“If while remaining loyal to our respective dogmatic standpoints we could succeed in getting to know each other, above all in those points in which we differ, this would undoubtedly be a surer way towards unity than that which would leave differences on one side. For in the words of Karl Barth, ‘the union of the Churches is not made, but we discover it.’” –Vladimir Lossky
So since I have focused so much on criticisms and differences, possibly giving a false impression that I have some deep-seated animosity towards protestants, I will attempt to be more even handed in this post. I will endeavor to make an unbiased comparison of the different Christian branches in terms of how their theology can be revealed through the architecture and design of their churches, generally avoiding the order of the service itself. In so doing, for the sake of comparison, I will broadly characterize the churches into 4 divisions: the (Roman) Catholic Church, the (Eastern) Orthodox Church, the (Protestant) high church (Episcopalians, Lutherans, and some Presbyterians- those who generally are more liturgical), and the (Protestant) low church (Baptists, non-denominational Evangelicals, etc- those with little formal liturgy and more informal church hierarchies).
The external structure. Surely, someone like T.Jack could delve much more deeply into this than I, and hopefully, for mutual benefit, maybe he could add some comments that are reflective both of his architectural expertise and his travels abroad. It is often amazing how quickly one can recognize the general type of a church from the quickest of external glances: The elaborate cathedral with towers and large crucifix in the heart of an old city is often Catholic, a beautiful, yet more simplistic, church in the average American city is often Lutheran, Episcopal, or other high church, and the store front or steel frame structure resembling an office building is more often than not a non-denominational evangelical church. Is there a reason for this other than church traditions? Donald Bruggink says that “Church architecture is… first and foremost a matter of theology rather than a matter of style." If that is true, then what does the it tells us? I found it interesting in my recent travels through Europe that nearly every Catholic cathedral that we entered had extremely high ceilings while the Orthodox churches of the same periods instead possess lower domes with Christ depicted arching over the people- In that structure, we see the Catholic emphasis on the grandeur of God and causal separation of sin while in the Orthodox tradition there is a greater emphasis on God surrounding us, with greater emphasis on the church as a place of experiencing union with him. But both display great intricacies through their theology of the church as essential to finding and experiencing God. And yet in many Baptist churches, hyperbolized in the more primitive, we see more of the “Four white walls and a pulpit,” displaying their emphasis on the church more simply as a functional gathering of believers, avoiding the “excesses” of the high churches. What one would call a minimalist approach to focus on the essentials another would call an avoidance of the fullness that could be encountered. Through this, the experience is greatly different: in one, a sense of awe and grandeur naturally compels itself on the observer, while in the other a comfort and relaxation are felt so as to experience God in a more “seeker-sensitive” form. I had a friend comment upon a very elaborate church, after returning from years over seas as a missionary, with disgust that they would “waste” so much money that could go so far in another country. And while his sentiments struck a chord with me at the time, assuming motives are correct, can one detract from someone who wishes to give the best they possibly can to the Lord? David’s greatest desire was to build the Lord the most wonderful
The interior decorations. Saint John Climacus described the Eastern 6th Century church as believing that “Seeing is better than hearing,” and that sight is the “noblest of the senses.” This is in such strong contrast to the low church, that the thought that worship could be done visibly was almost incomprehensible me. The low church tends to express corporate worship (simplifying) in one of two forms: the preaching of a message which could be thought of as a form of internal mental worship and the singing of songs as external auditory worship. In the more high church traditions, worship is thought of through all of the senses: through the voice in song, through sight in honoring symbolism, in smell through incense, through taste in the communion, and through touch in kissing the cross or an icon. Resultantly, upon entering an Orthodox church, and to a lesser extent a Catholic church, one is immediately engulfed with hundreds of images of the saints of the church- each replete with symbolism of the trinity and the focus of that saint and his life works. In contrast, many evangelical churches wish to avoid any depiction of