« An Update on Dr. Beckwith | Main | Theories of Conspiracy »
September 08, 2006
A Pox on His House
The notes to my old Jerusalem Bible remark that when the sacred author says that God created the greater light to shine by day, and the lesser light to shine by night, he has deliberately suppressed the simple words "sun" and "moon," lest he encourage even a trace of astral worship, such as fascinated the Canaanites and Babylonians and exerted its influence on the Egyptians and plenty of others. That chastity of language is more than prudent. It well befits the God who makes man in His image and likeness -- theomorphic man -- and who is so obviously not made in man's image and likeness, by man's vain imagination, that we are given in Genesis no images of God at all. He has no flashing eyes; hurls no thunderbolts; does not nod his head in approval. Sometimes a verb is associated with Him, because men need something to grasp; and therefore he speaks, and he walks. But these are clearly metaphors for a mystery. He may "speak," but he does not laugh or shout; he may "walk," but he does not stride, or come to a stop.
Those days of chastity are over, though, and we have gone a-whoring after strange flesh. We are "pluralists" now, and it is well to remember what pluralism means, when you have plighted your troth. Pluralism means that you go a-whoring. I'm not implying that God withholds all light and all truth from those who have not received His revelation in Scripture. A charitable reading of Paul's appearance in Athens instructs us otherwise. But then again, I'm not implying that there aren't kindly whores, either, or that there are no traces of fallen glory even in the love of a whore. Rahab was a foreshadowing of the church.
Still, whores are whores, and an Anglican vicar who converts to Hinduism and worships Ganesh the elephant god has planted his household firmly in the red-light district: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-2348095,00.html. The head-banging comedy of it all is that the vicar still insists that he is a Christian, and apparently has retained his position in good standing as a man of the cloth. "Swinging helps me love my wife all the more!" says the rake, idly thumbing through the mail for the results of his latest blood test. And we turn to a priestess, the "team vicar" of St. James -- I have no idea what a "team vicar" is, but the language suggests an allergic reaction to clear ecclesial authority, indifference to sex now metastasizing into indifference to the governance of a pastor -- to tell us that Christian ministers should be Christians. Yes, they should. But ma'am, they should also not chuck the Scriptures and the Fathers to follow a social fad. There's no such thing as a little bit of the clap. The outskirts of Sodom, if I remember, got hit pretty hard, too.
Posted by Anthony Esolen at 09:59 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d834b380f053ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Pox on His House:
Comments
From the article: "God is the same irrespective of whether you pray to him in a temple, church or mosque."
Indeed, God is the same, but the question is whether one is worshipping the same God as found in Holy Scripture, the Holy Trinity, or some other god. Ganesh is not the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Ganesh is an idol made by the hands of men.
"Rev." Hart might be well served to read and meditate on Psalm 115:4-8 (emphasis added):
Their idols are silver and gold,
the work of human hands.
They have mouths, but do not speak;
eyes, but do not see.
They have ears, but do not hear;
noses, but do not smell.
They have hands, but do not feel;
feet, but do not walk;
and they do not make a sound in their throat.
Those who make them become like them;
so do all who trust in them.
Posted by: GL | Sep 8, 2006 10:52:58 AM
I have sometimes seen -- pardon me for this, but particularly in Roman Catholic art -- depictions of the Trinity as containing Jesus as a man, the Holy Spirit as a dove and the Father as a bearded Old Testament patriarch, bearing a considerable resemblance to Michelangelo's Moses. Am I wrong to be disturbed by this?
Posted by: Dcn. Michael D. Harmon | Sep 8, 2006 1:32:57 PM
Deacon Harmon,
Any depiction of God might rightly disturb a mortal. Why do the images disturb you? In what way?
Posted by: DGP | Sep 8, 2006 3:45:29 PM
>>>I have sometimes seen -- pardon me for this, but particularly in Roman Catholic art -- depictions of the Trinity as containing Jesus as a man, the Holy Spirit as a dove and the Father as a bearded Old Testament patriarch, bearing a considerable resemblance to Michelangelo's Moses. Am I wrong to be disturbed by this?<<<
The Seventh Ecumenical Council, held at Nicaea in 787, taught definitively on whether and how God can be portrayed in images (icons). Relying heavily on the work of St. John Damascene and St. Theodore Studites, the Council framed the issue in Christological terms:
1. God the Father is invisible, ineffable and inconceivable. Thus, "no man has seen the Father". The Second Commandment injunction against the worship of graven images must be interpreted in that context.
2. By his incarnation, Jesus Christ, who is the true image or icon of the Father ("Who has seen Me has seen the Father"), also became true man. His material existence was real--He could be seen, touched, and therefore depicted visually as well. To deny that one can depict Jesus in icons is to deny the reality of the incarnation, a form of docetism.
