Icons and the Second Commandment

Meam Commemorationem ^ | 12/10/2005 | Jeffrey Steel

[sionnsar]

I have recently read some things on the blogo-world where Christians are actually condemned to Hell for venerating objects within the context of worship. Of course, it comes from many who claim the Reformed Tradition, almost in an iconographic way. To make such rash judgments about Christians who would give honour to the "holy place" of worship by a bow or a bending of the knee is simply silly. To make the claim that Christians in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox or Anglican Communions are damned to Hell because of this is not helpful in light of what others are doing to them in their own contexts. I find it odd that there were all sorts of "heavenly symbols" in the Temple and on the vestments of the OT priests that were commanded by God to be there and yet these establishments follow the giving of the Second Commandment. Do Christians follow the Temple or the 'Synagogue' model of worship and is this even the right question to be asking? It's interesting that the Second Commandment states "that ANYTHING in heaven or earth" should not be made and yet all sorts of "heavenly beings" are within the Temple. Then we have the Temple and the "icons" in the Holy of Holies. Is this really something to condemn fellow Christians for? Is it really a violation of the Second Commandment?

At the Second Council of Nicaea (Seventh Ecumenical Council) - 787 A.D the Council said,

We decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honored and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways; these are the images of our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ, and of Our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels, and of any of the saintly holy men.

I think the below article on this issue makes more sense than the common "Protestant" condemnation that sends those who disagree to Hell. I have never thought of anything other than the worship of God by any veneration given to the altar, cross, or priest in worship. We cross ourselves in our family, have icons in our home, (large advent wreath now) crosses, crucifixes, statues of saints, and all other sorts or Christian Tradition and we have never worshiped one of these things nor given them the honour that is due to God alone. When I deacon in worship and read the Gospel I cross it and kiss it after the proclamation "This is the Gospel of the Lord." I have never set my will to worship these holy things. Worship is an act of the will and an informed conviction that worship is only to God our Father through our Lord Jesus Christ. This article's point here makes a lot more sense than the broad condemnations that one often finds is being attributed to non-Protestant denominations.

So, for the veneration of images to violate the second commandment, it would have to: 1. Be an image of some type, 2. We would have to bow to it, 3. We would bow to it in order to serve it, 4. And to serve it as a god, to supersede God. Thus, it would turn into worship and break the second commandment. Veneration of the Saints through their images only applies to 2 of the 4 qualifications, thus it is not worship of the Saint or the Icon, nor does it break the second commandment. It seems the real concern of those who hesitate at this point is that they are afraid that if they bow to an Icon and kiss it, that they might find themselves someday falling into worship rather than just veneration and honor. Like one day they would wake up and realize that all this time they had been worshiping Mary instead of just giving her honor. The truth of the matter is that you simply cannot accidently worship an Icon. Worship is intentionally giving veneration to a god. As long as that god is the God, then you have nothing to worry about. No one can accidentally worship a Saint. Worship is a purposefull activity and you do it on purpose and with intent.

The whole article is here. It is a sad day that when brothers, who disagree, over something like this would begin condemning souls to eternal perdition just to let those who disagree with them on other controversial issues know that they are not as bad as those of us who have pictures of Jesus or statues of our favourite saints, crosses or crucifixes in our homes or churches. Can we have a more intelligent and Christian dicussion of these things? Is this now the measure of "Reformed" orthodoxy?

[annalex]

Outstanding post. There is no greater service we can give to people we love than to point out their heresies for them.

Another point. When things are discussed with theological rigor, everybody wins. We know unity will come in the end, because that is what Christ promised. Our job is not to pretend that we are united by diluting our own faith but by strengthening our faith in dispute. The last thing Christ wouldl like to see when He returns is some kind of global Potemkin village in place of His Church.

