Evangelical Is Not Enough: Spirit and Flesh
From reading recent comments in Elizabeth Esther’s recent book discussion on Evangelical Is Not Enough, it would seem that the discussion is starting to heat up. If you get the chance to visit her blog, you will see what is so far an excellent example of respectful dialogue. It is tempting for me to simply jump ahead to the topic of Mary, but I will stick with my original plan to take one topic at a time, in order to give each one its due.
Thomas Howard’s chapter entitled, “Spirit and Flesh” struck me as being centered very firmly around the central tenet of Christianity, that being the Incarnation of Christ. Christians have spent a great deal of time over the centuries debating the implications of the Incarnation and we as modern Christians are no different.
One of the continual questions that I have faced as a Catholic in the Bible Belt is why we worship statues. First of all, I must say that we as Catholics do not worship statues, but we do adorn our churches and homes with holy images of both Christ and the saints in the same way that most of us place pictures of family and friends in our homes and workplaces. One of the most common challenges I hear to this from my friends who are part of evangelical churches comes from the book of Exodus, specifically from the decalogue,
- Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.(Exodus 20:4-6)
- Have them make a chest of acacia wood—two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. Overlay it with pure gold, both inside and out, and make a gold molding around it. Cast four gold rings for it and fasten them to its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other. Then make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. Insert the poles into the rings on the sides of the chest to carry it. The poles are to remain in the rings of this ark; they are not to be removed. Then put in the ark the Testimony, which I will give you.Make an atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. 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. 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. Place the cover on top of the ark and put in the ark the Testimony, which I will give you. There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the Testimony, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites. (Exodus 25:10-22)
- Concerning the charge of idolatry: Icons are not idols but symbols, therefore when an Orthodox venerates an icon, he is not guilty of idolatry. He is not worshipping the symbol, but merely venerating it. Such veneration is not directed toward wood, or paint or stone, but towards the person depicted. Therefore relative honor is shown to material objects, but worship is due to God alone.
- I do not worship matter, but the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material and deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation…
- If someone had asked me why we disallowed crosses on the one hand but at the same time permitted wedding rings, which are, after all, solid objects in the physical world whose sole function is to represent and embody something that exists in a much more profound realm, I am not sure what answer I would have given. I had heard it said, especially with respect to the crucifix, that we worshipped a risen Christ, not a dead one. The eventually came to sound facile to me, since no Christian can pretend that the Cross does not stand forever as focal for Christian vision; to pit the Resurrection against it is flippant. Furthermore, the same people who said this had little objection to manger scenes; they would have jibbed, however, if someone had asked them if they worshipped a Christ who was still an infant.
What I find increasingly fascinating and important in our modern debates over Christianity is this very thing. Too many times we look only at the disagreements at the surface level, failing to recognize that these distinctions arise from a difference in belief on a much deeper level. Those of us who practice our faith primarily through sacraments understand the faith not only with our intellects, but in many ways with our entire being. Sometimes our intellect almost doesn’t matter at all. One example that comes to mind is the observance of Ash Wednesday that we will soon be celebrating. Every year it is one of the most widely attended celebrations in the Catholic Church, but it is not a holy day of obligation. People attend because somehow they know it is important to receive these ashes on their foreheads that remind us of our mortality and the continual need for conversion. It is a very physical act.
Christ, in His Incarnation, has healed the brokenness of the Fall not by showing us the way to some world that is devoid of flesh, but by becoming flesh. In His body, God and humanity has been reconciled. One of the most beautiful passages in Howard’s book describes well what happened in the Fall, of how God’s design for the human race was warped,
- Our work, formerly synonymous with our freedom and dignity, is now drudgery. It breaks our backs. Childbearing, presumably in some sense the crown of human experience–something that we, made in the image of God, would experience and the angels only could envy–is now marred with pain. Our bodies, the very statuary of God so to speak, are now torn from our spirits in the ultimate division called death, which yields in the place of the noble creature called man two pitiable horrors, a corpse and a ghost. When the physical is divided from the spiritual, there results the cacophany that brays and clashes in the abyss outside the harmony of the divine order. Division. Hell.