3. The Council therefore proclaimed that Jesus Christ could be depicted in icons as a man (the earlier Quinisextunct Council in Trullo of 694 forbade the depiction of Jesus metaphorically, e.g., as a lamb), but that God the Father could not. The Holy Spirit, in accordance with the Scriptures, could be depicted as a dove or as a beam of light, but not as a man.
These teachings were received into the canon of iconography and remain in effect to this day. However, under the influence of Italian court painters in the 18th century, some Russian iconographers began depicting God the Father as an old man, often in the context of the Trinity together with Jesus as a young man and the Spirit as a dove. Called "Old Man Trinity" icons, they are not considered canonical and some consider them to be heretical; they have a following, nonetheless.
A related icon depicts Christ together with the Ancient of Days (depicted as an old man), which is subtly different from the Old Man Trinity, insofar as the Ancient of Days is not God the Father. As such, they are less objectionable to Orthodox sensibilities.
The Trinity has been depicted metaphorically in the icon called "The Hospitality of Abraham", recounting the story of the three strangers whom Abraham and Sarah fed under the Oak of Mamre, who later turned out to be angels. Patristic exegesis had long seen these as being none other than the Trinity revealed, a typos of the Theophany when Christ was baptized in the Jordan. St. Andrei Rublev, greatest of all iconographers, wrote the greatest of all icons on this theme. Greatly simplifying the composition by reducing the background and eliminating Abraham and Sarah altogether, it depicts three ethereal beings seated around a table on which are a cup and a plate. Two of the beings incline their heads towards the third, and one of the two has his hand extended towards the cup in the sign of benediction. Icons of this sort are usually called the "Old Testament Trinity".
As I noted, the Father is also revealed in the Icon of the Theophany, which usually shows Christ standing in the midst of the River Jordan (with or without John the Baptist). A dove flutters over his head, while from the top of the icon, a hand is extended in the sign of blessing.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 8, 2006 4:54:59 PM
Hmmm...one wonders if it would have made any difference if "Rev." Hart instead offered up human sacrifices to Baal on the high places? Is there anything that renders an Anglican beyond the pale (other than, of course, becoming a Republican)?
Posted by: Bill R | Sep 8, 2006 5:08:33 PM
Regarding the use of sacred images in worship, the John Damascene and the Council differentiated between idols and icons. The former claimed to have a power inherent in their material substance--the idol does not represent a god, but claims to be a god. An icon, in contrast, is a symbol, a true likeness that shares in the reality of that which it represents. Veneration offered to the icon passes through to the prototype it represents, for the Fathers understood that the mysterion that bound symbol and reality to each other and caused them to interpenetrate each other. Icons are thus commonly called "windows into the unseen", in that they make visible to us things and persons who are invisible. Icons depicting events in salvation history are therefore also a true anamnesis, a calling to mind that allows us to partake mystically in the events depicted.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 8, 2006 5:35:59 PM
>>>Hmmm...one wonders if it would have made any difference if "Rev." Hart instead offered up human sacrifices to Baal on the high places? Is there anything that renders an Anglican beyond the pale (other than, of course, becoming a Republican)?<<<
Isn't there a New Yorker cartoon along those lines?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 8, 2006 5:37:31 PM
>Regarding the use of sacred images in worship, the John Damascene and the Council differentiated between idols and icons.
Unlike many other orthodox Christians.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 8, 2006 5:40:12 PM
I apologize in advance to my orthodox Anglican friends, but I must again post the following quote from an Episcopalian in Florida who is opposing her diocese's request for alternative oversight:
- "We take no position on Scripture or theology or morals," said Donna Bott, a leader of a group called Episcopal Voices of Central Florida, which sponsored the meeting. "We are just Episcopalians."
Posted by: GL | Sep 8, 2006 6:03:10 PM
>>>Unlike many other orthodox Christians.<<<
If they can't discern the difference, then they aren't orthodox.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 8, 2006 8:04:16 PM
I beg everyone's pardon for not clarifying my comment. It was the depiction of God the Father that I found disturbing, due indeed to Biblical injunctions about images. Jesus of course was the image of the Father in Himself -- "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" -- and the Dove appeared at Jesus' Baptism in visible form. I found neither of those objectionable.
I have seen the Trinitarian icon, and wondered too about it. I am not condemning any of these, I was merely seeking to be instructed. I do thank Stuart for his comments, which I found helpful.
Posted by: Dcn. Michael D. Harmon | Sep 8, 2006 8:17:38 PM
>>Is there anything that renders an Anglican beyond the pale (other than, of course, becoming a Republican)?<<
Considering the ABC is a druid. . . . . .