saints or symbols other than the cross, stemming from their attempt to focus solely on the Christ himself. I find it interesting that often in the churches that focus almost entirely on the modern church and its saints, the praise is focused on living Christians instead of those that are deceased and whose whole lives are laid out before us: one Orthodox friend was at a large Baptist church which had a beautifully framed picture of the pastor displayed alone at the end of a hallway, lighted from above by an ornate chandelier which he said looked just like an icon of the pastor as if the people in the church were supposed pay their respects there… But I digress. Having been raised non-denominational charismatic, growing up largely without symbolism or ornate decorum in church services, seeing the chapel at
The interior layout. Anna and I had previously attended a Charismatic Episcopal church (unique, I know) where they had a worship band, fully robed, which was positioned off to the side of the front of the church, facing the cross rather than the people. This simple gesture of focus had an amazing impact on the tone of the worship- there was no worship director who was the visual focus of the service but rather a live band that literally pointed to the cross. Just the same, the layout of a church can reflect the theological or ecclesiastical focus of a church. Another interesting way that this is depicted is in the arrangement, type or lack of seats in a church. Strangely, some churches such as Quakers or the Local Churches arrange their seats so that they are not all facing one person, reflecting their theology of Christ alone as the head of the church to the point that they don’t have a particular leader. Also odd, in most Slavic Orthodox churches there are little to no pews which emphasizes two points: one that people pay attention more when they are standing than sitting and, two, that the whole service is interactional, rather than just the worship.
A couple more quotes to play with:
“I have visited many buildings in which the kitchen is the best planned room… What can one believe about this other than that the congregation understands better what goes on in the kitchen than what is meant for the sanctuary?” –Edward Frey
If Christ cannot be represented by an image then it “contradicts the whole divine economy of our salvation.” – Theodore the Studite
6 comments:
Couple of comments regarding that last quote in your post by Theodore the Studite: "If Christ cannot be represented by an image then it 'contradicts the whole divine economy of our salvation.'"
Romans 10:14-15 reads "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!'" Hearing, not seeing, it what is needed for salvation. It appears to me that hearing is, in fact, more important than seeing for "seeing" in scripture, aside from seeing actions/events, is often referring to intangible things that cannot physically be seen: "see the salvation of our God" (Psalm 98:3).
Additionally, Hebrews 11:1 says "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." And 2 Corinthians 5:7 states "We live by faith, not by sight."
As for idols, one could argue that "idol" is referring to something that is worshiped, not just an image or figure of God, but going back to the old testament, scripture seems pretty clear in Deuteronomy 4, "You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman..." (16-17).
We are commanded not to have images and idols, but also they can be detrimental. "See, they are all false! Their deeds amount to nothing; their images are but wind and confusion" (Isaiah 41:29).
Finally, the second commandment
states "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above" (Deuteronomy 5:8).
I like the critical analysis- certainly the seventh ecumenical council centering on icons is the most hotly disputed of the councils in the modern church. The full quote by Theodore the Studite is "From the moment Christ is born of a Mother who can be depicted, He naturally has an image which corresponds to that of his Mother. If He could not be represented by art, this would mean that he was not born of a Mother who can be depicted, but was born only of the Father and that He was not incarnate. But this contradicts the whole divine economy of our salvation. (St Theodore Studite: Refutation 3) Which when you look at it is not really a debatable issue that it is possible to depict Christ, but rather the question is should we.
Regarding the Romans 10 verses, I think it would be hard to argue that the "how can they hear" part is refering solely to the auditory sense- if someone saw a video of a breaking news event while the TV was on mute, would they not also say "I heard so and so happened?" Likewise when the Psalmist says "See the salvation of our God" he could very well be poetically refering to someone hearing of news of an Israel victory in war. And again in Hebrews what "we do not see" but take with certainty in faith is that which cannot be proven- for seeing an event is the surest sensory way of knowing of it's occurrence.
