believed as *being* the god itself. I don't think it would be an idol if it was the god itself, in terms of the actual definition of the word. I guess I learn something new everyday.

The problem that the commandment corrected was not in eliminating images in the place of worship and prayer, because God instructed the Hebrews to include images on the tapestries inside the Tabernacle and golden cherubim in the most holy place.

 

From what I've read / studied, idolatry would include a belief that the deity was somehow inside or possessing or attached to the idol, not a mere representation but worthy of worship somehow. I am open to correction though.

 

I am studying ancient cultures and I'm fascinated to learn more about their practices, so please share if you have resources.

[JenniferB]

I guess I'm still not understanding why it would be ok to make a graven image of God then?

I answered that above. "Graven" image is a poor translation. The Greek word means "idol." A better English translation would be, "thou shalt not make for yourself an *idol*."

 

Orthodox Christians don't make idols.

[Carol in Cal.]

Wouldn't that mean there's technically only 9 commandments then?

Good question, nope, the historic ordering then splits the coveting commandments into two.

[Carol in Cal.]

Remember the story of Aaron while Moses was receiving the 10 commandments?

Everyone thinks Moses is dead--he went up onto the volcano, there has been a lot of volcanic activity, and it's been over a month since he left.  The children of Israel are now stranded in the desert with no leader.  So they go to his brother/spokesperson, and demand a new god.  He tells them to bring him their gold (the Egyptians had given them that kind of wealth to get them to leave the country after the 10th plague) and they do so.  He forms a golden calf with it.  Then he says, and this is significant:  "These are your gods, oh Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!"  

 

Not, here is a representation.  But 'these are your gods'.  (I have no idea why it's plural, but those are the exact words.)

 

So although scholarship during the last 50 years or so has concluded that, for instance, Baal is an invisible being that rode on the idolatrous calves of the Canaanites, that is not the understanding that the ancient Israelites appear to have had, and I'm not sure that the evidence that they were wrong is completely conclusive.  

 

There are similar examples all through the Old Testament.

 

Deuteronomy 4 is a long, elaborate example of this point of view.

[Mrs. A]

Venerating icons simply means treating them with great respect and care. We care for them because of what they show us. It's not really appropriate to equate that with worship. The Israelites certainly venerated the Ark and the things in it, so clearly veneration of sacred objects was not prohibited in any way. 

[Guest]

The ark was given by God for that specific purpose, to the priesthood. That is a whole different ball of wax than a statuette or rosary.

 

But really, that's a side debate and one I won't enter on here. As I said, I'm unwilling to call everyone a heretic who creates an image of God (any part of the trinity in some representation) because I don't equate that directly with idolatry, even though it can be. The New Testament makes it fairly clear that idolatry is a sin of wrong/misdirected worship and by defining it so narrowly we miss the real sin issues in our *own* lives relating to it.

[EmseB]

Venerating icons simply means treating them with great respect and care. We care for them because of what they show us. It's not really appropriate to equate that with worship. The Israelites certainly venerated the Ark and the things in it, so clearly veneration of sacred objects was not prohibited in any way. 

 

I don't know if this is really a compelling example.  I mean, the Israelites did a lot of things in their worship that we no longer do, blood sacrifice being the big one.  Not only do we no longer perform those rituals, but they are also considered prohibited (mainly because of Christ's completed work).

 

The things in the Ark of the Covenant were sacred because they were directly made by God Himself, right?  And the Ark was designed and dictated to Moses by God Himself.  I can definitely understand venerating something like that at the direct command of God, but I don't think there's anything similar on the earth today.

[EmseB]

The ark was given by God for that specific purpose, to the priesthood. That is a whole different ball of wax than a statuette or rosary.

 

But really, that's a side debate and one I won't enter on here. As I said, I'm unwilling to call everyone a heretic who creates an image of God (any part of the trinity in some representation) because I don't equate that directly with idolatry, even though it can be. The New Testament makes it fairly clear that idolatry is a sin of wrong/misdirected worship and by defining it so narrowly we miss the real sin issues in our *own* lives relating to it.

 

Can I ask...who are you referring to that is making this argument?  I admittedly skimmed through some of the thread, but I haven't seen it anywhere.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

The things in the Ark of the Covenant were sacred because they were directly made by God Himself, right?  

