Monday, August 16, 2010

Iron sharpens iron?

TUAD said:
Brings to mind the passage in Romans about relating to a weaker brother in the faith.

I don't know if Coram Deo should be treated as the weaker brother or the ones arguing with Coram Deo should be treated as the weaker brother, but this spiraling-down quarreling is spiritually unhealthy.
Hi TUAD,

Thanks for your comment.

Perhaps I'm mistaken in what I'm about to say. If so, I trust others will correct me. But for what it's worth, if anything, here are my thoughts on what you've brought up:

1. If it's true CD is the weaker brother here, while we're the stronger ones, then, as Rom 14:3 says, we shouldn't "despise" the weaker brother. But I don't see how we've despised him or mocked him or ridiculed him or whatever. We've presented our arguments before him. We've tried to reason with him. Overall, I think our posture has been a respectful one.

2. Also, if this is true, then it's true CD shouldn't be so judgmental of us. He shouldn't call down God's wrath upon us. He shouldn't be so quick to condemn fellow Christians as "graven image e-pologists." Or insinuate that we're blasphemers or apostates. Or contrast us to "the Laodicean harlot church." And so forth. Paul's exhortation (or command) isn't simply for the stronger brother alone (Rom 14:3b, 10b).

3. I should note, without an accusatory tone at all, but as a matter of fact: it was CD who kicked off the debate. He solicited comments about his own behavior on his blog. He proceeded to involve others.

4. At the risk of stating the obvious, this is occurring in a public forum. It's not simply a private matter between two parties, the weaker and the stronger brother, for example.

5. Finally, I'll note CD has been quite judgmental about a lot of otherwise reputable guys (e.g. Dan Phillips, Josh Harris, Frank Turk). People may not think well of us, the Tbloggers. But I'd think guys like Dan, Frank, and Josh are above reproach. Not to mention Josh is, by all accounts of which I'm aware, a faithful pastor.

These are some preliminary thoughts. I'm sure there's much more to say about this. Perhaps others will add more. Or correct mistakes in what I've said.

8 comments:

  1. "Finally, I'll note CD has been quite judgmental about a lot of otherwise reputable guys (e.g. Dan Phillips, Josh Harris, Frank Turk)."

    And, "R.C. and his boys at Table Talk". Dr. RC Sproul, that is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I acknowledge that I've responded strongly, but I think it's worth noting that this recent series of posts seems to focus on the way in which the message is presented rather than on the message itself.

    In reading through the various posts and comboxes discussing the 2nd Commandment it's become quite obvious where the Triabloggers stand on this matter.

    In fact I did a little digging into the archives and found a series by Steve dating back to "The Passion of the Christ" controversy and, for better or for worse, Steve's position has remained unchanged; he's pro-image [or at least anti anti-image], and man-made images purporting to depict Jesus Christ visually are simply not an issue for him.

    I admit that I'm left wondering how this doctrinal position works out in practice - or at least in the minds of - the pro-image [or anti anti-image] Triabloggers; particularly with respect to idolatrous Romanist statuary and their attendent concepts of latria/dulia/hyperdulia, as well as Eastern Orthodoxy's infernal "wonder working icons".

    When posing this question previously in a separate combox thread the closest thing to a response I received was a rather asinine comment from Steve comparing the misuse of morally neutral things like the Internet, guns, etc., to fashioning visual depictions of Christ; and I think Paul may have cobbled together a similarly clumsy comment about child molesting preachers, and the adoration of the Eucharist.

    Seemingly these juxtapositions could be taken to mean that in the eyes of the Triabloggers things like statuary, crucifixes, and icons may potentially have a proper and good [holy]
    use on the one hand, and on the other hand they may potentially have an improper and bad [unholy] use; the distinction apparently depending upon the heart intent of the end-user of the image.

    I'll give credit where credit is due - you guys obviously know how to turn a phrase, and you're clearly skilled at deploying an extremely impressive array of polished philosophical/apologetic/debate tactics by which you've demonstrated time and again that you're my betters both intellectually and academically; and just in case anyone hadn't noticed this fact you've pointed to my ignorance and facile arguments on multiple occasions just for good measure.

    If one of you would consider giving a plainly worded explanation of the logical outworking of your doctrinal position on the subject of images of God [e.g. Christ in His humilation] it would be most helpful.

    To this end, here's a formulation that I've arrived at based upon my understanding of the contents of various comments made by Steve and Paul [and most recently Peter Pike and Patrick Chan] on this topic.

    Would it be a misunderstanding to conclude based on your various responses that the essence of Triablogue's position on the use of man-made images purporting to depict God [e.g. Christ in His humiliation] within a Christian context could be fairly summarized as follows?

    In our liberty in Christ, religious images such as crucifixes, statuary, and icons are morally neutral tools at the disposal of Christians which may, if fashioned, be faithfully employed to the glory of God, but which in no wise should be employed in a manner which might cause undue harm to the cause of Christ, the body of Christ, or otherwise bring dishonor or disrepute to His Holy Name.