But the issue of idols, the second commandment, and icons is a much more debated topic between Protestants and the catholic traditions. However, when we look at the Old Testament we see that not only does God not prohibit the creation of statues, but actually commands that it be done (1 Kgs. 6:29–32, 8:6–66; 2 Chr. 3:7–14; Num. 21:8–9; 1 Chr. 28:18–19). So then we are led to believe that there must be a difference between the commandments to create statues and the second commandment to not "make graven images." When looking at the "10 commandments" there are actually 14 imperative statements- and the 10 are constructed as groupings of those 14. The Lutherans, Catholics and Jews group the first two statements "You shall have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:3) and "You shall not make for yourself a graven image" (Ex. 20:4) together as the link between polytheism and idolatry was seen as one in the same issue, as Luther agreed (http://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp). The next part of Deut 5 says "You shall not bow down to them nor serve them." This debate was central to the seventh ecumenical council, but the issue was not whether it was ok to depict saints (they all accepted that) but whether it was idolatry to depict Christ and thus an issue of the theology of the incarnation. It was no mere coincidence that the rise of iconoclasm (rejection of icons) paralleled the rise of Islam, as Islam strictly prohibited the depiction of Mohammed or Allah. The church at that time was under criticisms from Islam of idolatry for their use of icons and to that they responded.
Now certainly, the use of statues, carvings, or paintings for worship of those objects is reprehensible, but that does not mean we should cast aside every cross because of the second commandment. One might argue that the rejection of all these forms (and many churches do, though often with inconsistency as I noted in my original post) is the safe route, but the rejection of Truth for the path of "safety" is never a wise choice- the question should be is it Truth.
Interestingly, in the Orthodox church they both take greater care (than the Catholic Church) to avoid abuse by only depicting icons in a non-realism 2-dimensional form (they do not make statues) and celebrate icons much more both by the adornment of their walls and the "Sunday of Orthodoxy" service which honors the rejection of iconoclasm.
I did not address your questions over the preeminence of sight over sound for I neither know where I stand on that nor could do the argument justice. But playing the devil's advocate, there is a reason why people say that "A picture is worth a thousand words" and also that your average gospel tract (by those who do not celebrate the preeminence of sight) is filled with pictures of man's sin, Christ's sacrifice, and the triumphant reunion. Now surely, the nuances of semantic dialog cannot be carried about through pictures, but it could well be argued that is for the better...
QUOTING JW: I like the critical analysis- certainly the seventh ecumenical council centering on icons is the most hotly disputed of the councils in the modern church. The full quote by Theodore the Studite is "From the moment Christ is born of a Mother who can be depicted, He naturally has an image which corresponds to that of his Mother. If He could not be represented by art, this would mean that he was not born of a Mother who can be depicted, but was born only of the Father and that He was not incarnate. But this contradicts the whole divine economy of our salvation. (St Theodore Studite: Refutation 3) Which when you look at it is not really a debatable issue that it is possible to depict Christ, but rather the question is should we.
In the context of the full quote, I think you rightly pose the better question...not can we, but should we depict Christ.
QUOTING JW: Regarding the Romans 10 verses, I think it would be hard to argue that the "how can they hear" part is refering solely to the auditory sense- if someone saw a video of a breaking news event while the TV was on mute, would they not also say "I heard so and so happened?" Likewise when the Psalmist says "See the salvation of our God" he could very well be poetically refering to someone hearing of news of an Israel victory in war. And again in Hebrews what "we do not see" but take with certainty in faith is that which cannot be proven- for seeing an event is the surest sensory way of knowing of it's occurrence.
Good points, and as for the Romans and Psalm passages, I agree completely. As for the Hebrews passage, I agree that we haven't seen the event, and therefore in some way are unable to prove it for ourselves, but I think the point of the passage is that for those who don't/didn't get to physically see Christ's crucifixion and resurrection are all-the-more blessed for their faith. I don't think the point is to suggest that we create images to share some semblance of "seeing" the crucifixion, but rather to provide assurance that our faith can be genuine without it.