About The Author
Good post, Father. Thomas Howard’s book was my nudge back to the sacramental tradition from fundamentalist evangelicalism. It is a hard paradigm shift if you aren’t interested in it.
There is nothing wrong with giving and showing honour to fellow men and women, and this is exemplified and commanded in the Bible. The problem arises when this innocent truth is stretched to justify idolatry, for “honour” and “bowing” could also be expressions of that kind of reverence that belongs to God alone, and not to fellow creatures.
Thus when Cornelius met Peter, he fell at his feet in reverence. Peter would not allow this kind of “honour” and he made him get up: “Stand up; I myself am also a man” (see Acts 10:25,26). Similarly, when John fell down to worship at the feet of an angel, the angel rebuked him: “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God” (see Revelations 22:8,9). Clearly the honour and praise we should give to men and angels could easily deteriorate into idolatry.
So, what is the dividing line between legitimate honour to fellow creatures and idolatry? Rather than relying on our opinion, we should turn to God for an answer. He told us what we should and should not do in the second commandment:
“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; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:4,5).
God defines idolatry as the making of images, bowing down and serving them. God does not prohibit art or sculpture. For example, God commanded the making of golden cherubims and a bronze serpent (Exodus 25:18-20, Numbers 21:8-9). But the people of Israel were not called to bow down before them or serve them. God never intended that the cherubims should be venerated by praying and bowing down before them, and indeed they were hardly ever seen by the people of Israel as they were hid in the Holy of Holies. Similarly the bronze serpent was a picture of Christ dying on the cross (Numbers 21:8,9; John 3:14,15), but the people of Israel were never told to pray or bow down before it. When in course of time they did that, the godly king Hezekiah smashed it to pieces (2 Kings 18:3,4).
Great book and helpful to me as well.
WHO IS DOING THE SINGING WHEN THE SITE IS OPENED?
Linda, I completely agree we should let Scripture guide us in our faith practices. I invite you to read the program notes on “Veneration of Icons” in which we do a Bible and “word study” on bowing, veneration and worship. It has a lot of Scriptures that most evangelicals (and myself at one time) haven’t underlined. It can be found here:
http://www.ourlifeinchrist.com/Program%20Notes/icons5_110704.htm
The entire 6 part series on Icons and their use, meaning and practice can be found in the audio archives of my radio program podcast beginning with the program date Sept. 26, 2004
here: http://www.ourlifeinchrist.com/archives.htm While they specifically deal with the Eastern Orthodox view, I believe 99% of what is said is also common with the Roman Catholic understanding of their use of statuary and images.
Thanks for the comments y’all!
JD: The singer is Patty Griffin.
Linda: It may be difficult for me to respond to your comment but I will attempt to do so in a respectful way. One of things I noted in this post:
“Too many times we look only at the disagreements at the surface level, failing to recognize that these distinctions arise from a difference in belief on a much deeper level.”
The underlying belief that I think I am hearing in your comment is that we as Christians are to rely only upon the Bible for our source of knowledge when it comes to God, and for that matter only one interpretation of the Bible. As a Catholic, I rely as much as I am able as a human being with limits upon the tradition and history of the entire church, which includes but is not limited to the Bible.
One reason we as Catholics do not limit ourselves to looking at the Bible, while rejecting all other sources of knowledge of God is that we know there was a Christian community before there was a Bible. The Gospel was proclaimed by Jesus Christ and his Apostles well before anything was written down, and even after things began to be written down, the Christian community itself had to come together to decide, with the help of the Holy Spirit of course, which books to include.
