Spring Into Action Fundraising Drive

Thanks to all our Touchstone and Salvo friends who responded so generously and helped us surpass our goal!
God bless you all.











WWW Mere Comments





« Defective People | Main | "The View" »

September 22, 2006

I Love My German Shepherd

     Bravo to Benedict the Brave, who cunningly has identified the connection between reason-constricting secularism and Islamic fideism, and who has thereby invited all Christians to unite in a recovery of reason, reaffirming that it can lead us to the threshold of eternal truth, and that it can help us to understand those truths that have been revealed to us which reason alone could never have discovered.  Perhaps now Christians will remember the poor old Trinity, that insight into the life of the Godhead that God has mercifully vouchsafed us; for our God is Himself a community of Persons, and is not what Chesterton called "the lonely God of Omar," who dwells by himself in unapproachable and apparently unintelligible isolation.

     If you'll pardon me, I thought it might be interesting here to repeat a post from last February:

Non Angli sed Angeli

     Rome, early in the seventh century, A.D., has been reduced from the queen city of the world to a cow-town.  It still has a Senate, though its functions are at best those of a town council.  What it mainly has is a bishop -- the bishop of Rome.  If anybody is going to see to it that food supplies are distributed and the sick are tended and public buildings do not fall into worse disrepair than they have already fallen, it will have to be the bishop.  And that, of course, is not to mention his spiritual guidance of Romans everywhere, from north Africa to Farthest Ireland.  So you have to choose a capable and holy man.

     You choose a monk named Gregory, who feels so unworthy of the burden that at first he declines, he runs away -- as did his predecessor in episcopal avoidance, Gregory of Nyssa.  Finally he agrees, and with some embarrassment (and a great deal of Christian wisdom and humility) writes to explain why he went into hiding, understanding that the role of bishop is to be the unworthy slave of Christ and His people: to be the slave of the slaves of God.

     At roughly the same time, in the East, a merchant among the caravans has seen a vision in a cave, and has declared himself the final and perfect prophet of the one God.  Financed by his wealthy wife and protected by a powerful uncle in Mecca, he preaches to the traders and the pilgrims there -- for Mecca is already a pilgrimage site, where Arabs come to pay homage to a large cubic meteorite and to the panoply of gods to which the cube is dedicated.  Naturally, local merchants are not happy, since their livelihood depends on the pilgrim trade; so there are several armed skirmishes.  When the wife and uncle of this Mohammed die, the leaders in Mecca cut a deal with him: he will leave the city and go to Yathrib, and the people there, for their part, will submit to his Law.  Not that the people of Yathrib have agreed to this.  When Mohammed arrives there, he is opposed by the nine tribes that make up the city: six pagan, and three Jewish.  He seizes control, and orders the assassination of the tribal leaders.  The Hadith records that he laughed aloud as their heads were laid at his feet.  Muslims begin their calendar with this trek to Yathrib.

     Back in Rome, Pope Gregory one day sees a band of captives led to the block for sale.  They are tall and fair-skinned and, what strikes Gregory's eye most particularly, blond.  Moved with pity and curiosity he asks who they are and where they have come from.  "They are Angles," comes the reply.  "Not Angles but angels," says Gregory.  He determines to send missionaries to the lands of the north, the most prominent among them the bishop Augustine, later known as Augustine of Canterbury.  When Augustine arrives among the pagans of Anglia and Kent he writes a letter to Gregory, asking him what he ought to do about pagan shrines (where human sacrifices may have been performed).  Gregory's letter (preserved in Bede's history) would provide the template for Christian missionary work ever after.  Do not tear down those shrines, he said; but cleanse them.  In other words, Gregory saw that all people have a natural intuition of God, and that therefore the object of the Christian missionary is to do what Paul attempted for the Athenians in Acts.  You show them that in an imperfect way, no doubt tangled with considerable sin and error, they already know something of the Lord.  If your name is Boniface, you may chop away at the Germans' sacred totem, but at the same time you show them the Tree that really is worthy of their devotion.  Tertullian's famous rhetorical question, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?," would be repeated around 800 by the Irish Alcuin, exasperated that the monks still loved the tales of the old Germanic heroes.  "What does Ingeld have to do with Christ?"  Apparently quite a lot.