No, the stone tablets of the 10 commandments were made by Moses.  The ones that were made directly by God were broken when Moses threw them down in dismay/fury at apostasy after his 40 day sojourn on Mount Sinai.

 

And Aaron's staff was not made by God, although God did make it flower.

[December]

Does this vary between Orthodox groups? Because I've seen icons with all three persons of the Trinity.

 

Yes, you will see Orthodox icons with God the Father in it.  From what I understand that is something that is due to Catholic influence, but it is not actually approved of by any Orthodox groups.  There is a Greek Orthodox church in my hometown that depicts God the Father up on the iconostasis (the wall up at the front of the church) .  When I asked the priest about it, he admitted that it was not right, but it was made back in the early twentieth century by Greek immigrants that had been influenced by Catholic styles of paintings and removing the icon now would cause too much controversy because it had been there for decades and the descendants of the man who made it were still going to that church. 

[EmseB]

No, the stone tablets of the 10 commandments were made by Moses.  The ones that were made directly by God were broken when Moses threw them down in dismay/fury at apostasy after his 40 day sojourn on Mount Sinai.

 

And Aaron's staff was not made by God, although God did make it flower.

 

a) I should have been more precise in my language, but I guess I was thinking that they were all things that God "touched" in some way or directly had interaction with.

 

but b) I always thought God wrote the 2nd set of tablets too.  I guess I will read some Exodus later today!

 

Either way, I don't think we have anything like those objects today.

[Carol in Cal.]

a) I should have been more precise in my language, but I guess I was thinking that they were all things that God "touched" in some way or directly had interaction with.

 

but b) I always thought God wrote the 2nd set of tablets too.  I guess I will read some Exodus later today!

 

Either way, I don't think we have anything like those objects today.

B)  It's in Exodus 34, and admittedly a bit obscure

 

A)  No worries.  But if you read about the Ark, it has images right on it.  From Exodus 25:  " 18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. 19 Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends.20 The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover."

 

Also, just in general, the Ark was uniquely the place where God chose to interact with His representatives to and from the people.  It ended up at rest in Jerusalem and was installed into the Holy Temple once it was built.  So identified was the faith with the Temple that Psalm 137 asks, "How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?"  But it was clear that the Ark, though set apart and inherently somewhat powerful, was only the seat of God, the place at which He chose to be with His people, not God Himself.  

 

That distinction is clearly made, over and over, despite the distinction not being made for idol worship--so this culture was familiar with it.  I find that very interesting in light of modern scholarship that assumes that the Bible was incorrect in portraying Baal as identical with the golden calves, for instance; and, incorrect out of conceptual ignorance, which is clearly not the case.

[Mrs. A]

a) I should have been more precise in my language, but I guess I was thinking that they were all things that God "touched" in some way or directly had interaction with.

 

but b) I always thought God wrote the 2nd set of tablets too. I guess I will read some Exodus later today!

 

Either way, I don't think we have anything like those objects today.

EO would disagree with you there. We have many many accounts of wonder- working icons and they are still very much in existence today, but that's probably for another thread. :)

 

ETA: Just editing to clarify that miracle working is not the reason that we venerate icons- I was just pointing out that there are definitely still physical objects which are touched by God.

[milovany]

I don't know if this is really a compelling example.  I mean, the Israelites did a lot of things in their worship that we no longer do....

 

But there's a lot -- a lot -- that we do still do/utilize from ancient OT Jewish worship (speaking from the Orthodox perspective, since that's the context of this post).  For example, having a building set apart for the purpose of meeting there communally for worship, utilizing a similar form of liturgical service, using candles and incense in our prayers, reading from the Scriptures during services, praying litanies and confessions during the services, using oral tradition in passing down stories through the generations, having a yearly cycle of feasts to participate in, the wearing of vestments by the priesthood, etc.  Yes, some things were no longer necessary (like blood sacrifice) in the early Christian church, but God never calls us to delete/deny our ancient OT heritage and some of it has remained part of Christian worship for 2000 years.  [Good book on this topic.] 