There was a Christian community before the Bible was written. For example, where did St. Paul hear the Gospel? It seems from his own testimony in the Bible, and the from St. Luke in Acts that he heard first directly from the risen Christ and later Peter and some of the other Apostles. He passed that on in writing letters to communities. One of the reasons I find it important to look to the Ancient, meaning the first Christian communities is that many of them either knew Jesus personally, or knew someone who did, like the Apostles. It would make sense to believe someone who had been taught by Peter, James or John might have a better idea of the faith than we do. The great gift we have are their writings, many written before the Bible was compiled.
When we study our own Christian history it is not hard to find that the Bible was compiled at the Council of Carthage in the year 397. They used the following criteria: the book had to be apostolic in origin, authoritative in spiritual content, and had to be universally accepted by the churches at the time.
But let me turn back to the original comment. The comment seems to imply that to give veneration or honor to holy objects always is an act of worship. I would not agree with this assessment. Christians universally agree that worship is reserved to God alone, but we do many times give reverence and honor to the objects that remind us of him. I would propose that bowing one’s head to a cross, kissing an icon, or making the sing of the cross in not an act of worship, but one of devotion to the person represented in holy things, that being God.
Here is another example that may help illustrate this. Think of the famous painting of the veteran at the Vietnam War Memorial, head bowed, his hand touching the wall where he sees the images of fallen friends reflected back at him. Or think of a soldier saluting the American flag. These are certainly outward gestures of respect and honor, but no one would mistake them for worship.
Or think of a woman who has lost her husband kissing a photograph of him. Is the kiss meant for the photo, or is it meant for the man? This is the same concept we Catholics use in our respect for things like the crucifix. It is not the wood that we worship, but Christ whom is represented there. And so we do treat it with respect for the sake of what it represents, just as soldiers respect the flag for what it represents, not for the material of the flag itself.
I invite others to comment.
To Christian Mathis – do you believe that king Hezekiah was wrong to smash to pieces the bronze serpent when the Jews started to pray and bow down before it (2 Kings 18:3-4)?
Linda,
I don’t believe he was wrong to smash it. I believe the people were wrong when they turned it into an idol and worshipped the bronze serpent instead of worshipping God. But I also believe that God initially had a purpose for the bronze serpent when Moses created it as a symbol of God’s healing power for the people. We still see the symbol in fact as a sign of healing in the medical field today. I don’t know of anyone who believes their use of symbol smashed in the Bible is a form of idolatry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_of_Asclepius
The key here is not to simply place my own personal beliefs upon the Scripture by picking and choosing single verses from the Bible, but by placing things into the context of the whole. Moses created and placed the serpent among the people for healing. Hezekiah smashed it when the people made it into more than it should have been.
Sin is always a misuse of something God has given to us.
Christian Mathis – I am glad you agree that King Hezekiah was doing the godly thing to smash the bronze serpent when the people started to pray and bow down before it. That would mean you would do the same if Roman Catholics start to pray and bow down to statues of Mary (or other saints) in your parish right?
In fact it would be safe to say you would want to avoid having any statues since God has not commanded statues of Mary or any saint be made, whereas He did command Moses to make the bronze serpent for a specific purpose.
LInda,
As I mentioned in a comment above, it seems that as you and I come from different traditions we have also two different ways of interpreting the Scripture. Catholics do not believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture and do not base our belief on Scripture alone. I do not believe, based upon your comments that we are going to reach an agreement on this, but I will attempt to answer your question as best as I can.
It is true that in the Old Testament there was a prescription against the making of an image of God. The primary reason is that on one had ever seen God. Since Christ’s coming that has changed. We as Catholics use Jesus Christ as the primary lens of interpretation for both the New and Old Testament. He is the reason that we believe that it is permissible since His becoming flesh and taking on material to create images of both God and those saints who point one to Christ. So we would believe that while there is no place where God specifically mandates the making of images, He has by the very fact of coming in the flesh shown us His image that can now be displayed in order to draw people more closely to Him.
So the answer to your question is no, that I would not smash and destroy holy images any more than I would burn the American flag if I discovered someone who was literally woshipping it rather than honoring what it stands for. But, if I found that someone was in fact moving beyond veneration and honor I would attempt to correct a person. I might use the example that Howard Thomas uses in his book of the frequent display of Nativity scenes in the houses of Christians. Should we smash those? I certainly would not.