     Having reduced Yathrib to his sole control -- the place now named "Medina" or "The City" -- Mohammed returned with an army to Mecca, in no mood for nonsense.  He took the city by force, assassinating the leaders of its single tribe, the Quraysh.  For the next four hundred years -- really from that time until now, if you omit the interruptive flowering of Islamic heresy that coincided with the Arabic discovery of the ancient Greeks -- Muslims in their conquests would provide the implicit answer to their version of Tertullian's question.  Absolutely nothing.

Posted by Anthony Esolen at 08:40 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d834b51b4653ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I Love My German Shepherd:

Comments

I'm Protestant and cannot quite bring myself to accept all he claims regarding the office he holds, but I love your German Shepherd as well, Tony, and believe the title "the Brave" is well deserved. Bravo, indeed!

Posted by: GL | Sep 22, 2006 10:56:30 PM

I subscribe to the view (expressed by Hilaire Belloc) that Islam is, at root, a Christian heresy. On that view it is not surprising to find that one part of that heresy is to separate the will of God from his reason, and to subordinate the latter to the former. For all orthodox Christians God's will and reason are united in purpose, as are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We can look at the Islamic world and say: this is "Christianity" without orthodoxy, that is, this is the effect of choosing heresy over orthodoxy.

This Protestant too adds "bravo" to the work of Pope Benedict in this area. I do fear, however, that his greatest challenges are just ahead.

Posted by: Bill R | Sep 23, 2006 11:44:34 AM

'What has Athens to do with Mecca?'

Thank you again, Dr Esolen!

(from Canterbury, sorely in need of another Augustine today)

Posted by: Neil Cooper | Sep 23, 2006 1:18:27 PM

"The German Shepherd" is classic. Far better than the demeaning "God's Rottweiller." I think everyone ought to read the full text of Benedict's Regensburg speech. As seclular Europe folds to Islam, I think the dichotomy will only become more marked. I just hope I live to see the similar exhaustion of Islamic metaphysics (though that's very unlikely).

Posted by: Ethan Cordray | Sep 23, 2006 1:33:59 PM

Bill,

I agree with Belloc, too. There's a miraculous providence in the very Word of God, isn't there? For many centuries a chapter or a verse will lie dormant, or a teaching will be accepted and then set aside on the shelf, or maybe accepted and celebrated but also taken for granted, its radical strangeness no longer appreciated. That may be the case with the Trinity (and here my Eastern friends throw their hands up in exasperation, crying, justly, "But we never forgot it!"). Christians are not Unitarians for Jesus. If you are a Unitarian, you have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of God, and all kinds of further misunderstandings will follow.

One interesting question is why unitarian Jews do not fall into the voluntarist trap, or the necessitarian trap, that Islamists fall into. I'd guess it's the centrality of the Covenant, which makes sense only if God is not only a Person, but the Person from Whom our own personhood derives. That Person, unlike Allah, is a preeminently worthy object of love. Yes, I know that the Sufi heretics write poetry about the love of Allah. Guess which religions have influenced them ...

Posted by: Tony Esolen | Sep 23, 2006 5:16:31 PM

"One interesting question is why unitarian Jews do not fall into the voluntarist trap, or the necessitarian trap, that Islamists fall into."

Perhaps another reason, Tony (or more precisely, a comment on your reason), is that orthodox Jews are less unitarian than they are "incomplete Trinitarians," for, since we share part of the same Word of God, we share in some sense a knowledge of the First Person of the Trinity. While Muslims venerate the OT, they strip it of its meaning by adding the Koran to their canon.

Posted by: b | Sep 23, 2006 7:53:18 PM

For some reason, my name didn't show on that last post, in case you wondered who "B" was!