---

Re: Iconography:

 

From an article called "Holy Icons" here: "The Orthodox Church, then, created a new art, new in form and content, which uses images and forms drawn from the material world to transmit the revelation of the divine world, making the divine accessible to human understanding and contemplation. This art developed side by side with the Divine Services and, like the Services, expresses the teaching of the Church in conformity with the word of Holy Scripture..."

 

And from an article called "Do Icons Really Matter?" here: "Perhaps the greatest reality that the icons of Christ and His saints bring to me is to say boldly and clearly in graphic form, “Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us†(Heb. 12:1). The icons tell us that the heavenly stadium is filled, and that those witnesses have us surrounded! For worship is a procession to the throne of God. It is we on earth who join the saints and angels in paying homage to the Triune God. They do not join our procession so much as we enter into theirs. For it is we who come “to the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly (or festal gathering) and Church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the Spirits of righteous men made perfect to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant..."

[milovany]

.... by defining it so narrowly we miss the real sin issues in our *own* lives relating to it.

 

 

I haven't found this to be true at all.  I've became more aware of the sin in my own heart and life since iconography (among other things) became a part of my worship.  The entire package of Orthodoxy brings a focus to myself and my sin that I'd never experienced before.  Lord have mercy on me, a sinner. 

 

[albeto.]

No, I said "we Christians" to refer to the question and "we Orthodox" to refer to my answer. I answered with my/Orthodox method, which won't be the same as other methods Which I stated from the beginning that I realize.

 

I would be happy to hear how other Christians come to the conclusion that Wilson is either a) wrong or b) not wrong. I can't answer for other methods of discerning truth I can only answer for my method of discerning truth I am extremely interested in hearing other methods this fascinates me. This is precisely the reason I thought it was a good question to begin with. I thought we would be hearing and reading about different methods of why Doug Wilson is either right or wrong.

 

I submit, they all do the exact same thing you do, which is why the question isn't really answered. There is no assurance, there is only assumption. Which I guess, now that I'm thinking out loud here, is a kind of assurance. Faith is essentially accepting someone's explanation to be credible, and no longer asking. But is that assurance? Encouraged and supported by your community, you are "assured" your interpretation of the texts is most accurate in the same way Wilson is "assured" his interpretation is most accurate. How can two people be equally assured they know the truth when their understanding is mutually opposed to the other? I think xians aren't assured, I think they merely decide the point at which they stop seeking to satisfy curiosity in order to maintain whatever privileges and benefits having faith offers. I think a perfect example of this is in the repeated efforts to instill in me a sense of shame for raising "uncomfortable" questions:

 

No, this is about phase seven in the 'let's shut down all Christian conversation' campaign.  

 

Followed by the chorus of those explaining how trollish, impolite, inappropriate, and rude my questions are. 

 

I think some perfect examples of the fact this is completely subjective is offered by xians who are not seemingly threatened by watching the arguments of their faith being held up to scrutiny:

 

Abeto, I've only skimmed the thread, but although I usually dislike your comments because I believe they are purposely inflammatory (sorry...), I think you've raised some really good ones here.  And I do have a question for you...  

 

I welcome Albeto's questions. They are good for the nous!

 

I'm a Xian.  

 

I find albeto's posts to be very interesting and my faith isn't in any way in danger from considering her points, and even sometimes agreeing with them.

 

I don't mean to encourage a numbers war (there are more "likes" that agree with my identity as a troll, which is only fitting in a community populated with xians, and many of those conservative in their own right). I mean to illustrate how we avoid the cognitive dissonance rather than face the uncomfortable dilemma that appears only when we realize one strongly held belief conflicts with another. That's not my main point, my main point was to show the comment about idol factories made absolutely no sense to me, as I thought it sounded rather like something Deepak Chopra might offer. As is typical, some comments are taken more seriously than intended (it happens all the time, to me as well, and that makes me scramble to figure out if I can really defend my point or if I spoke impulsively, guided by emotions more than reason - it's a great practice for critical thinking skills). And as typical, some of these comments make way for a dialog that is really interesting for some people. Most who don't find it interesting simply don't follow along. A small group of people continue to try warn others of my contribution as being motivated by nefarious intentions. I would find that weird, or paranoid, and most certainly rude, but I find it interesting even more so. It suggests to me a perceived threat in the defensive wall, as if I went away, these questions would no longer surface and challenge xians. 