QUOTING JW: But the issue of idols, the second commandment, and icons is a much more debated topic between Protestants and the catholic traditions. However, when we look at the Old Testament we see that not only does God not prohibit the creation of statues, but actually commands that it be done (1 Kgs. 6:29–32, 8:6–66; 2 Chr. 3:7–14; Num. 21:8–9; 1 Chr. 28:18–19). So then we are led to believe that there must be a difference between the commandments to create statues and the second commandment to not "make graven images." When looking at the "10 commandments" there are actually 14 imperative statements- and the 10 are constructed as groupings of those 14. The Lutherans, Catholics and Jews group the first two statements "You shall have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:3) and "You shall not make for yourself a graven image" (Ex. 20:4) together as the link between polytheism and idolatry was seen as one in the same issue, as Luther agreed (Link). The next part of Deut 5 says "You shall not bow down to them nor serve them." This debate was central to the seventh ecumenical council, but the issue was not whether it was ok to depict saints (they all accepted that) but whether it was idolatry to depict Christ and thus an issue of the theology of the incarnation. It was no mere coincidence that the rise of iconoclasm (rejection of icons) paralleled the rise of Islam, as Islam strictly prohibited the depiction of Mohammed or Allah. The church at that time was under criticisms from Islam of idolatry for their use of icons and to that they responded.
The scriptures you cited are exclusively depicting cherubim, which I concede could be classified as "anything that is in heaven above". But the thought just occurred to me that if heaven is defined as where God dwells, then could the argument be made that that scripture is referring exclusively to any person of the Godhead? I wouldn't go so far as to say that we can't draw pictures of the saints (as you noted above), but worshiping any such image is naturally detestable (as you noted below).
QUOTING JW: Now certainly, the use of statues, carvings, or paintings for worship of those objects is reprehensible, but that does not mean we should cast aside every cross because of the second commandment. One might argue that the rejection of all these forms (and many churches do, though often with inconsistency as I noted in my original post) is the safe route, but the rejection of Truth for the path of "safety" is never a wise choice- the question should be is it Truth.
Certainly, and well said! However, the cross is neither "anything that is in heaven above" nor is it any person of the Trinity. Honestly, I think pictures and banners and iconography can and should be used to rise one to praise that would not otherwise have been moved (except for iconography of Christ). For example, I love stained glass...I love the trinity symbol...these types of things.
QUOTING JW: Interestingly, in the Orthodox church they both take greater care (than the Catholic Church) to avoid abuse by only depicting icons in a non-realism 2-dimensional form (they do not make statues) and celebrate icons much more both by the adornment of their walls and the "Sunday of Orthodoxy" service which honors the rejection of iconoclasm.
I like this aspect of a non-realistic, only 2-dimensional iconic form, but in acknowledging that Christ should not be realistically depicted, doesn't this stance seem to be standing half-way down a slippery slope? If it's bad to depict Christ in any way, but then we concede that it's okay to depict Christ only unrealistically, it seems a slippery slope has been broached where the realistic depiction of Christ is next allowed. Given, the Orthodox church seems to do well at drawing a line at the unrealistic depiction alone, but logically it seems much less airtight.
QUOTING JW: I did not address your questions over the preeminence of sight over sound for I neither know where I stand on that nor could do the argument justice. But playing the devil's advocate, there is a reason why people say that "A picture is worth a thousand words" and also that your average gospel tract (by those who do not celebrate the preeminence of sight) is filled with pictures of man's sin, Christ's sacrifice, and the triumphant reunion. Now surely, the nuances of semantic dialog cannot be carried about through pictures, but it could well be argued that is for the better...
Regarding the prioritization of sight and sound, honestly I have no opinion. Well, I probably do...just that I don't like the prioritization in the first place. Sight and sound can both be used to the praise of God and evangelizing of man.
Justin,
i loved the last few comments on your blog.
It's strikes me that so many people respond to you and cite Scripture to support their position without taking into account that their version of the Bible is a modern translation to begin with. And, they assume a priori that their interpretation is as inspired as the Bible itself (I never thought about this in my evangelical years, but looking back I can tell that I assumed naively that God had inspired my hermeneutic). Another problem is that they cite passages that differ greatly between the textual witnesses of the Bible. The passages also differ slightly from translation to translation making it painfully hard to be sure what the correct rendering should be without the Church to help us.