I am afraid that due to a difference in opinion as to how to read the Bible, we may not be able to come to agreement on this issue. You are assuming that I agree with your method of interpreting the Bible and I do not. Taking one verse out of context is not the proper way of using the Scriptures. If it were I could make all kinds of preposterous claims of things we ought to do.
For example:
Disobedient children should be stoned – Deuteronomy 21:18-21
We should smash the heads of our enemies’ children upon a rock. Psalm 137: 8-9
Christians who sin with their hands and eyes should cut them off or gouge them out. I can think of many ways the majority of Christians do this. Matthew 18: 8-10
Through proof texting the Bible I could also make a case for slavery, the subjugation of women and many other things that no Christian promotes. The reason being is that there is a real purpose in having a tradition that oversees our interpretation of the Bible.
If you are interesting in approaching this conversation with an open mind, I can show you exactly where Catholics come to value Christian art, such as statues, but if you are only interested in sending me proof texts from the Bible we are not really using our time well.
The law of stoning disobedient children in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 and killing the enemies children for retribution in Psalm 137:8-9 is applicable to the nation of Israel only. Christians are not commanded to follow the civil and ceremonial laws or specific battle commands that God gave Israel, but the Ten Commandments still apply to Christians (like the second commandment about not making carved images and bowing down to them).
In Matthew 18:8-10 Jesus is using a figure of speech, Jesus does not mean to literally cut your hand or gouge your eyes out. He is saying you need to take sin seriously and do everything you can to not sin. It is not hard to recognize when a person is talking this way, people use figures of speech in their everyday conversation all the time, I am sure you do yourself.
I agree nobody should be proof texting or cherry -picking verses from the Bible to promote their beliefs or their cause. I agree we should look at the total history of Christian beliefs, but it is quite possible historical beliefs and traditions are wrong. All you have to do is realize that the majority of the Jewish religious leaders at the time of the Lord Jesus Christ were wrong in their beliefs, they insisted their traditions were correct, but Jesus proved them wrong. So tradition that does not line up with Scripture is just plain wrong..
Thank you for your time.
A few quick thoughts and questions
1) If a case can be made that iconography is allowable (which I am not willing to concede quite yet), does that mean it is necessary or is it optional. Not to use too crude an analogy, but some folks find organ music more worshipful, while others might actually find organ music distracting.
2) Jesus was God incarnate; however, any physical representations of him, can only show his human nature. His divine nature cannot be shown in art (in the same way that you said that it would be difficult to show God the Father). This strikes me as somehow inappropriate (showing his physcial nature but not divine). I am sure that I am not the first person to think of this, but I haven’t really heard this discussed before.
3) As far as I know, every piece of art that depicts Jesus looks vaguely similar; however, we have no idea what Jesus looked like. So, those depictions are most likely very different from Jesus’ actual appearance. Is that a problem? Is it o.k for other culture to have different looking Jesus’ (That question probably sounds facetious, but I really don’t mean it that way)
4) I would disagree with Fr. Christian: I certainly hope that Catholics interpret scripture literally…well, at least the literal parts! To interpret scripture properly, we must honor the type of literature that it is. So some passages should be taken literally, some allegorically, some as proverbs, etc. I think that you probably agree with this. So I believe that Jesus really physically rose from the dead, not that “he lived on in the heart of his followers”.
5) Using single verses of scriptures is not wrong(most of us do it all the time), IF they are interpreted correclty according to their context. It is Wrong to pull things out of context so that they appear to mean things that they were never intended to mean.
Thanks for commenting Greg! I was wondering if you were going to show up in this conversation and glad you are here.