 

I rather enjoyed my conversation with Monica_in_Switzerland's, and now look forward to reading what Arctic Mama really meant when she talked about idol factories. She implied that I'm a worse person for not being xian, as I have shoved bad idols in my heart, and I look around and for the life of me, I cannot use xianity as a prediction of someone being "good" or "bad" (whatever that means). Apparently I am not alone, as studies show religion has little effect on behavior as a whole, either, individually or collectively (and many xians themselves deny any correlation!). So the declaration she makes not only goes against what we see, it goes against the belief of every xian who does not agree with her. Her assurance of understanding and explaining the faith is no different than Wilson's in this way, other than she doesn't have the same influence on any xian community. But then, what are "idols" and what does it mean to worship or venerate them? Xians have quite different opinions on this, as well, each person assured theirs is right. To me, that's an interesting question. 

[Guest]

Does this vary between Orthodox groups? Because I've seen icons with all three persons of the Trinity.

 

Danae, someone upthread already responded to part of what I was going to say, so I won't repeat that. 

 

The other part of what I was going to say is that there is a famous icon by Rublev that is mistakenly identified as The Holy Trinity.  Its true title, and depiction, is The Hospitality of Abraham, and it depicts the visit of the strangers/angels unaware visiting Abraham at Mamre.  

 

This is a link to the icon:  https://www.google.com/search?q=rublev+trinity+explanation+orthodox+image&es_sm=122&biw=1455&bih=697&tbm=isch&imgil=HMFIlFfrRL5GAM%253A%253B7hi0E-7r1y5izM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.holy-transfiguration.org%25252Flibrary_en%25252Flord_trinity_rublev.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=HMFIlFfrRL5GAM%253A%252C7hi0E-7r1y5izM%252C_&usg=__TXlmwyDQh2swyKJi0M_dcvx-rBc%3D&ved=0CDwQyjdqFQoTCKeJo_2T48gCFQYpiAodGeYD6g&ei=mLEvVqfdLIbSoASZzI_QDg#imgrc=HMFIlFfrRL5GAM%3A&usg=__TXlmwyDQh2swyKJi0M_dcvx-rBc%3D

 

Although this is not a depiction of the Holy Trinity, there is a lot of symbolism--sort of two layers of meaning--that are portrayed in the icon; that's one of the reasons it is so beautiful and revered.  A couple of things that I think are beautiful:  the three angels defer to one another in perfect love; no one is seated as The Chairman of the Board, but there is a deference of love and humility.  Notice that there is a bowl on the table that looks a lot like a chalice; look at its contents.  And see that there is a seat for YOU/ME at the table.  Finally, if you take a look at the "negative space" among the three figures, you can see the outline of a chalice.  It's an invitation to communion with the Holy Trinity.  But the actual depiction is of the Hospitality of Abraham.

 

There were many depictions of this event before Rublev made his painting.  In the older versions, you will see Sarah and Abraham in the background, and there are many more dishes of food on the table; it is more like an illustration than the Rublev is.  Rublev simplified the preseentation and increased the layers of symbolism...there are many more that I have not touched on here, because I have already probably told anyone more than they wanted to know.  :0)  

 

Kind regards,

Patty Joanna

 

Edited because I really can't stand it when I make the wrong use of it's/its.  Le sigh.

 

[ktgrok]

For the record, despite being annoyed by threads being derailed by the same questions/statements over and over again (reminds of "one time, at Band Camp....") I have nothing against people who are agnostic, atheist, etc. My husband is not Xian, my son is not a Xian, 90 percent of my friends are agnostic or atheist, my first husband was a Buddhist, etc etc. Not an issue for me. My annoyance was not in the subject, but in the repetitiveness. Maybe I'm sensitive after living with an Aspie...they can be pretty darned repetitive. 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

Providing an evolutionary explanation for morality is not the same as saying morality is grounded in science. Phrasing does matter here. It is saying that science provides a TOOL for understanding morality without the need for a supernatural explanation. 

 

Sorry, but a basic premise that science is a great tool for understanding our universe has nothing to do with worship or primacy or even Truth.

 

You make the same mistake of casting an atheist in a religious person's image. I am 100% atheist, and not only does science not have some pride of place in my inner idol factory, I'm not even engaged in some search for ultimate truth. It's a different paradigm. 