Posted by: Bill R | Sep 23, 2006 7:54:28 PM

I would point out it was not just Belloc that identified Islam as a Christian heresy. This has been the constant tradition of the Church. Bl. John Henry Cardinal Newman is an even more authoritative source on this than Belloc. Dante Allegheri places Mohammad in the 9th circle of Hell among the other schimatics - Dante is hardly magesterial but his writings reflect the common knowledge of the day (13th Century)

Posted by: Kevin V | Sep 24, 2006 7:47:39 AM

Kevin,

I didn't want to bring Dante into it ... Mohammed is not in the circle of the heretics, but lower down, in Malebolge, with the frauds; specifically, in his case, the schismatics or sowers of discord. He is slashed down the front from the throat to the anus, while his son-in-law the Caliph Ali is slashed from the cowlick to the chin. Thus between the two of them they divide the body completely. Thomas wrote the Summa Contra Gentiles specifically to refute Islamic unitarianism, necessitarianism, and other errors he saw in Averroes especially, and to a lesser degree in the other great Arabic philosophers. So Thomas treats them as a special class of pagans, or so it seems....

Posted by: Tony Esolen | Sep 24, 2006 5:11:32 PM

Kevin, I did not mean to imply that Belloc was the first to treat Islam as a heresy; it may be more accurate to say that he was the last modern writer to do so. Today there is a lot of polite gabble about the "three great monotheistic faiths," whereas until fairly recently most Christians would have spoken of one monotheistic faith: first evidenced by the Jews, completed by the Christians, and corrupted by the Muslims. But that's not PC today by a long shot!

Posted by: Bill R | Sep 24, 2006 5:58:29 PM

>>>I would point out it was not just Belloc that identified Islam as a Christian heresy. This has been the constant tradition of the Church. Bl. John Henry Cardinal Newman is an even more authoritative source on this than Belloc. Dante Allegheri places Mohammad in the 9th circle of Hell among the other schimatics - Dante is hardly magesterial but his writings reflect the common knowledge of the day (13th Century)<<<

John Damascene beat everyone to the punch, characterizing Islam as the last and greatest of the Christological heresies. Interestingly, a growing number of Islamic scholars are now pointing to the influence of Nestorian writings on the Quran, and as the Church of the East played a significant role in pre-Islamic Arabia, the connection is not unlikely.

Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 24, 2006 8:27:00 PM

I recently translated and posted St John Damascene's chapter on "the Ishmaelites," since the work wasn't available online already:
http://www.bombaxo.com/blog/?p=210

Enjoy!

Posted by: Kevin P. Edgecomb | Sep 25, 2006 1:54:59 AM

There's also something to be said for the refinement of calling Islam a Jewish heresy -- of course Christianity is, as we believe, the fulfillment and completion of Judaism; but Islam seems to have more in common with Judaism prior to the revelation of the Incarnate Christ (not that it doesn't lift aspects of the Fulfillment as well; or rather, that misteaching of the Fulfillment which was condemned as Nestorianism).

In this sense, Islam might correspond to Judaism roughly in the same way Mormonism corresponds to (Evangelical?) Christianity.

Of course, I want to be wary of seeming to contradict Belloc, Newman, and St. John Damascene. Far be it from me. :-)

Posted by: Firinnteine | Sep 26, 2006 12:17:41 PM

A couple of questions:

1) When Jews encountered pagan shrines in the promised land, were they commanded to Judaize them, or dismantle them? Consult the latter chapters of Deuteronomy.

2) While Paul made reference to the statue dedicated to the unknown god in his speech to the Athenians, did Paul and other Christians of the first century rededicate idolatrous statues to Christ and then continue to use them?

Posted by: Clark Coleman | Sep 29, 2006 11:35:23 AM

Until God had revealed himself to us as a man, no adequate representation could be found. Then, from the cradle to the cross, He gave us a superabundance of material to work with. When the apostles fell down ("though some hesitated") before the risen Jesus, were they idolizing a man, or adoring the Man-God? It's not unreasonable that thereafter representations of him could be venerated (not, of course, worshipped in the sense of adoration). With the renewing of creation in these last times, God has raised and redeemed corrupt nature, too.

