I did a radio interview with my friends Uri and Jarrod on the topic of Eastern Orthodoxy. There should be three installments, with this being the first.
You can listen here.
Steven Wedgeworth
-
Recent Comments
Tim Enloe on Justin Raimondo on Palin Mark Horne on Justin Raimondo on Palin joelmartin on Justin Raimondo on Palin Tim Enloe on Justin Raimondo on Palin Steven Wedgeworth on Busy Streak -
Recent Posts
a
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
Meta
-
Blog Stats
- 91,533 hits
-
Pages
Love the intro music.
I’m listening to this, but I have a real problem with your discussion of icons. You object that the worship service is focused around the icon, and not around other people. You don’t really mean we should have a man centered worship service do you? You don’t mean we should be be lighting candles before eachother, and bowing down to eachother do you?
Also, again, your objection to icons seems very thin–and your argument seems to make nonsense of semiotics of any sort. In general, we rever a symbol and thereby rever the thing symbolized. No one would say “stop saluting the American flag. That’s treasonous.” No earthly king would say “stop saluting an image of me. That’s treason.” And everyone knows that flag burning is an attack on the US. Everyone knows that if you put an image of someone on your toilet paper you are insulting that person. In every other area honor given the sign is given to the signified, and dishonor given the sign is given the signified. For your argument to have any merit, it must take this fact into account. “We should give honor to the thing signified.” Is not an argument against giving honor to the sign.
Hey Steven, this was very helpful.
For any of you lurkers out there who read Steven and wonder what he’s talking about, this is an excellent, basic-level understanding of what the Orthodox church is, how it came about, and what the ikon controversy boils down to.
This was a good interview — I was glad that you were allowed to talk with minimal interruptions. I like it and have passed on the link to a few people. Looking forward to the next two.
I’m interested in how you might respond to Matthew Petersen’s above objection to your icon argument, however. I think I know where you’re coming from, but it would be helpful (to me at least) if you would clarify your argument in light of that objection.
David,
Do you want me to talk about Semiotics?
The short answer would simply be that I was explaining Paul’s argument in Acts. If postmodern communication theories render Paul’s rationale impossible, then I’m sticking with Paul.
Now, I don’t have any problem honoring someone’s picture. Put it over your fireplace. Use it to teach and remember. Give it a nice frame.
But whenever anyone starts hugging and kissing pictures at home, pretty much everyone thinks they are crazy. We all know that the image is not the person, and so some things are indeed inappropriate (you could use your imagination to continue the reductio ad absurdum). There’s an appropriate and an inappropriate way to use symbols.
As to the man-centered business, seeing that man is the image of God, as we look at one another, we should see the face of God. There’s no competition. Bible comes in to make sure we’re doing things in the right order.
Alright, thanks. Just to be clear, I agree with what you’ve said, and think the argument from Acts is a good one. I just thought some discussion regarding the proper use and improper use of symbols would be helpful for clarifying the argument, at least in my own brain.
On a different note, I know I’ve asked you about Letham’s book on EO before, but I wonder if there are any really solid Protestant critiques of Eastern Orthodoxy that you are aware of? It just doesn’t seem like very many theologians in the Protestant world are really trying to deal with this. EO critiques Reformed theology all the time, but I rarely see the Reformed countering the EO. No books (besides Letham’s, which was more a nod of approval than a critique), articles, or anything of the kind (that I’m aware of). You’ve been involved, for which I’m grateful, but I’d like to see more of a response from the church at large. Do you know of any other good materials or works in progress?
Oh sure, we could talk about symbols at length. My stuff with Uri was necessarily limited though. We went on for about an hour and a half as it was.
One big thing to keep in mind is that semiotics is a fairly postmodern discussion. Obviously the history of sign and thing signified goes way back, but let’s keep things in their proper categories. Regarding an Augustinian theory, the sign’s pointing towards the thing signified also brought with it a pointing away from the sign to some extent. In the context of my discussion, however, I’m very much pro-signs, provided we’ve got the right signs for the right occasions.
The very best sign of Jesus is not a picture of Jesus, but a living and breathing Christian. That’s who shows you the face of God most directly.
It is also the most incarnational thing, as well. The original discussion of icons had to do with the incarnation. That was the clincher. And so I point out that people are the most incarnate object at church. They should be the primary proof of our Lord’s humanity, as they are united to it.
I have no problem with pictures, symbols, even wood-cut icons, in their proper place. I have an icon of St. Athanaseos on my wall. There are pictures of Calvin and Luther not far away, as well as Beowulf and Grendel. But they serve a purpose. They tell stories. Sometimes they preach.
But we all know those people who go a little bit farther with their symbols. We know the young boys who smooch the pictures of supermodels. They aren’t really getting the girl. They are pretending. And that can become perverse. I think a lot of common sense handles most of these questions.
Liturgically speaking, we have to hold a position that A) Allows for the 2nd Commandment to be applicable and does not violate it and B) Seeks to positively emulate Paul’s rationale at Athens. What would he have said to the philosophers when they tried to use Gadamer to justify their pantheon? We have access to his actual argument, and we can situate it within the context of Temple Judaism. I got into this with the discussion of Fletcher-Louis and the image of God. That’s got to be our starting point.