Posted by: Kamilla | Sep 8, 2006 10:11:37 PM
Regarding Anglicans and their difficulties, there is currently a flap in the New Zealand city of Christchurch over plans include on the altar frontal for the cathedral a text from the Hindu Upanishads. It's all described on the Anglican Mainstream NZ website.
And now it's reported on the Get Religion blog that it was an Anglican priest, Fr Andrew White, who advised the kidnapped Fox journalists Centanni and Wigg to convert to Islam. Wigg's father is a Methodist pastor.
Posted by: Cooper | Sep 9, 2006 3:10:54 AM
>If they can't discern the difference, then they aren't orthodox.
Or perhaps that shows they are.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 9, 2006 5:19:04 AM
Dear GL,
No offense taken by this orthodox Anglican. We know all too well to our shame what the apostate portions of our no longer existing communnion (now properly termed a mere federation) are perpetrating. It's hard to top the so-called Episcopal seminary in Cambridge, MA having an active coven of lesbian witches, one of whom had made a black set of S/M style altar vestments.
Dear David Gray,
In several past posts I've taken issue with Stuart for certain blanket criticisms of Western Christians, and you've supported mn. But now the shoe is on the other foot. I really think your comments here about the Orthodox and idolatry are uncalled for. If we are going to offer general criticism of Christian denominations on this ecumencial site, then I think it a good rule that we each criticize only our own communion, not someone else's.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Sep 9, 2006 6:41:06 AM
We must all remember that there are a lot of good, orthodox Christians in the Anglican Communion and that the man who wrote the book from which the subtitle of Touchstone and the name of this blog derive their names was a devout Christian in the Anglican Communion. It must be extremely painful to watch this happen if you are orthodox and Anglican. Let us keep those brothers and sisters in mind who must weep when they read of yet another example of apostacy from within their cherished tradition.
Posted by: GL | Sep 9, 2006 6:46:40 AM
>In several past posts I've taken issue with Stuart for certain blanket criticisms of Western Christians, and you've supported mn. But now the shoe is on the other foot. I really think your comments here about the Orthodox and idolatry are uncalled for. If we are going to offer general criticism of Christian denominations on this ecumencial site, then I think it a good rule that we each criticize only our own communion, not someone else's.
I believe you misread me. I pointed out that the view that icons are not a violation of the ten commandments is not universal among orthodox Christians (for example I would refer you to the 11th chapter of Calvin's Institutes). It was Stuart who made views on icons a test of orthodoxy, not I. I never criticized the Eastern Orthodox at all unless suggesting that some differ with them amounts to criticism. Please reconsider.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 9, 2006 7:37:11 AM
I like Bill R's irony.
>>>Hmmm...one wonders if it would have made any difference if "Rev." Hart instead offered up human sacrifices to Baal on the high places? Is there anything that renders an Anglican beyond the pale (other than, of course, becoming a Republican)?<<<
Notice that the "Rev" Hart is worshiping an elephant god... Two strikes?
Posted by: Deacon Jim | Sep 9, 2006 12:49:42 PM
Being blunt here, David Gray, and not meaning to offend. John Calvin is not an "orthodox Christian". Many of us catholic (Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Orthodox,) Christians consider him to be a heretic. "The Institutes" is not authoritative; an Ecumenical Council is. You have every right to be a Protestant, but you don't have every right to project your snark on us. I daresay I know quite a few more Orthodox than you, and every one of us is well aware of the difference between and Idol and an icon. And thanks to you, James Altena. I hoist a steaming mug of dark-roasted NW style coffee in your general direction. Presumably east or south.
Posted by: Scott Walker | Sep 9, 2006 2:03:24 PM
Drat. Should be "between an idol and an icon". Spell-check is a feeble friend.
Posted by: Scott Walker | Sep 9, 2006 2:05:56 PM
>Being blunt here, David Gray, and not meaning to offend. John Calvin is not an "orthodox Christian".
Perhaps you are at the wrong website.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 9, 2006 3:05:15 PM
No, David, I don't think so. Why is it okay for you to assert idolatry on my part, but not okay for me to assert that many (probably most) catholic Christians deny Calvin's orthodoxy? After all, if we thought the man was orthodox, we would be-wait for it-Calvinists.
Posted by: Scott Walker | Sep 9, 2006 3:47:36 PM
>No, David, I don't think so. Why is it okay for you to assert idolatry on my part, but not okay for me to assert that many (probably most) catholic Christians deny Calvin's orthodoxy? After all, if we thought the man was orthodox, we would be-wait for it-Calvinists.
Sigh. Let me walk you through it as best I can.