First of all I probably should apologize to Linda if I came across to strongly in my last comment. Sometimes I can get caught up too much in the details of a disagreement and forget to take the time necessary that keeps one from possibly offending. My strong reaction comes out of our belief as Catholics that the holy images are so closely connected to Christ, that to dishonor the image is to dishonor Him. I would imagine many traditions who don’t share our belief on this would feel the same if someone suggested ripping up a Bible. The Bible is itself not God, but it certainly represents Him.
I will do my best to comment on your five points Greg.
1. While I have seen Catholic Churches that do not have “iconography”, so to speak, I don’t think I have ever seen one without at least a crucifix and most would have some sort of statuary. My own parish in Lenoir City, unitl recently was bare with the exception of the crucifix. We now have also a statue of Mary and Joseph holding the infant Christ. There has also been in our smaller chapel a statue of St. Thomas and an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. I may call upon s-p to address the Orthodox Church if he is still reading these comments, but it is my understanding that icons would be required in the East. My only thought as to why one would not have them is due to severe poverty. And in that case the image and likeness of God would still be represented in the Christians that gathered.
The reason for putting the emphasis might be better addressed in your second point Greg, but I will try to give a short comment here which may bleed over into the second note. This argument over whether or not images are appropriate for Christ, Mary, the Saints and other events of the Scripture is not a new one, as you may or may not be aware. The last ecumenical council that included both East and West is the seventh one held in Nicea in 787. Christians by that point had already been arguing about this for over 100 years. There were those called iconoclasts who were smashing the icons and those called iconodules who supported their use and veneration. Those gathered at this council of all christians at that time came to this conclusion. “Icons… are to be kept in churches and honored with the same relative veneration as is shown to other material symbols, such as the ‘precious and life-giving Cross’ and the Book of the Gospels.”
2. Let me move into commenting on your second observation. It is closely related to the first. I think we can agree that attempting to depict God the Father would be a mistake, and usually I tend to see Him depicted as an old bearded guy, sitting on a cloud. Seems too much like Zeus to me, and we certainly don’t worship Zeus. The whole key to the icon controversy in the minds of the church community at the time centers on the Incarnation. In my own mind, it is the Incarnation that makes or breaks Christianity which is why getting this right is important. I don’t think we are in disagreement on the importance of Christ.
Going back to the seventh ecumenical council, it might help to point out that the deeper issues that are connected to the use of religious art which are:
-the character of Christ’s human nature
-the Christian attitude toward matter
-the true meaning of Christian redemption and the salvation of the entire material universe
It is in fact Christ’s humanity, his taking on the material, that is part of the redemption of the world. It isn’t only the cross, but his entire life, death and resurrection. It usually brings me to tears to hear the Christmas hymn, Hark the Herald Angels when we sing, “Peace on earth and mercy mild, God and sinners reconciled” At His birth, the redemption has already begun we proclaim each year in song. I understand how one might at first see this as inappropriate but in reality, isn’t this exactly the same “inappropriateness” we see in Christ becoming flesh and what Paul speaks about in his First Letter to the Corinthians when he says “we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to Gentiles..”?
Here is how the council fathers put it back in the 8th century:
“Icons are necessary and essential because they protect the full and proper doctrine of the Incarnation. While God cannot be represented in His eternal nature (“…no man has seen God”, John 1:18), He can be depicted simply because He “became human and took flesh.” Of Him who took a material body, material images can be made. In so taking a material body, God proved that matter can be redeemed. He deified matter, making it spirit-bearing, and so if flesh can be a medium for the Spirit, so can wood or paint, although in a different fashion.”
This to me is one thing we modern Christians have downplayed—that being that Christ came to redeem not only our spirits, but our bodies as well. Our natural state is to be unified, body and spirit to Christ, but sometimes we focus only on our spirits. Paul, again in First Corinthians, puts it well when he says, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body,” (1 Cor. 6:19-20)
3. Most of the depictions of Jesus that I come across look somewhat similar, as you note, though it seems that the modern world likes playing even with that. I don’t have a huge problem with having cultural depictions of Jesus that take on some of the traits of Christians of various cultures. Would any of you Eastern Christians like to comment on this one? I honestly don’t know the position of the Orthodox, though I would suspect tighter restrictions.