As for Reformed books, the best stuff is probably in the old guys. Bavinck hits on theology proper stuff. Richard Field and John Forbes both address images of God. Friederich Delitzsch (of Keil and Delitzsch fame) addresses Palamism in his works on psychology. I didn’t care for Letham’s book that much, but you can also check out Donald Fairbairn’s book by the same name as Letham’s Through Western Eyes (too bad that they both use the same title), as well the stuff in the Four Views on EO book. Jim Jordan’s thoughts are pretty helpful as well.
One big thing to keep in mind is that EO just wasn’t on the radar prior to the 20th century. This isn’t because folks were short-sighted. It is because it was largely dead. Russia’s various attempts to keep it alive all involved a sort of Westernization. It wasn’t until Russian exiles moved West (and were able to use the gifts and freedoms of the West) that EO could really take off here. And too, most of the anti-Reformed literature coming from EO are coming from converts. It is no surprise that they’ve “got the angle” on the discussion. They always do. But note the maneuvers they have to use: polarities and paradigm-critiques. There’s far too little Biblical-exegetical work and still less appreciation for the West’s own unique history and context, the majority of which was a true movement of the Holy Spirit.
That’s very helpful, Steven. Thanks. Seems like EO suddenly just sort of swelled up into this big fad that’s sweeping across Protestantism. It’s probably just a matter of time before it can’t be ignored anymore and some helpful critiques start being published.
Regarding Postmodernism:
I though semiotics is postmodern, I am not using anything postmodern in my discussion. None of the examples I raised have anything to do with postmodernism. I mentioned uses of symbols that are simply human, and that your discussion of symbols seems to make nonsense of. One doesn’t have to be postmodern to say “um…but it isn’t treasonous to pledge allegience to the Flag of the United States of America, and Caesar didn’t wonder why everyone was giving reverence to his image, and not to him.” At the time of the iconoclast controversy, people would give honor to the emperor by honoring his image–a very common practice that even shows up in The Pirates of Penzance–this is the sort of thing I’m talking about. Nothing postmodern.
Likewise, your argument sounds prety good when you talk about pinnups and pornography, as if that were the only sort of reverence for signs. But you don’t score any points by ignoring the examples of normal, healthy, reverence for signs–reverence that goes way beyond hanging it on the wall in a nice frame. For example, it is an attack on the United States to print her flag on toilet paper. It is not an attack on her to kneel before the flag. And indeed kissing a flag could, at times, be quite healthy and normal. I mean, if someone worshiped the American Flag, we wouldn’t say they were idolaters for worshiping a peice of cloth, but for worshiping the United States.
At the time of the iconoclast controversy, people would give honor to the emperor by honoring his image.
And Protestants did this with symbols of Elizabeth as well. There’s no problem here, and it isn’t the point of my criticism. The difference has to do with the context of worship: liturgy, doxology, prayer, etc.
The same goes for all other use of symbols. I’ve never advocated iconoclasm.
But my point is that there is an asymmetry in your explanation of images.
If someone revers an image of Elizabeth, you say there is nothing wrong with it. If someone revers an image of Christ, you compare it to looking at pornography. At the very least, you should say “though for an earthly king it would not be treasonous to revere an image of that king, for Christ, our heavenly king, it is.”
Moreover, though it may be contrary to Christ’s commands, it is simply disobedient to revere icons, not idolatrous. If the reverence given the image is actually for the image and not for the imaged, the reverence given the image is actually for the image and not for the imaged. If you refuse to make the distinction regarding Christ, at least be consistent and refuse to make the distinction regarding Elizabeth. Similarly, if you make the distinction regarding Elizabeth, make the distinction regarding Christ.
Finally, if we have images of Christ and of Elizabeth, and we show greater honor to the image of Elizabeth than to the image of Christ; our reverence for Elizabeth is greater than our reverence for Christ (for reverence doesn’t refer to some heart condition, but to the embodiment of a heart condition in actions). And therefore, we are being idolatrous–exalting the king over the King.
I said nothing about pornography. I don’t know where that came from.
Of course, it depends on what one does when they are “revering” the image. Treat your pictures of Jesus well. That’s fine. Bow down to them and offer to serve them in the worship. Not fine. The real Jesus is elsewhere, and he asks that his praise be directed elsewhere.
2nd Commandment means something. I just have to repeat that. Any explanation which renders it impossible to enforce is a false explanation.
I don’t often like to be a literalist, but I don’t think one can ignore the fact that *bowing* and *seving* (on analogy with priestly work in the temple, I assume) is an important part of the commandment. I question whether it is right to bow to a picture of an Emperor, even one as nice as Elizabeth.
Andrew,
We know that the Israelites could bow down to kings in certain contexts. The formal worship was not one of those, though. That would be the key distinction.
Isn’t another part of the problem a defective understanding of holiness in terms of personal sanctification? Granted, we all know people who are subjectively more holy than ourselves, and this could have been the case with those termed capital-S “Saints” by earlier generations. However, once one has an understanding of union with Christ by faith, and the full personal access to God that that brings, doesn’t it become impossible to imagine the capital-S “Saints” as having a superior access to God such that they can mediate with God for us – which requires us to venerate them as being “higher” than us and ask them for their intercession?
Steven,
But that just confirms my point. They were permitted to bow down to *real* images of God, i.e. people. That doesn’t prove they could bow down to man-made images of images. At least I’m not aware of any text in scripture which presents such an act in a neutral or positive light.