1. I haven't asserted that you are an idolater. Stuart asserted that "regarding the use of sacred images in worship, the John Damascene and the Council differentiated between idols and icons." Which to the best of my knowledge is correct. I pointed out that not all orthodox Christians, using the mere christian concept to define "orthodox" as most recently given voice by Mr. Kushiner, agreed with their assertion. Stuart followed this up with "If they can't discern the difference, then they aren't orthodox". Well by mere christian definition that isn't the case. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with this subject (and I assume you to be such a person given your background) knows that this is a point of contention. I don't expect Eastern Orthodox to agree with the historic Reformed position on this issue. And I don't stick my finger in their eye on the issue, particularly on this site where it would be very discourteous. What I reserve the right to do, until told otherwise by our hosts, is point out that there is not unanimity on an issue such as this.
2. You didn't merely assert "that many (probably most) catholic Christians deny Calvin's orthodoxy". You said "John Calvin is not an "orthodox Christian"." By the definitions discussed above he inherently is, at least by the terms of this site. This doesn't mean everybody thinks he is entirely orthodox but for the reason I don't run around calling Eastern Orthodox idolaters (or any individual member in good standing) courteous Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox don't call Calvinists heretics, even if they obviously believe them to be in significant error.
3. Hence the difference. I pointed out that Christianity is split in its understanding of the propriety of icons in light of the ten commandments. You said Calvin was a heretic. Can you see the difference? I hope so.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 9, 2006 4:02:47 PM
Well, now I find myself in the middle between David Gray and Scott Walker.
First to revisit David's post that prompted my original comment, in which he quoted Stuart Koehl:
"'If they can't discern the difference, then they aren't orthodox.'
"Or perhaps that shows they are."
The clear implication of your comment, David, is that what may show many Eastern Orthodox to be who they are is that they can't discern the difference between iconic veneration and idolatry -- i.e., many (perhaps all) of their acts of veneration are in fact idolatrous. That was uncalled for.
Now for Scott --
I must admit I personally take a very dim view of certain aspects of John Calvin's theology -- and that's putting it mildly. But I also have dear Christian friends of Touchstone-style "mere Christianity" orthodoxy who are of the Reformed persuasion and staunch admirers of Calvin. [One, a Low Church Anglican priest, was a groomsman at my wedding last year; another who is a professional composer wrote a motet (soprano and organ) for the wedding on texts I chose from the book of Revelation.] I can discuss my differences with them on Calvin elsewhere. I do not think that "Mere Comments" is a proper site for the sort of polemical exchange that calls Calvin a "heretic." [It also depends on the definition of heretic -- e.g., in the formal sense, or the sense of willful intent.] There are plenty of other web sites devoted to that purpose.
We have much greater foes oppressing us, that should cause us to agree in charity to set aside these differences to the extent we can and unite in fighting against the world, the flesh, and the devil on behalf of Our Blessed Lord. Let Psalm 133 be the official Touchstone psalm!
Both David and Scott -- and Stuart, and GL, and Bill, and Ethan, and Prof. Esolen, and all the other fine folk who regularly post on this site -- are my brothers in Christ, who died for their sins as well as mine. Let us pay heed to St. Paul's exhortation to be of one mind in the Lord and live with one another in charity, even as we admonish one another for edification.
P. S. Now to stir up some REAL trouble. I HATE coffee -- I can't even stand the smell of it -- and am convinced it is a diabolical creation of Satan himself. . . . :-)
Posted by: James A. Altena | Sep 9, 2006 4:58:28 PM
"'If they can't discern the difference, then they aren't orthodox.'
"Or perhaps that shows they are."
>The clear implication of your comment, David, is that what may show many Eastern Orthodox to be who they are is that they can't discern the difference between iconic veneration and idolatry -- i.e., many (perhaps all) of their acts of veneration are in fact idolatrous. That was uncalled for.
No, because the "they" in question there (who are not orthodox in Stuart's opinion), are those who "can't discern the difference." To Stuart that would clearly not be the Eastern Orthodox. So my reply is simply that perhaps the fact that they (meaning those who think the ten commandments have something to say on the issue) don't discern a difference is perhaps a sign of their orthodoxy. It doesn't say anything at all about the Eastern Orthodox except to say they may be in error and that implicitly rather than explicitly as the comment was directed to those who have a more Reformed understanding of the issue.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 9, 2006 5:04:12 PM
James,
So WRONG. The Diabolical plan of the evil one is that coffee smells sooo good yet tastes sooo vile. Wait, maybe that's wrong. maybe it's good that it smells good but tastes, vile. Perhaps that teaches us something about the nature of sin?