Posted by: imago | Oct 2, 2006 6:10:35 AM

>>>Until God had revealed himself to us as a man, no adequate representation could be found. Then, from the cradle to the cross, He gave us a superabundance of material to work with. When the apostles fell down ("though some hesitated") before the risen Jesus, were they idolizing a man, or adoring the Man-God? It's not unreasonable that thereafter representations of him could be venerated (not, of course, worshipped in the sense of adoration). With the renewing of creation in these last times, God has raised and redeemed corrupt nature, too.<<<

Sounds like someone channeling is John Damascene or Theordore Studites.

Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Oct 2, 2006 7:06:50 AM

>It's not unreasonable that thereafter representations of him could be venerated (not, of course, worshipped in the sense of adoration).

Nor is it unreasonable that God meant what he said in the Ten Commandments about images.

Posted by: David Gray | Oct 2, 2006 7:22:16 AM

Right you are, David. Did I disagree?

Posted by: imago | Oct 2, 2006 8:18:16 AM

>Did I disagree?

It would appear so. But it is an issue on which there is formal disagreement between traditions.

Posted by: David Gray | Oct 2, 2006 8:20:45 AM

Gosh, it didn't appear so to me. Can you elaborate? It's important enough a question not to hide it behind disagreement between traditions.

Posted by: imago | Oct 2, 2006 8:27:53 AM

>>>Nor is it unreasonable that God meant what he said in the Ten Commandments about images.<<<

So, David, some questions:

1. Is jesus Christ truly the Son of God?
2. Is the Son of God the "true image" of the Father?
3. Was the Son of God made incarnate by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin?
4. In his earthly life was Jesus Christ truly man?
5. As a man, could he be touched, seen, and even depicted in an image?
6. If an image was made of Jesus of Nazareth, would it not be an image of the Son of God?
7. If it is an image of the Son of God, is it not also a true image of the Father?
8. If one cannot make a true image of Jesus Christ, then is one not saying either that Jesus was not truly a man, or that the Son is merely a modality in the existence of the Godhead?

As you can see, iconoclasm (which is what you advocate) has serious Christological implications, and invariably leads to a docetistic understanding of the incarnation.

Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Oct 2, 2006 8:29:56 AM

Stuart's excellent post is on a slightly different track to mine. I'm concerned to highlight the difference between veneration and adoration. The latter is due to God alone. We're quite free to bestow reverence on many things. For example St. Paul says "we might be prepared to die for someone really worthy"

Posted by: imago | Oct 2, 2006 8:33:09 AM

Another, perhaps better example: the fine tradition of saluting the flag.

Posted by: imago | Oct 2, 2006 8:35:58 AM

>1. Is jesus Christ truly the Son of God?

Yes.

>2. Is the Son of God the "true image" of the Father?

It depends what you mean by "true image". If you mean "whoever has seen me has seen the Father" then the answer is yes. If you mean in a literal way then obviously no. Man is created in God's image. Taking that in a literal way would also mislead.

>3. Was the Son of God made incarnate by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin?

Yes.

>4. In his earthly life was Jesus Christ truly man?

Yes.

>5. As a man, could he be touched, seen, and even depicted in an image?

Yes.

>6. If an image was made of Jesus of Nazareth, would it not be an image of the Son of God?

Yes.

>7. If it is an image of the Son of God, is it not also a true image of the Father?

See above.

>8. If one cannot make a true image of Jesus Christ, then is one not saying either that Jesus was not truly a man, or that the Son is merely a modality in the existence of the Godhead?

Well you cannot make a true image of Jesus Christ as you do not know what he looks like. Christ was fully God and fully man, possessing both natures.

>As you can see,

Not really.

>iconoclasm (which is what you advocate) has serious Christological implications, and invariably leads to a docetistic understanding of the incarnation.

Attributing a docetistic understanding of the incarnation to Reformed Christians is if anything sillier than attributing idolatry to Eastern Orthodox Christians (which nobody has done that I've seen).

Posted by: David Gray | Oct 2, 2006 9:01:18 AM

Nobody has attributed idolatry to EO Christians? I 'm not sure. BTW, David, are you deliberately not including RCs here? Please fogive my nastily suspicious mind...

Posted by: imago | Oct 2, 2006 9:06:08 AM

>Nobody has attributed idolatry to EO Christians? I 'm not sure.

