The Return of Idolatry in Worship
Alastair, over on Adversaria, makes mention today of this posting which urges churches to return icons to worship. Naturally such claims as “icons mediate grace” are theologically and exegetically improper. There is no indication whatsoever that icons or images mediate grace. Grace is mediated purely through the action of the Holy Spirit, not through a picture or a piece of bread or a drop of wine. Icons distract the worshipper from God rather than “aiding worship” by focusing the worshipper’s attention on God.
As Zwingli said, so rightly, “It is false religion or piety when trust is put in any other than God. They, then, who trust in any created thing whatsoever are not truly pious.” Indeed, Zwingli was so convinced of the impropriety of icon-olatry that he wrote an entire book about it, Eine Antwort Valentin Compar gegeben, published on April 27, 1525. In his Commentary on True and False Religion Zwingli discusses the problem in some detail as well. He was right then, and he is still right today. Icons have no place in Christian worship. They are not the “books of the illiterate” nor are they aids to piety. They are idols, and swiftly so, purely and simply and so any desire to return to their inclusion is a return to impropriety.
Hah! That’s hilarious.
I believe this as much as I’ve ever believed anything ever.
How could anyone read that piece all the way down and come away convinced it’s meant to be taken literally? Even if the result is, “I don’t get it,” I’m totally baffled that any reader wouldn’t at least clue in to the fact that there’s more there than meets the eye.
Or I should say, it should be taken literally, but not according to the most often thought of meaning of “icon.”
Peter Leithart is against Christianity and you are for icons in worship. This is just more proof that the FV is dangerous.
If the original post to which I responded was intended to be humorous, it would have been nice to have some indication that you were being sarcastic. Sans any first hand knowledge of you or your sense of humor, I was left to take your remarks on returning idols to churches at face value. So what’s “un-freaking believable” is that you are surprised that you were misunderstood (if you were).
Further, if by icons you intended us to understand human beings, there are still problems theologically with your idea. Humans, as the center of worship (which seems to be what you implied), is nothing less than or other than idolatry.
Mark,
You can hide all you want but try explaining this:
http://anikisan.blogs.com/the_craw/2007/01/uhoh.html
Hah! Busted!
Constipation…its a bad thing.
LOL. I knew you were going to get into trouble with that icon thing, even though on reflection what you were saying should be a “Well, yeah, duh” sorta thing.
Garrett, that photoshop is priceless. You should do one of the icon alone for Mark.
Email it to her, Garret
Jim, the reason for using the term “icon” was a polemic against Eastern Orthodoxy and perhaps Roman Catholicism. My point is that idolatry is dehumanizing.
So I wasn’t trying to fool anyone–just present a challenge.
But awhile back the session of a church in my own denomination attacked a group of fellow Presbyterians for either simply being Reformed and understanding, or for grossly false reasons. Among the latter was the claim that many of their targets were using icons in worship. It was a straight up lie, but it stayed on the web document for over a year.
Later, it was silently edited (thought the document still purports to come from the session at the original date with no mention of amendments) so that the icon accusation is missing. When you reacted the way you did it sort of brought up a lot of bad history to me.
But, now that I think about it, I don’t remember you being a “player” in all this. So my reaction was probably too strong. I certainly have failed to read all of a blog entry before (I assume if you had read the statement about icons being made through sex and conception you would have realized what was up) and am in no position to judge anyone on that score.
I guess I’m a little bit bothered, if you are a regular reader of Adversia (and maybe you’re not), that you would ever expect Alister to defend iconolatry. I just don’t see it and wonder if you are assuming because he differs from you on some areas (say, respect for Zwingli as a theologian) that it must only be a matter of time before he began promoting such things.
All that aside, I do want to discuss at some point your contention that I am in error in believing God mediates his presence and blessing through fellow humans. But it would probably be best to bring it up in a different blog entry.
First his blog entry, then he tries to defend himself in your comments. I’m sorry, Mark, but that you should have to explain yourself to someone with what appears to be a good number of academic theological credentials is truly un-freaking-believable.
This is hilarious…
Jim, would you please point out where in what Mark originally wrote it is implied that humans are to be at the center of worship? All the catechism speaks to, as far as I can tell, is that humans are indispensable to worship and must be part of it.
I told you so. Given that at least two members of the Warfield List thought the bit about fetal communion was serious, I knew that someone had to think you believed EO-style icons should be used in worship, despite the obvious textual evidence to the contrary.
We are now in the age where people only read enough to jump to a conclusion, and then they stop reading and commit errors. I expect this to be true in the manufacturing environment where I work, but it is equally true in theological discussion.