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | Sep 9, 2006 5:11:03 PM
>>>No, because the "they" in question there (who are not orthodox in Stuart's opinion), are those who "can't discern the difference." To Stuart that would clearly not be the Eastern Orthodox. So my reply is simply that perhaps the fact that they (meaning those who think the ten commandments have something to say on the issue) don't discern a difference is perhaps a sign of their orthodoxy. It doesn't say anything at all about the Eastern Orthodox except to say they may be in error and that implicitly rather than explicitly as the comment was directed to those who have a more Reformed understanding of the issue.<<<
To state my own personal position plainly (for the ecumenical dialogue of truth requires nothing else), the entire Traditioon of the Church, East and West alike, condones the use of sacred images in worship. The matter was definitively resolved in the Seventh Great Council, which was accepted by both the Latin and Greek Churches. The Christological rationale for allowing sacred images, though soft-peddaled in the West in favor of the "pedantic" rationale (only through images can the Gospel reach the illiterate), was also universally accepted. The "historical" Reformed position has no historical foundation other than excessive biblical literalism, and it ignores the Iconoclasm and the Church's response to it. As the Fathers recognized, a refusal to depict Christ in images (whether 2- or 3-dimensional) is a tacit denial of Christ's material incarnation and humanity, and thus the first step down the long slope to docetism and gnosticism. Many of the errors that consistently crop up in Reformed Christology can be traced, I believe, directly to the failure to accept completely the implications of the incarnation and the full material reality of Christ.
As a result, I have no alternative than to think that, yes, Reformed Christians who reject sacred images are in error. They hold a position contrary to Tradition with serious implications for a core tenet of faith; i.e., the nature of Jesus Christ. Therefore, they are by definition, heretics. I can't help that, and it does us no good to pretend otherwise. I could say the same thing about a number of other Reformed practices, most especially, their denial of the sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is for these reasons that there is no unity in faith between the Reformed and catholic Christians (of all varieties).
This is unfortunate, and one can only hope that at some point there will be agreement among us. At the same time, however, I do recognize that Reformed Christians are still Christians, that those who say Jesus is Lord can only do so through the Holy Spirit. This is quite a different kettle of fish from impugning their devotion to Christ, or implying that catholic Christians West and East who act in accord with the Tradition of the Church in their use of images are somehow idolators (I run across this a lot, and am proud to say I belong to the Church of the Graven Image. Besides, icons are really helpful in driving away annoying Mormon, JW and SDA missionaries when they come knocking on my door).
Point of story: though I disagree with them (pointedly), I am willing to make common cause with the Reformed and Evangelical Protestants (as well as their more "catholic" and confessional cousins) in areas where our disagreements have no effect. In this, I stand with those moderate Evangelicals like Charles Colson who are looking for ways in which "Catholics and Evangelicals Together" can address the problems that affect all Christians and our society as a whole.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 9, 2006 5:31:20 PM
>>>So WRONG. The Diabolical plan of the evil one is that coffee smells sooo good yet tastes sooo vile. Wait, maybe that's wrong. maybe it's good that it smells good but tastes, vile. Perhaps that teaches us something about the nature of sin?<<<
God made coffee, therefore coffee is good. Satan distorts God's creation by flooding the market with cheap, bitter coffee that smells too much like the good stuff. Sin lies in paying too much for bad coffee.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 9, 2006 5:37:41 PM
Sigh right back at you, David.
Stuart: "If they can't discern the difference (between icons and idols) then they aren't orthodox.
David: "Or perhaps that shows that they are."
The plain reading of what you wrote, given the context of Stuart's original comment, is that as far as you're concerned there is no difference between idols and icons. Understandable and very Protestant, and every bit as contrary to the merely Christian ethos you affirm as anything I've posted here. ( BTW, Calvinists aren't heretics. Technically they're schismatics:)
"I pointed out that Christianity is split in it's understanding of the propriety of icons in light of the ten commandments. You said Calvin was a heretic." Uh, actually what I said was that Calvin was not an orthodox Christian. (It happens that I do indeed consider the man to be a heretic, but that's not what I said.) The majority of Christians, past and present, would agree with that assertion. If my reading of our father among the saints, CS Lewis, is correct, the very inventor of the term "Mere Christian" would agree with that assertion. (And now, of course, as soon as I look for the citation I have in mind, I realize that I loaned the book I think contains it to my goddaughter. Rats) I have to fall back on paraphrase: "God is not a cosmic rapist; He can only woo." That neatly demolishes at least three of the five TULIP points of Calvinist theology: those being unconditional election, irresistable grace, and preservation of the saints. I can and do happily accept as merely Christian you, David, and my Reformed kinfolk and neighbors. But John Calvin himself? Sorry.