This was made even more profound to me a few weeks ago when I was watching TBN (it’s not something I make a habit of doing by the way). A dispensationalist "prophecy" teacher made a theological claim based on ONE mistranslated word in Revelation, which appears in all but 8 English translations of the Bible. Imagine thinking that the entire evangelical community was thrown off because of one mistranslated word in Revelation and their entire eschatological position depends on “getting the translation right.” He built a very clever argument just on ONE word that was mistranslated (according to him!), but finally, thanks to his extraordinary insight, the truth can be told and we can finally know the real meaning of that one word in the Bible that has caused so much theological disorientation in the Protestant community for centuries!
Now, pause long enough to follow this point out to its most consistent conclusion. A whole assortment of unsettling issues is raised just on this one point. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard preachers give sermons explaining why one or two mistranslated words in the Bible has led to hermeneutical deviations and confusion. And, following that logic, the preacher assumes that he finally got to the bottom of the issue and gave us the correct translation, so we can finally know for sure what God meant to say all along! At the same time, other equally sincere preachers (even in the same denomination) would take issue with the translation and lambaste others for not following the former interpretation. And, because this is endless and frustrating, the congregation is left in utter bewilderment.
This brings me around to another issue. To most scholars, a persuasive and cogently argued point must be supported by multiple attestations. Citing a single verse from an English Bible (translated by scholars with a theological persuasion of their own) doesn’t weight much in the minds of scholarship. Most professional polemicists and thinkers are inclined to accept a position that has been supported by the consensus of cutting edge scholarship, a consensus of Christian History, a general consensus from the Ancient Fathers, Ancient Liturgies, Ecclesiastical Tradition, etc. etc. In this connection, it’s hardly convincing to litter Scripture quotations into a blog comment without taking into account the above considerations. To reiterate: (a) the problem of having over 75 English translations of the NT alone that all differ in subtle ways, but in some cases, very meaningful ways, (b) the problem of ancient manuscript disagreement, (c) the problem of unfounded theological innovations that have no basis in history or scholarship, (d) the fact that many evangelicals cannot agree on which English Bible is the most faithful, resulting in dozens of Bible paraphrases with literally hundreds of variations (leading to different theological spins and novelties), (e) the fact that a Bible translation itself is an interpretation, are just a few of the concerns one must face when referencing Scripture alone to validate a claim.
Now, having said that, I think it’s appropriate to mention that being a professional scholar doesn’t make one spiritually virtuous. Nor does having all your “I’s dotted and T’s crossed” make you wise. But, in so many cases well-meaning and perhaps very respectable people make poorly argued points and think the issue has been put to rest just because they littered their remarks with half a dozen Scriptures verses. And I don’t think it’s important to obsessively draw this issue out further than it needs to go.
But, asserting that the issue has been successfully refuted only by citing a handful of Scriptures is naïve and inconsistent. I’m not saying that people who do that are ignorant. I’m saying that it’s faulty to assume that Justin’s blog was counter-argued only by a few Scriptures quoted from an English Bible translated with an evangelical slant. Quoting Scripture is a valid and notable exercise, but when taken out of context and used irresponsibly, the weight of the argument is seriously blunted. Notice closely that I’m saying to cite Scripture is very admirable as long as we acknowledge our own spiritual poverty and rely on the Fathers for wisdom by keeping a good sense of spiritual instruction and inclining to the tradition of the Church. I want to be overly clear: I’m not criticizing anyone for citing Scripture. I’m criticizing the tendency to cite Scripture without thinking about the issues I’ve raised here.
Justin’s blog is not refuted at all by careless and ungrounded assertions. To a person commenting, it “appears” that the issue has been confronted, but it’s only superficially confronted. Since Justin has been so exhaustive and made a strong basis for his post, then it would take equally valid and comprehensive rebuttals to dispute his points. However, in most cases, it’s hopeless to try and lodge a counter point given the overwhelmingly incontestable material he has summated to validate his posts. Justin has objectively and carefully cited his points, and has led us to the wisdom of the Church Fathers for validation. It makes no sense to try and refute the Fathers with vernacular taken from evangelicalism. The Fathers theologized in a completely different cultural and spiritual milieu. To learn from the Fathers, it takes putting ourselves in their world, coming to them on THEIR terms, not ours. This brings up a remarkable example from St. Athanasius. When responding to the Arian controversy, he cited the Scriptures and the Liturgy as equally authoritative (I’m being painfully concise, of course). His central apologetic was to say that if Arianism is true, then the ancient worship of the Church is wrong. I think it’s plain to see that Athanasius prayed, worshipped, lived, and breathed in a completely different thinking paradigm than we are used to as Westerners. It’s also easy to step into a pitfall when quoting the Ancient Fathers, but I think Justin has done a competent job by not stretching the Fathers and Councils into a meaning they didn’t intend.