Well I haven't seen it, I don't read this site compulsively enough to read every single line. I'll be glad to stand corrected.

>BTW, David, are you deliberately not including RCs here?

Huh?

>Please fogive my nastily suspicious mind...

For what?

Posted by: David Gray | Oct 2, 2006 9:08:04 AM

I meant in attributing idolatry to any one or group. In any event, do you care to continue our previous exchange? I assure you I'm not being disingenuous...

Posted by: imago | Oct 2, 2006 9:13:17 AM

>I meant in attributing idolatry to any one or group.

I guess I was just referring to discussions on this site.

>In any event, do you care to continue our previous exchange? I assure you I'm not being disingenuous...

I understand that the point of icons is not to worship them in and of themselves (although man being what he is the point is lost at times). But how does one square that with:

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."

I'm sure if one does sufficient mental gymnastics one can get around that but is that what we want?

Posted by: David Gray | Oct 2, 2006 9:19:42 AM

David -- the late Reformed theologian David Chilton once said that no matter what you may say about the practice of image veneration per se, it was definitely the iconodules and not the iconoclasts who held the correct view of the Incarnation. A study of the Iconoclastic controversy will bear this out; iconoclasm possessed a faulty Christology. The iconodule theologians realized both the theological origins and the theological implications of iconoclasm, in a very similar manner to that in which earlier theologians realized the implications of calling the Blessed Virgin merely 'christotokos' and not 'theotokos.'

Posted by: Rob Grano | Oct 2, 2006 9:21:10 AM

BTW "Imago" if you were to find accusations of idolatry unsettling how do you feel about accusations of docetism?

Posted by: David Gray | Oct 2, 2006 9:21:56 AM

Wasn't Chilton a Reconstructionist?

Posted by: David Gray | Oct 2, 2006 9:23:42 AM

You shall not bow down to them or serve them

It doesn't take mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that that means "don't worship or adore images". I think I'm OK with that one...

how do you feel about accusations of docetism?

about as upset as if anyone accused me of floccipaucinhilipilification... :)

Posted by: imago | Oct 2, 2006 9:26:40 AM

I'd better clarify. I'd feel that the accusation didn't stick.

Posted by: imago | Oct 2, 2006 9:29:55 AM

David Gray,

It's hardly a matter of mental gymnastics. It's a matter of the proper agency. Shall we denounce all prophets, because God has condemned those who presume to prophecy on their own authority? Shall we denounce the Lord's Supper, or the Lord's offering on the cross, because God told Abraham that He would provide the sacrifice?

In the same way, God properly instructs the Hebrews, "You shall not make for yourself a carved image." The command in no way binds God, who remains free to fashion images -- both at creation, when man and woman are made in the image of God, and in Christ, who is *the* Image of God. If God has given us His Image, His Sacrifice, His Word, shall we refrain from handing these things on to others lest we violate the commandments concerning graven images, false prophecy, and unauthorized worship?

Posted by: DGP | Oct 2, 2006 9:32:49 AM

Chilton was somewhat of a Reconstructionist, yes, thought not a 'hard core' one. As he got closer to the end of his life he was heading towards Orthodoxy.

Posted by: Rob Grano | Oct 2, 2006 9:36:06 AM

As we get closer to the end of life, let's hope we all approach at least the small 'o' version :)

Posted by: imago | Oct 2, 2006 9:40:36 AM

>If God has given us His Image, His Sacrifice, His Word, shall we refrain from handing these things on to others lest we violate the commandments concerning graven images, false prophecy, and unauthorized worship?

No but I don't see the applicability of that question to the matter at hand. It is an interesting subject to discuss but there are two reasons to doubt the utility of an extended discussion here.

1. These debates have been held at a higher level than we'll likely manage here. Churchmen and theologians of different traditions, who all have a greater knowledge of the fathers and the languages, have been unable to convince one another of any one position being correct. I'm skeptical that we will do better.

2. Given that resolution is, at best, highly unlikely these discussions are more likely to divide Christians (actively, not just abstractly) to a greater degree than must be the case (a degree of which is inevitable). Accusations of idolatry and docetism aren't useful and nobody here has authority to make them stick. What can we do at this site which would most glorify God?

