- Start by being enthralled with one of the more arid and arrogant strains of “Reformed theology” being pushed on the internet. Be someone campaigning for the original clause in the Westminster Confession that claimed the pope was the prophesied antichrist. Insist that saving faith is nothing more than intellectual assent. Or carefully listen to seminar after seminar that reduces the essence of the difference between Reformed and Roman to differing soteriological mechanics that diagram in different ways.
- Meet some real Roman Catholics in person or print.
- Realize many things you’ve been taught about them are just wrong and rude.
- Realize that the stuff that seems unquestionably unbiblical can still be rationalized by much the same process of reasoning that once convinced you that celebrating Christmas was sinful or that churches that failed to structure themselves along Presbyterian churches were not true churches.
- Share these views with overzealous friends and get predictably alienated from them by their predictable reaction.
- Spend some time among Protestants who have not hated clerical garb or who think the sacraments are actually sacraments. Receive more reaction from zealous friends who have always hated these other Protestants for not being pure enough.
- Bury yourself in just about any book (church history) except the Bible.
- Start constantly harping on the completely unconvincing rationalizations for venerating objects until you alienate yourself from your less zealous friends.
Of course, there are other ways to do this. Like
- Be in a really unhealthy church that matches all your scruples.
- Refuse to consider a more generic Evangelical alternative.
- Start developing a theological rationale for a complete break that will put you in a place where the grass looks greener.
Or there’s an “ultra Protestant” passage:
- Pursue some minority status among the Reformed.
- Figure out that a displaced seventeenth century Puritan isn’t as exotic as a Roman Catholic who thinks the present Pope is apostate and the mass should be done in Latin, or as a “true vine” Orthodox follower of the Saint Timorous Monastery in Hobguffin, NJ that has discovered that the entire rest of the Church (EO, RC, Protestant) is not truly the church.
Wow, you and I must know some of the same people! (rolling eyes)
Or, you could just fall in love with a Romanian Orthodox girl.
Like me.
🙂
signed,
the catechumen Matthew
Incidentally,
I am personally as unconvinced by St. John Damascene’s iconophilia as I am by C.S. Lewis’ arguments for miracles. Nonetheless, icons being a part of the faith I know and love, I respect the images of the Church greatly, and find great comfort in their presence when I pray to God.
I would suggest that those who critique the use of icons have no real idea what sort of presence the icon actually has in liturgical worship, because they’ve never actually participated in such prayer, and thus offer a decontextualized criticism not unlike that of a 6-year-old child who thinks his parents shouldn’t kiss because it’s gross.
Matthew,
While I respect your opinion your argument doesn’t hold water. The pagan could say, “You can’t condemn what I’m doing until you actually do it.” It is not wrong to create exegetical arguments external to participation in an act.
Yeah, that’s the problem Matthew. Hahn said he became RC after praying to Mary. But in the act he cut himself off from his Protestant conscience. He was RC essentially when he decided to pray to Mary.
So too, praying through icons is revealed as a sin in the Bible. Claiming that our minds will change if we do it anyway is probably a true claim, but it doesn’t vindicate the practice.
Mark (and I guess, Garrett),
It seems to me that you have created a tautology whereby the one who finds the biblical and theological arguments approving the use of icons convincing is necessarily engaged in rationalization because he finds the biblical and theological arguments convincing.
Of course, the Second Council of Nicea would seem to turn that rationale on its head, accusing iconoclasts of heresy by virtue of their iconoclasm.
Also Matthew’s comment is a bit more subtle than the “I don’t need to sample rat droppings to know I wouldn’t like them” response. His point, I think, is that icons have an intelligible place within the theological grammar of Orthodoxy. That place is specifically contextualized and circumscribed by a set of church practices that preclude the dehumanization and idolatrous connotations you ascribe to them. Quite the opposite, in fact, is true. Your previous essay praising the iconography of embodied persons assembled for worship, when joined to the supratemporal and supraspatial implications of the communion of saints is symbolically and liturgically enacted in the use of icons.
The simple principle here is that Orthodox, Western Catholic, and Anglican Christians have a claim of charity to be able to recognize themselves in the portrait you paint of them. Failing to do so is tantamount describing the local fire department of being a den of gay necrophiliacs after observing their practice of “kissing dead men” during a CPR training session. Your persistence in ascribing said idolatrous connotations is understandably read as offensive and as a denial of the Christian status of traditions that approve of icons. For what else would “idolatry” and “human degradation” entail but apostasy? Perhaps the better tone to strike would be to claim the idolatrous or dehumanizing effect of iconography only after acknowledging the distinctive (and by no means universally received) grammar of Presbyterian liturgical principles.
Absent this, and given that the discussion would seem to be at an impasse, I wonder why the continued resetting of the theme on your blog? I know you to be a fairly serious and charitable Christian. Why piss off a whole other segment of Christendom that daily prays for you and your family’s well being?
Blessings,
MJP
Mark,
I apologize for the misstatement. I realize that it could have been misinterpreted.
The last line was not intended as a threat or a slap down. My only concern was that many of us are fairly sympathetic to many of your theological concerns and claim you as a “brother in arms” of sorts and are genuinely bumfuzzled at what seem to be unwarranted and untrue condemnations of those of us with whom you share a common baptism and bonds of affection.
I have personally benefited a great deal from our interaction over the years but as one who was formerly ordained in the PCA I can speak with a fairly good deal of insight regarding the status questiones in Reformed circles regarding the status of non-Reformed Christians. Despite the present troubles with various “roundheads” in Mississippi and elsewhere, no one is required to declare that the Pope is the Antichrist or that the non-Reformed have apostasized by virtue of their use of icons.
My hope is that you don’t really believe this and that if you don’t that your language would become more temperate.
Anyway, I hope that you still consider me a friend. I did mean that part about praying regularly for you.
Blessings,
MJP
“It seems to me that you have created a tautology whereby the one who finds the biblical and theological arguments approving the use of icons convincing is necessarily engaged in rationalization because he finds the biblical and theological arguments convincing.”
No, I thought I simply said I wasn’t going to feel obligated to use icons for awhile before stating rather standard Protestant condemnations of that use. Sorry if I miss the subtlety.
Should I write to Bishop Wright and threaten to stop praying for his vindication against his Presbyterian haters until he agrees to stop angering the entire world of traditional and Biblical Christians opposed to egalitarianism? No. I don’t think so.
I’m a traditional Reformed Protestant Michael. Pray for me or not.
Exhibit A for points 1-3 of your case, Mark. On the subject of icon vs. idol, I echo Rev. Pahl’s comments.