    In Christ,
    CD

    ReplyDelete
  3. There's a whole theological system that undergirds Orthodox icons and Catholic sacramentals. They're certainly not neutral respecting the value which is assigned to them in those theological traditions. That also bears on the latria/dulia/hyperdulia rubric.

    When, however, I view a painting (or statue) of Christ, the whole latria/dulia/hyperdulia rubric is simply inapplicable since I don't see the painting for anything other than what it actually is: one man's theological interpretation of Jesus. The painting tells me something about the painter, but not about Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The Passion of the Christ" Coram Deo

    I was blessed when I saw this film. It was Art. I have the DVD. I watch it at times. I have not been able to watch the scourging as I did the first time. It is quite brutal.

    I love the Lord more because of this film, I believe. It's not Art for everyone, I admit that.

    God allows us to have art of Himself. There is bad artists, and art. But there is fine art, and God has given us the grace and gifted us to produce fine art, that this world will hate, and mock.

    There is cheesy art as well.

    I respect your view. JI Packer has the same view.

    I simply disagree. And one day we will both see Jesus face to face! He will be so magnificent that the art I enjoyed will be empty and nothing in comparison.
    But in this life, and in my walk with the Lord, He graciously blesses us in ways that are beyond comprehension.

    I pray the Church would be a grand expression of excellence in the arts before this world, which is also blessed by God's common grace to produce incredible artistic things.

    ReplyDelete
  5. When, however, I view a painting (or statue) of Christ, the whole latria/dulia/hyperdulia rubric is simply inapplicable since I don't see the painting for anything other than what it actually is: one man's theological interpretation of Jesus. The painting tells me something about the painter, but not about Jesus.

    So perhaps my interpretation isn't too far off the mark.

    Considering your response above it would seem that the final [if not ultimate] determining factor of whether or not a man-made image purporting to depict Jesus Christ in His humiliation crosses over into something fuctionally idolatrous lies in the eyes, attitudes, and actions of the beholder [and possibly to some extent the fashioner].

    But isn't this a subjective zero sum game?

    After all, the Romanist and EO imagists flatly and vigorously deny that they give idolatrous worship to the image; rather they insist such things are merely helps or aids, not entirely dissimilar to a flannel-graph "jesus" being useful for didactic purposes.

    Who's to say they're wrong, and upon what basis is such an argument to be made?

    I'm not trying to trap you guys, and frankly I've long since grown tired of the rancor; basically I'd like to understand how this works from your doctrinal viewpoint on imagery.

    I guess I'd like to walk away from this dust-up having learned something other than the fact that we strongly disagree about the inherent sinfulness of fashioning man-made images purporting to depict any of the three Persons of God.

    If this is something you've already dealt with here I'd be happy to read up on the matter if you'd be kind enough to provide links.

    In Him,
    CD

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve,

    I can't tell if I posted this comment already and it was deleted, or if I simply failed to post it in the fist place.

    If the original was deleted for some reason please delete this re-post as well.


    Steve said: When, however, I view a painting (or statue) of Christ, the whole latria/dulia/hyperdulia rubric is simply inapplicable since I don't see the painting for anything other than what it actually is: one man's theological interpretation of Jesus. The painting tells me something about the painter, but not about Jesus.

    So perhaps my interpretation wasn't too far off the mark.

    Considering your response above it would seem that the final [if not ultimate] determining factor of whether or not a man-made image purporting to depict Jesus Christ in His humiliation crosses over into something fuctionally idolatrous lies in the eyes, attitudes, and actions of the beholder [and possibly to some extent the fashioner].

    But isn't this a subjective zero sum game?

    After all, the Romanist and EO imagists flatly and vigorously deny that they give idolatrous worship to the image; rather they insist such things are merely helps or aids, not entirely dissimilar to a flannel-graph "jesus" being useful for didactic purposes.

    Who's to say they're wrong, and upon what basis is such an argument to be made?

    I'm not trying to trap you guys, and frankly I've long since grown tired of the rancor; basically I'd like to understand how this works from your doctrinal viewpoint on imagery.

    I guess I'd like to walk away from this dust-up having learned something other than the fact that we strongly disagree about the inherent sinfulness of fashioning man-made images purporting to depict any of the three Persons of God.

    If this is something you've already dealt with here I'd be happy to read up on the matter if you'd be kind enough to provide links.

    In Him,
    CD

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for the explanation Patrick.

    It was helpful.

    It looks like this matter will come to rest. And if no one apologizes and all parties go away thinking they're right and the other party is wrong....

    Well, that's the way it is!

    Pre-internet and post-internet.

    Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  8. what I appreciate here is the willingness of CD and the Triabloguers to engage and hash out details of what our relationship with God is supposed to look like. Passion for getting it right is a good thing, the communication of which need only be tempered by our consideration for the sanctification of a weaker brother or sister. (As an extreme example, if a first-grader trying to apprehend the trinity inadvertently vocalizes a heresy, I'm not going to berate him for being a heretic and call for dismissal from the church until he repents.)

    ReplyDelete