And, I’m not saying that these remarks are infallible or entirely competent either. I’m not saying that I don’t have any shortcomings. We are human and it’s very hard to cover all of our points in such a limited means of communication. Bear with me and just take what I’ve said with a grain of salt… I’m no theologian either, but I felt compelled to offer a few insights that may throw light on what Justin is trying to express. It’s too bad we don’t get to have face-to-face conversations when addressing such important topics like this one. To be sure though, the most important thing is the salvation of our souls and developing spiritual qualities. It’s pointless to keep score in a conversation like this one, so at bottom, love for God and our neighbor is of central importance.
I’m sorry for being so forthright, but sometimes you gotta crack eggs to make an omelet… With all due respect, of course!
In response to Chris' last comment:
"In acknowledging that Christ should not be realistically depicted, doesn't this stance seem to be standing half-way down a slippery slope?"
-Iconography is much more than a depiction of the saint. Icons are technically not "drawn" they are "written" (meaning full of meaning and always existing and not just a physical depiction but a spiritual impartation or window into the spiritual realm) and done only by monks through active prayer. The colors are all symbolic (The Catholics depict Mary with Blue over her inner Red garmets the same as Jesus while the Orthodox depict her as having the reverse colors- this is no coincidence as the Orthodox view has her divine nature overshadowed by the human (as opposed to Jesus) while the Catholics reverse this- thus an icon of Mary holding Jesus can show the incarnation of Christ, the union of his natures, and the place of Mary in relation to him), the positioning of the hands depict often the role of prayer or blessing, the large forehead symbolizes that Christ has redeemed their intellect and enlarged their spiritual mental capacity, the large eyes represent the purity with which they view the world, the items with them (staff, shamrock, etc) symbolize that which makes them known. What you have to understand about Orthodox is that in it everything is iconic: the gospels are seen as the icon of the life of Christ, the priest as the Icon of Christ to the church (and for this reason alone he is male...), the Eucharist as the living icon of Christ becoming one with us, the walls covered with icons as an "icon" of how we are "Surrounded by such a cloud of witnesses," that is by the saints of all time, the cross is an icon of Christ's death etc. To the orthodox to say that icons should not be a part of worship is to tell them not to worship for they see iconography in everything. All of that to say that it is not that the icons are paint symbolically to protect against realism but that they are painted symbolically to tell more of a story and as a by product have the advantage of protecting against realism (and a focus on the artists skills or on the beauty of the saint). However, I do believe that the lack of statues is for the purpose of avoiding anything bordering on idols in addition to the fact that statues don't have the rich symbolism of an icon.
"Sight and sound can both be used to the praise of God and evangelizing of man."
- Certainly. As I said originally, I'm not sure how I feel about this as I am just ignorant, but through thinking about it more I have a few more thoughts: When we comparatively discussed sight and sound it was done in the context of evangelism, but I think that is probably the wrong context. In evangelism I would argue that while sight can be of benefit, sound or verbal communication would by and large take precedence. In the form of learning of the church fathers the Orthodox would probably say that they should go hand in hand- the worshipful icons of the saint testifying mystically and symbolically what a book testifies more intellectually. However, it seems that it is mostly in the worship of the Lord that the Orthodox elevate sight- that the observance on the icon of Christ at the front of the room or the icon of Christ surrounding the people overhead in conjunction with a heart of worship propels the believer spiritually into his presence. Those are my thoughts and weak presentation- I'll work on it :)
Justin, extraordinary post. I'm learning a lot....
Post a Comment