[Rokke]

Interesting comments Kolokotronis. And they remind me of a comment made by another person who posts frequently on these threads. He commented recently that he didn't like to dig too deep into some subjects because he didn't want to damage anyone's faith. The interesting thing was, the only subjects he didn't want to dig too deep in were subjects involving his own church (the Catholic church). Instead, he believed it far more constructive to explain the failings of Protestantism. "I know my Church is right (it told me it was) so let me tell you what is wrong with yours." A long time ago you and I corresponded very regularly about the Orthodox church. I think you will agree that our discussions were constructive and useful. But I'm sure it won't surprise you to know that despite my very sincere study of the Orthodox church, I have no more desire to convert to the Orthodox faith than I do the Mormon faith (ok, maybe a little). As part of the continuing growth of my faith I've found such personal study of other faiths very interesting. But when I study another faith, my intent isn't to find out where they went wrong (and they all have in one respect or another) but what they get right. My faith in God is so deep and so real that there is nothing I could find out about Catholicism, or Orthodoxy or Protestantism, or even Judiasm that could shake it. It is a faith that would continue to exist if every church shut its doors tomorrow. The simple fact is, you could tell me Martin Luther was a cross dressing child molester, and it wouldn't bother me any more than hearing that the last 20 Popes slept with sheep. I read from Catholics and the Orthodox that Protestantism is founded on heresy spun by the spawn of Satan himself, and then click on the next thread and read Protestants saying exactly the same things about Catholics and the Orthodox. Who is right? Who cares. My faith rests in God, not man. That, apparently is a foreign concept to Catholics and Orthodox, but guess what....I don't care.

My whole point is that while you might argue that these threads are "constructive" the fact that the religion threads earned their own moderator indicates there is a lot more anger being shared than knowledge. They often resemble threads from DU than threads from honest Christians seeking fellowship and growth. That is a gross embarrassment (or at least it should be) to any Christian interested in spreading the good news of the Gospel of Christ. And this thread is just one more that joins the trash heap of religious bickering. How constructive.

[kosta50]

Aaaaw, so big of you. But you have yet to answer one of your lamentations constructively Rokke. Perhaps you don't know what that means. Give it a try.

[kosta50]

Idols NO BOW DOWN TO: see Lev 26:1, Psalms 31:6 (VERY BAD)

Hmmmm, Leviticus, huh? Do you guys sacrifice animals as well? That too is in Leviticus, you know. Just asking...

[kosta50]

I suppose I should apologize to our Protestant friends for. having insulted them. I should know that by keeping my mouth shut we can realize this long-sought-after "unity" (of silence). They should, of course, be free to call the practices of the Apostolic Church "idolatry" (VERY BAD, as HarleyD says of our "heresy" -- such refined Calvinism, I love it!). For, the Apostolic Church, as far as the Protestants are concerned, is not a church at all -- what "church" can break God's Commandments and be a Church?!? The world waited 1,500 years in complete heresy and apostasy, from the blessed Apostles onward, until a few good men with a lot of guts established the (real) church, which they call "reformed."

It is actually unbelievable that they are so chartable to even speak to us directly or in writing. We are after all "idolaters." But they want us to be saved too, which is why they talk to us at all.

[HarleyD]

He used to be a good little Protestant in a seminary until he fell in with those pesky old God Bearing Fathers and ended up Orthodox!

Didn't I tell you! There's only two ways. You either end up Reformed or you end up Orthodox. (He should have read more Augustine.) :O)

[Cronos]

the Latin Church has continued to grow across the globe with, until about 40 years ago, a canonical and dogmatic rigidity and absolutism which made Orthodoxy look like a tea party.

you are so right -- Vatican II does seem like too much in retrospect

[Kolokotronis]

"Didn't I tell you! There's only two ways. You either end up Reformed or you end up Orthodox."

Ha! I bet he'd say the same thing! :) He can proof text +Augustine too!

[redgolum]

Wow Kolo! Tell us how you really feel! /Joke

You make some good points. There is much that unites us, the Trinity, Christologically (at least that what is taught in my synod), basic morality at times, etc. But there are large gaps in places, and places where we are at odds. For instance the place Tradition holds, eccelisology, use of Icons in worship (which most non Catholic or Orthodox don't have), etc.

I belong to the LCMS, a synod of the Lutheran church that was started around 1840 in the US as a result of the massive influx of German immigrants. We don't claim to be able to trace ourselves back to the Apostolic times, we honestly have trouble going more than a generation or two after the 30 years war (as I had commented before). And in reality the LCMS will probably not last another 50 years as a corporate synod. I know the problems that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have with me, and many RCC and EO people here know my problems with their respective churches. One thing I like about this place is the opportunity to LEARN about those things. Heck, there are issues that concern me about the direction of the LCMS, which because of talking with others here I have realized are much more common than I had hoped.