Having been recently and currently a student of iconography, I know that there are some pretty strict rules that govern what can be depicted in an icon. This is because ultimately they are, similar to the Bible, a theological representation. They are not meant to be an exact likeness, like a photograph, but rather to do in paint, what the Scriptures do with words. In that sense one does not paint an icon, it is written. I do believe that the similarities in Christ’s images that we see comes from the fact that while we modern Christians never saw Christ, there were people who did and who could have passed that image along over the ages. But again, my experience of icons is that they represent theological truths and in this sense must be read, like a book. Here is probably my favorite part of creating an icon that may illustrate what I mean. This is something that one might not see on the surface, but it is present. In making the halo on an icon—which simply represents holiness—one starts by using red clay which represents the humanity of Christ, but also our own humanity. Next, gold is applied to the clay and the two are infused together. The gold represents the divinity of Christ and also God’s spirit that dwells in us. The way that one gets the gold to stick to the clay, is to breath into the clay to warm and moisten it. It is only in mirroring God’s action of breathing life into humanity that the gold will stick. This is just one way the icons mirror the Scripture.
4. Perhaps here I was not completely clear. Catholics indeed read some parts of Scripture literally, but at you have noted there are other ways of interpretation such as the allegorical and moral sense of the Scriptures. As you say, we would literally believe that Christ was born, called disciples, rose from the dead, etc. What I was attempting to say was that I have encountered many who claim that the only way to encounter the Christian faith is through Scripture alone and to interpret the entire Bible literally. Where Catholic belief is sometimes attacked by other Christians (and I understand that attacked is perhaps too strong of a word) is in our claim that there is a need for someone to interpret the Bible or else one could claim some of the things mentioned in my last comment which obviously no Christians, myself included, would claim. But perhaps this is where I can direct a question your way Greg. How does one from an Evangelical tradition determine which parts are to be taken literally and which are not?
As Catholics we are often told by other Christians that the Bible should be taken literally, but then when we bring up something like John 6 are then told, “well, don’t take that part literally!”
5. I completely agree with you here Greg. If put in proper context, this can be a useful tool for Christians. This harkens back to how one knows the proper context as the Bible itself doesn’t spell that out. This is where we as Catholics rely upon many centuries of tradition to help us. My own observations are that Evangelicals also have a tradition of interpretation, but it is a different method than ours.
6. I know you only made five points, but I wanted to add one more, if you will indulge me a question to you as someone who has ministered in an evangelical community (and quite honorably I must say!) How do you all approach this particular verse of Scripture?
“Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess 2:15)
Thanks again Greg for entering the conversation here. I hope we can keep it up and have a respectful dialogue.
I would welcome other readers’ comments as well, but I hope we can keep this on a respectful level as these are very personal subjects which are being discussed.
If you take it literally, Paul commands “young widows” to remarry and have children as stated in one of his letters to Timothy. I have never heard of a protestant pastor etal calling a young widow on the carpet and asking, “what’s the holdup”?
Linda said, “So tradition that does not line up with Scripture is just plain wrong..” and I assumed she was implying that the Catholic (and Orthodox) traditions do not line up with Scripture and need to be abandoned. I argued exactly the same positions Linda puts forth for over 20 years and I changed. I came to realize that MY tradition was just plain wrong and embraced the icons and veneration because I studied Scripture. I came to the realization that, like Linda, I had a “tradition” that, after 18 years of Bible study did not line up with the Bible. We can lob Bible verses across the internet at each other all day, but in the end as the Psalm says, “The sum of Thy word is Truth.” Hopefully we are all humble enough to submit our traditions to Scripture even if it ends up we find our traditions are in error.
Hey-
I haven’t forgotten your questions…just alot of others things happening. Hopefully, I get a few minutes to comment this week.
Blessings
Believe me Greg, I understand completely!