 

I'm not an atheist because science told me so. That's a very reductionist way of looking at it. I've only given a toss about science for the last few years, and I've been without God a whole lot longer than that.

 

Mostly though, what I think is irrelevant, because this is phase two in the 'let's get albeto' wars. People are suggesting albeto worships science and want to have a 'gotcha' moment over it.

 

You could say, and I suppose in a way it would be more accurate,  that evolutionary theory being an explanation for morality is grounding morality in nature.  That isn't all that enlightening though, because almost every system of morality except those that think it is a construct root it in nature.  Rooting it in God isn't a supernatural explanation, its saying - morality is part of the nature of the universe, part of the physical and non-physical structure of reality.  Even evolutionary explanations as far as they go would be part of it, which is why the morality from evolution argument doesn't seem that radical to a lot of religious people - it is pretty much what would be expected.

 

(What's more interesting from that perspective, is that for most people, morality is not identical to what nature or evolutionary theory would suggest it should be, that the vast majority of us look with horror upon things that entirely consistent with nature, with the successful propagation of one's own DNA.  It's this difference that is at the center of a lot of theological reflection in many religious traditions.)

 

However, if someone is saying that science gives sufficient information to support an ethics, I think it is fair to say that they see scientific explanations as sufficient for that question. 

 

And if they say, as it seems to be in this instance,  that the nature of reality is such that scientific explanations (even if we don't have them yet) would have to be sufficient, then that suggests an even stronger belief in science as encompassing all of reality within its proper realm of inquiry.  The former view is one that can be claimed and defended without any seriously structural issues - it might be true or not that ethics are explained by science, but we all agree I think that some things can be sufficiently explained by science, and possibly morality could be one of them. 

 

The second, that science can potentially explain anything,  is far more controversial, and many people would argue that it is in fact unscientific and incoherent.  So if the argument is that morality must be that way because science can potentially explain anything, than the coherence of that worldview is actually the basis of the argument on morality specifically.  It isn't just looking to bring up irrelevancies, it actually goes directly to the argument.

 

I believe you when you say you have no particular attachment to science with relation to your worldview.  But that isn't true of everybody.  It's a fairly common phenomena among those influenced by the New Atheists, among others, and its pretty common in discussions here.  I've wondered if it isn't common in part because most people learn a fair bit of science in school (how well they learn it is a different story,) but few learn anything about philosophy and not much that is useful about religion either.  So - that tends to dominate the way they think about understanding the world, and also the language they have to talk about it. 

 

[Pam in CT]

 

...

I don't mean to encourage a numbers war (there are more "likes" that agree with my identity as a troll, which is only fitting in a community populated with xians, and many of those conservative in their own right). I mean to illustrate how we avoid the cognitive dissonance rather than face the uncomfortable dilemma that appears only when we realize one strongly held belief conflicts with another. ...

 

_________

 

 

I rather enjoyed my conversation with Monica_in_Switzerland's, and now look forward to reading what Arctic Mama really meant when she talked about idol factories. ....

 

Her assurance of understanding and explaining the faith is no different than Wilson's in this way, other than she doesn't have the same influence on any xian community. But then, what are "idols" and what does it mean to worship or venerate them? Xians have quite different opinions on this, as well, each person assured theirs is right. To me, that's an interesting question. 

 

 

:lol: re: "numbers war."  

 

FTR, at least some of us hit "like" to register something along the lines of "oh, interesting thought" rather than "I AGREE!"  Like any other communication tool, it's sorta imprecise.

 

 

_______

 

I too have enjoyed and learned from the discussion of both idols and idolatry, and how different individuals and different faith traditions approach these issues.  

 

I have not, however, gotten the sense from most posters that the discussion has been about being "right"; more about explaining what the concepts mean to them or within their respective traditions.  

[Bluegoat]

No, my contention is that we can easily elevate an image of God to idolatrous levels, as with anything. An icon can become an idol to one who treats it as such. That has been an issue in multiple religions. An idol can be our own free agency and self importance, power, praise, objects such as food or wealth, station, a job - anything that we would sin to acquire or place in the station God has reserved for himself. If our conception of Jesus is defined by an image or description of him other than the one he has given himself in Holy scripture, it's treading the line. Some (I'd argue, based on scripture) plainly cross over it in activities such as veneration and pilgrimage.