Posted by: Scott Walker | Sep 9, 2006 6:05:14 PM
James, my brother. So right in so many ways, yet so desperately wrong about God's gift to suffering humanity, the unassuming coffee bean. Consider my Norse ancestors, the Vikings. They pillaged and burned their way across the known world for centuries, until they got far enough south to run across coffee. One exposure to the noble fluid, and they promptly went back home, settled down and became Lutherans. Coffee? Deus Veult! (I do hope I spelled that right; Orthodox have a long-standing beef with things Crusader :-) Seriously, when they come to arrest the Christians, I know they'll be coming for David and the rest of y'all. The thing I love about this site is that, although we frequently disagree, we do so politely (mostly) and in a brotherly spirit. When my wife sees me at the computer, she usually asks, "Visiting your friends?' Yes.
Posted by: Scott Walker | Sep 9, 2006 7:17:12 PM
>To state my own personal position plainly (for the ecumenical dialogue of truth requires nothing else), the entire Traditioon of the Church, East and West alike, condones the use of sacred images in worship.
Obviously, that is entirely what I understand your position to be. But it isn't part of the shared understanding of mere christianity. And from the Touchstone perspective "mere christianity" is that which is shared by Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox.
"Mere Christianity is what has been believed by every Christian in every place at all times, and what we are sure will be seen to be mere Christianity when the fads and enthusiasms of the moment have finally run their course."
James Kushiner
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 9, 2006 7:17:19 PM
>>>"Mere Christianity is what has been believed by every Christian in every place at all times, and what we are sure will be seen to be mere Christianity when the fads and enthusiasms of the moment have finally run their course."
James Kushiner<<<
From my perspective as an Eastern Christian, the Reformation WAS and IS just a passing fad and enthusiasm of the moment. And of course, if taken literally, Kushiner's definition of "mere Christianity" will become more "mere" with every passing year. For, in light of your claims, why should we arbitrarily draw the line at what Christians were believing in 1600? Why not 1800, 1900 or even 2000? Since the Reformation declared itself unbound from Tradition (and in fact denies the authority of Tradition), how can it appeal to any normative "tradition" regarding what constitutes "mere Christianity"?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 9, 2006 7:35:59 PM
Stuart,
Given what you say, why are you here?
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 9, 2006 7:44:15 PM
>>>Given what you say, why are you here?<<<
Several reasons.
First, the ecumenical: Christ compels us to unity; He desires us to be one, as He and the Father are one. In order for us to achieve communion in the Holy Spirit, it is necessary for us to have dialogue on two levels: first, the dialogue of truth, wherein we are obliged to state our positions clearly and without rancor, since truth is not amenable to consensus or compromise; second, the dialogue of love (caritas) wherein we recognize one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, tragically separated but still working together on the Great Commission. These must and do run concurrently, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will bear good fruit in the fullness of time. That Catholics and Orthodox are working together in both dialogues, that the same is happening with Protestants and Catholics, is indicative of that, especially if we compare the situation today to that of half a century ago.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 9, 2006 7:59:16 PM
Stuart,
That is a good answer. Wouldn't it make more sense to pursue that somewhere where they share your presuppositions?
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 9, 2006 8:11:33 PM
Wait a minute -- I participate here too, but like Mr. Koehl I think Mr. Kushiner's definition is not as incisive as he might wish. Under the everyone/everywhere rubric, the Reformers themselves have only an attenuated claim to "mere Christianity," and their spiritual descendants in contemporary Protestant and Evangelical communities have widely varying inheritance rights.
Nevertheless, I think it's possible to participate in this weblog without sharing Mr. Kushiner's assumptions. In particular, it's possible to distinguish those who approach the Sacred Scriptures with deference from those who approach them as deconstructors. We deferential exegetes may not always agree among ourselves, but we can agree that the revealed Word governs us, and not the reverse. On that basis, I'm ready and even eager to welcome many Protestants and Evangelicals into the conversation, because (whether they admit it or not) they derive their faith from some discernibly sincere effort to hear and obey the Word.
Posted by: DGP | Sep 9, 2006 9:18:27 PM
>>>That is a good answer. Wouldn't it make more sense to pursue that somewhere where they share your presuppositions?<<<
That would lead to my second reason: Though we all have serious theological differences (and it would be dishonest to cover them up), we all share a similar worldview that is at odds with that of the predominant culture. Regardless of our confession, we all (I presume) have a theocentric view of the world and believe that we are commanded by our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ to make disciples of all nations. We are called to bear witness to the truth, and we can bear witness to that truth at the macro level by proclaiming the Good News: That Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, took flesh and surrendered himself for the life of the world; that having been crucified, Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down Death by death, and to those in the tomb bestowing life. We can all agree on that. And if we can't, then one of us is not Christian.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 9, 2006 9:25:47 PM
I think the point I tried to make, and have tried to make before, about it NOT being appropriate to argue general denominational polemics on this site, has been lost.... Sigh....