Posted by: David Gray | Oct 2, 2006 9:41:44 AM

Amen to that!!

Posted by: Rob Grano | Oct 2, 2006 9:41:51 AM

My 'amen' was for Imago's statement above....

Posted by: Rob Grano | Oct 2, 2006 9:43:10 AM

Shucks!

Posted by: David Gray | Oct 2, 2006 9:44:43 AM

David, I'll tell you where I'm coming from. I like the idea of conforming myself to the whole of Christ's teachings. That's what I mean by a Catholic (kata holo(s?) -- according to the whole) viewpoint. Now it seems to me too many reformers fell in to the error of being more Catholic than the pope, by forbidding that which was lawful. "Abusus not tollit usum", do you agree?

Posted by: imago | Oct 2, 2006 9:48:11 AM

I agree with your overall thought and the last sentence but the devil, so to speak, is in the details. Nobody thought they were opposed to proper use.

Posted by: David Gray | Oct 2, 2006 9:51:42 AM

Absolutely. That's why we need mental gymnastics occasionally! :)

Posted by: imago | Oct 2, 2006 9:55:22 AM

I would like to know how Catholics and Orthodox Christians understanding the following declaration from the Seventh Ecumenical Council:

    We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some other material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on the sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls, furnishings, and in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the venerable angels and those of all saintly people. Whenever these representations are contemplated, they will cause those who look at them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define also that they should be kissed and that they are an object of veneration and honor (timitiki proskynisis), but not of real worship (latreia), which is reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith and is proper for the divine nature, ... which is in effect transmitted to the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in it the reality for which it stands.
I have italicized the word "should" where it appears because that is what bothers me. I have no objection to your displaying and venerating icons, but the declaration seems to do more than grant permission to do so; it appears to mandate (or at least strongly recommend -- I have seen it rendered "shall" in other translations, which would be a definite mandate). Do Catholic and Orthodox Christians consider our failure to display and venerate icons to be among the many alleged errors of Protestants. If so, to what level does that error rise (i.e., is it heretical, heterodoxy, etc.)?

As a Protestant, I do not venerate icons, though I admire them as works of art and find no basis to charge those who create and display them with idolatry. Nonetheless, the veneration of them makes me uncomfortable. While I don't condemn their veneration by Catholics and Orthodox Christians, their veneration would be a stumbling block to me.

Posted by: GL | Oct 2, 2006 9:59:53 AM

GL, I empathise fully with your statement. But gosh! churches can be empty place without these signs of love...

Posted by: imago | Oct 2, 2006 10:03:01 AM

...and, let it be said, nature abhors a vacuum. What should be put in a big, empty megaspace instead? The pastor's huge personality?

Posted by: imago | Oct 2, 2006 10:05:01 AM

What should be put in a big, empty megaspace instead? The pastor's huge personality?

In the church I attend, we have a large, beautiful cross front and center. The pastor, like in Catholic churches, speaks from a pulpit (really a lecturn) on the side. I suppose the cross could be considered a kind of icon. The difference is that no one goes forward and kisses the cross. I may (and do) look at the cross and comtemplate what Christ has done for me, which I suppose could be described by some as a sort of mental act of veneration, but no one performs a physical act of veneration.

Posted by: GL | Oct 2, 2006 10:14:48 AM

GL, in amy of the churches I attend, I genuflect before the real presence of Jesus Christ in the tabernacle. I couldn't largely give a rap about icons and statues around the place. Isn't that the real scandal?

Posted by: imago | Oct 2, 2006 10:21:23 AM

GL -- can't speak for the Catholics, but the Orthodox take the Council's statement just as it reads. After the iconoclasts were defeated and the Icons were declared to be of the "stuff" of orthodoxy, there was no way any longer for them to be considered optional.

Posted by: Rob Grano | Oct 2, 2006 10:23:11 AM

...not to imply that they were ever really considered 'optional' in the first place.

Posted by: Rob Grano | Oct 2, 2006 10:26:25 AM

Post a comment