 

But where I disagree with trolls like Wilson is that an icon automatically means idolatrous worship. That is going way too far. If we are not aware of the pitfall, however, it can make it difficult to avoid. Most idolatry isn't overt or even intentional, but as with much sin it is creeping and insidious until it has us fully trapped and not realizing how far we have let it go.

 

I'm adamantly not EO, so I'd expect we disagree on this. But I think one can disagree on iconography and idolatry without jumping the shark and declaring everyone else a heretic responsible for the ruination of millions of lives across multiple countries and centures (as with Wilson).

 

Your post made me have a few thoughts, so I'm quoting it, but I'm not necessarily directing it all to what you said.

 

I think you are right - people can turn all kinds of things into idols, or elevate them to a place where they should not be.  It happens all the time within churches and without, people get caught up in something that is secondary and put it in first place.  Often those things can be good and necessary things, like working for social justice, or creating or maintaining a beautiful place for people to worship. 

 

Indeed, Biblioidolotry is a real thing.  The extreme is people who believe the Word of God is meant to be the Bible.  But also, many fail to understand the limits of language to talk about God, and believe that the words of Scripture do so in a complete way. 

 

Usually with this sort of thing, we would say we need to correct the focus, not say the thing is all out wrong.  I get the impression that people do this with icons in many cases though, perhaps because they don't really know their functions.  And related to that - the rejection of images in the Reformation was in part on the grounds that they were in fact additions, that the early Christians did not allow images.  That idea now seems much less sure than it did to them. 

 

One of the reasons images were important, as has been stated, is that it was an affirmation of the Incarnation - the Word became Flesh.  It's an affirmation that the material world is in fact God;s creation, so it is a rejection of dualism.  One of the characteristics we see in the Reformation I think is that it had a bit of a tendency to spiritualism, no images, no nice vestments, no crossing yourself or other physical remembrances, even the rejection in some cases of sacramental theology.  This isn't unrelated I think to the question of whether there can be a tendency to forget about the nature of the Incarnation along with the spiritualization of religion.  One of the most common misunderstandings among practicing Christians today is that Jesus is a sort of spirit in Heaven, and that Christians believe we will all be spirits who live eternally while our bodies are destroyed.  All of which is to say, reminders that the Incarnation tells us that physicality is part of Christ's nature are important.

 

Icons are by design very careful about how they depict images.  They are highly symbolic and are abstract - no one could mistake them for a realistic depiction - they are almost a code as much as an image.  They are intended to be understood as pointers, or windows, to something else, much the way words on a page are.  There are also many rules and conventions around how things are depicted in icons that are meant to show theological concepts accurately.

 

There is another problem, in line with that, which icons are meant to prevent.  Most of us bring up pictures in our own minds when we think about God or theological ideas, or maybe especially when we pray.  So - we have an image for Jesus, or the Trinity.  Often it may not be conscious - a sort of idea of light, or C.S. Lewis points out that many of us unconsciously focus on a particular spot in the room when we pray. We are physical and so it is so hard for us to really appreciate a something apart from a spacial sense. These are all images of a sort, but they are not necessarily benign.  They may be inaccurate in important ways for one thing, and aside from or in addition to that, when they are largely unconscious we aren't always clearly aware that they have been supplied from our own imagination and we may mistake them for something more real.  (One of the things they talk about more often in th Eastern Church, but I am sure you have seen in the west, is prelest, or spiritual delusion.  Unconcious images like this are seen as dangers because they can be picked up on and used against us, and we accept them because they seem right.) 

 

So, icons in light of this psychological phenomena give us an image to focus on, to carry with us, that is consciously an image that we know is just an image, but also one that is accurately depicting theological ideas.  It's a bit like an approved translation of the Bible rather than having people relying on paraphrases or what some guy told them about it in a conversation. 

 

I actually think that in many ways, an icon may be much better than something like an illustration in a children's Bible, which may have all kinds of unconscious biases in it (like that blond Jesus in the Golden Children's Bible), and which publishers will not always see that they need to put as much importance on as long as kids like them, and which may create life-long images that we refer back to in our minds, and which are sometimes quite realistic as if they were painted from life.