Less seriously, as for coffee -- I'm more adamant on the subject than Calvin is on images of any sort. Stuart, I'm disappointed -- I was sure you would find here an obscure canon from one of the 7 General Councils to cite against me as a heretic worthy of every anathema. (Probably the 7th -- something about coffee being the true odor of sanctity of the Holy Spirit, which the wicked iconoclasts sought to ban as an idolatorus olfactory image of the third person of the Trinity, who cannot be represented by any material form....)
My preferred "heresies" are fruit juice, soft drinks, and herbal teas that a friend jocularly calls "geranium juice." (Probably regarded by most here as sure signs of watered-down revisionist ecumenicism and syncretism....)
Posted by: James A. Altena | Sep 10, 2006 4:59:39 AM
Mr. Altena,
Sorry, I didn't mean to slip into judgments on denominations. I was only trying to illustrate my antipathy for Mr. Gray's disinvitation to Mr. Koehl, "Wouldn't it make more sense to pursue that somewhere where they share your presuppositions?"
Posted by: DGP | Sep 10, 2006 5:44:48 AM
>I was only trying to illustrate my antipathy for Mr. Gray's disinvitation to Mr. Koehl
I wasn't disinviting him, I was asking a reasonable question.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 10, 2006 5:50:46 AM
>>>I wasn't disinviting him, I was asking a reasonable question.<<<
I hope what I gave was a reasonable answer.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 10, 2006 6:37:33 AM
Well, I didn't think this post would lead to a long discussion on the use of icons, or on the orthodoxy of John Calvin. I may cause some jaws to drop open here, but I have long had a sneaky admiration for that old lawyer. He had a strong sense of the majesty of God and of the heinousness of sin, and that can serve as a good inoculation against our contemporary Smiley worship. His commentaries on Scripture, when he is not talking about the Eucharist or justification by faith alone, are marked by a dogged attempt to understand the text by means of close study and plain common sense. There's a flat-footed trust in the (usual) clarity of the Word of God, and that is no small virtue. (It also explains why he never wrote a commentary on Revelation; common sense exegesis could not take him far into that mysterious land.)
Of course I don't accept Calvin's retro-reading of Christ's parables in the light of a lawyerly reading of Saint Paul. If I did, I wouldn't be a Roman Catholic. That is, I take the words of Christ as definitive, and when he speaks of the sheep and the goats, or of Judgment according to works, I'll interpret the words of Saint Paul accordingly. Now since Saint Paul says that we are justified by faith, and since he cannot err, as he is inspired by God, I have to believe that the works that Christ speaks about are not only the ex post facto fruits of faith, but their embodiment, so to speak; and I cannot finesse Christ's assertion that these works will be rewarded by recourse to a strange severance of the One who makes me just from the One who makes me holy, even now, by His grace.
Anyway, I'm willing to cut Calvin some slack on the issue of the irresistibility of grace. As I've written on a previous post, the Thomistic metaphysics that underlay a powerful reconciliation of grace (which can never fail of the effect that God wills for it absolutely, if He wills it absolutely) and free will had been muddled or lost entirely -- and Calvin was no metaphysician. For a hundred and fifty years before Calvin, the most "popular" writers on the Christian life tended to duck the question altogether, mainly by appealing to the utter inability of man to do anything good without the grace of God. I'm thinking here of such mystics as Thomas a Kempis and the writer of The Epistle of Privy Counsel and Richard Rolle. They were not philosophers, these; rather they were deeply suspicious of the power of the intellect to bring us any genuine good. In this regard they were the inheritors of one strain of the medieval controversy regarding the harmony of faith and reason: their ancestors are Bernard and Bonaventure, not Anselm and Thomas.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | Sep 10, 2006 9:12:59 AM
>I hope what I gave was a reasonable answer.
I thought it a reasonable answer.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 10, 2006 1:06:47 PM
Nor did I intend to cast aspersions on Calvin. I don't think he fits the everyone/everywhere rule, but I made that observation only to illustrate that the rule, however venerable its lineage, no longer serves the purpose it once did. Calvin more than adequately meets my not-a-deconstructionist requirement.
Posted by: DGP | Sep 10, 2006 1:24:07 PM
>I don't think he fits the everyone/everywhere rule
And I think he would. As would Luther, Knox, Hodge, Warfield, Kuyper, Baxter, Cranmer, Machen, etc.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 10, 2006 4:16:21 PM
>>>And I think he would. As would Luther, Knox, Hodge, Warfield, Kuyper, Baxter, Cranmer, Machen, etc.<<<
In a purely irenic fashion, I am wondering how you reconcile their teachings with the evidence of how the Church actually lived its faith for the first 1500 or so years of the Christian era.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 10, 2006 4:32:21 PM
>In a purely irenic fashion, I am wondering how you reconcile their teachings with the evidence of how the Church actually lived its faith for the first 1500 or so years of the Christian era.
The same way Calvin did. He argued that Reformation Christianity was consistent with the Church Fathers with a particular emphasis on Augustine (who I've seen has a rather low reputation in some Eastern Orthodox circles). If you are interested check out "John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers" by A.N. Lane. I'm partway through it but have misplaced it, hopefully will find it when the move is done.
The Reformation was, in part, an argument about who was being faithful to the early church and its teachings. Calvin and Luther didn't think they were starting something new so much as recapturing something old. Obviously others will differ but it is something to bear in mind, particulary for 21st century Protestants who often seem to be of the erroneous notion that the Reformation was primarily about something new.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 10, 2006 4:42:39 PM
>>>The same way Calvin did. He argued that Reformation Christianity was consistent with the Church Fathers with a particular emphasis on Augustine (who I've seen has a rather low reputation in some Eastern Orthodox circles). If you are interested check out "John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers" by A.N. Lane. I'm partway through it but have misplaced it, hopefully will find it when the move is done.<<<
Either it was a very tendentious reading, or poor Dr. Calvin lacked access to a host of key documents.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 10, 2006 4:47:51 PM
>Either it was a very tendentious reading, or poor Dr. Calvin lacked access to a host of key documents.
That sounds like a non-irenic way of saying you disagree with him. No surprise there just as no surprise that I find his arguments more compelling than your assertions. Which is why that sort of discussion has so little mileage in it. Better to spend the time on what is shared than rehash such arguments.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 10, 2006 4:49:48 PM
I hope the following will be eirenical, and not in contradiction to my previous pleas to set aside partisan polemics here.
Calvin and the other Reformers did read the Fathers and cite them extensively. But, as Lane himself points out, the difference is in the attitude by which they approached the Fathers. Due to the late medieval and Renaissance recovery of of the Graeco-Roman cultural heritage and the resulting Christian humanist movement, the Reformers believed that they could recover an unmediated, direct, and more authentic and accurate understanding of the Scriptures.
Thus, for the Reformers, the Fathers became advisory, not normative, for the right understanding of Scripture, and the Tradition distinguished and separated from the Scriptures. The Reformer became the one who evaluated the Fathers against the Scriptures, instead of being the one who was evaluted against the Scriptures by the Fathers.
This also led to the problem of three different understandings of the relation of Scripture to the Tradition. The Eastern Orthodox hold to Scripture within the Tradition -- that ultimately there is only the Tradition, of which Scripture is the chiefest and most normative part, and of which the consensus of the fathers and church practice is the onlging living embodiment and expression. Rome has tended to embrace a two-source theory of Scripture and the Tradition and separate, independent, and equal correlates of divinely given knowledge and authority, though since Vatican II this approach have largely been rejected or shelved in favor of one much closer to that of the Orthodox. For both, however, the Tradition partakes of the infallibility of the Scriptures, being divinely inspired guided and preserved (John 16:13, etc.). Finally, for Protestants, the Tradition has been at best (mostly among its confessional and liturgical groups) a source of godly counsel subordinate to Scripture, advisory but not normative, not infallible but of human origin (John 16:13 etc. being applied only to the apostles, or perhaps to the elect in every age), and at worst (by radical sectarians) rejected as an unfaithful compliaton of human folly or even Satanic deception.
The problem we face on this web site, and in the ranks of the Touchstone editors themselves, is that we all seek to embrace the Tradition -- we are not radical sectarians. But, alas, we differ in our understanding and acceptance of the nature, meaning, and significance of the Tradition. And even those within one of the three approaches just outlined can disagree among themselves. (E.g., this particular classical Anglican catholic is more or less on board with the Eastern Orthodox here, though they might not see it that way. But I have fellow Anglican friends, High and Low Church, who subscribe to one of the other two views.) Obviously, we are not going to solve this question here, but must do our best to live with one another in charity. [Just so long as everyone else recognizes that I AM RIGHT! :-) That statement must have been provoked by the smell of someone's coffee nearby....]
Finally, I can't resist a naughty conclusion (thanks to Prof. Esolen's post). I've long thought that Calvinism is exactly the sort of theology one would expect from a 16th c. French lawyer.... :-)
Posted by: James A. Altena | Sep 11, 2006 6:52:36 AM