I had never ran into a Eastern Orthodox (not that many where I grew up), and to be honest never really thought much about it. Roman Catholics were pretty common, but after centuries of bashing each other, neither side had any interest in communicating to each other.

What I have learned is that many of us are closer in theology than I had ever thought. For instance, I now have a new appreciation of Eastern Orthodoxy, and can see what the letter was sent to Constaninoble in the first place. I can also understand why it was rejected.

Bottom line, Rokke, Protestantism in this country, save in a precious few areas (much of orthodox Anglicanism, the LCMS and the Wisconsin Lutheran Synod) is riddled with just about every brand of heresy known to the ancient Christian world, not the least being Sebellianism, which is what started Kosta off in the first place.

To be perfectly honest, most Christians in the US probably fall into Sabellianism. It is as Harold Bloom once said "One of the easiest trinitarian errors to make if you don't think about things that deeply." Many Roman Catholics that I have met recently also tend to adoptionism, and few Baptists into tri theism. What we have from top on down is a basic lack of comprehension of what Christian theology is. So having Kosta call us all "heretics", well in his view we are. That is because we don't believe or understand everything in the same way.

How much separates us? A lot and a little. You are right in saying that much of the mainline Protestant churches in this country are sadly lacking. Much of that is do to having a theology a mile wide and an inch deep. No one really wants to dive to deeply into certain areas, as it will anger and confuse the congregation (and cut down on collections). What is interesting is that those of us who have tried to think deeply about it, drift toward the same place. At times it really makes me wonder if all the schism and separations have more to do with politics than theology.

Sorry for the rant.

[Kolokotronis]

"What I have learned is that many of us are closer in theology than I had ever thought. For instance, I now have a new appreciation of Eastern Orthodoxy, and can see what the letter was sent to Constaninoble in the first place. I can also understand why it was rejected."

That we are closer in theology than I ever thought is one of my points. Growing up I knew about Roman theology and Orthodox theology and Jewish theology. I thought I knew about Episcopalian theology (England's answer to Orthodoxy). I didn't really know anything about Lutheran theology except what the nuns taught us and that was that it came from a bad man named Martin Luther. They wouldn't even let me sing "Away in a Manger"! I did know those Lutheran pastors in my town, though, and they were such wonderful and respected men in the community. They're both gone to their reward now and those of us of an age miss them. I didn't know anything about other forms of Protestantism because there weren't any around. We were pretty much a group of immigrants and the sons and grandsons of immigrants. "Across the river, over there" is where the "Protestants lived" and none of us ever went there if we could avoid it. But here, well, like you I've learned a great deal, much of which scares and astonishes me, but its still good to know these things. Some of the heresies I read here scare me; learning how Orthodox some Lutheran and Anglican theology is astonishes (and pleases) me.

"What is interesting is that those of us who have tried to think deeply about it, drift toward the same place. At times it really makes me wonder if all the schism and separations have more to do with politics than theology."

I was saying just this to the priest the other day, and this apparently shared thought of yours and mine, at least for me, is as a direct result of these conversations here on FR. We have indeed spent centuries bashing each other, you guys with the Romans and vice versa, we with the Romans and vice versa. There's a long difficult history to take account of and I suspect that much of the divides are in fact rooted in politics which, we must admit, has affected our respective theologies. It may be a chicken and egg thing, but it is engaging in self delusion to think that politics at one time or another had nothing to do with it. That's why a deep study of both the scriptures and the Fathers is so important. The earliest ones probably weren't much affected by politics, certainly the Desert fathers weren't, and it is distinctly possible that given the role of The Faith in the first few hundred years of Christianity, theology may have in some fashion shaped at least part of the politics of the times.

[Kolokotronis]

"And in reality the LCMS will probably not last another 50 years as a corporate synod."

Sorry, I meant to ask why you believe this. I would have thought that solid, non revisionist Lutheranism would be attracting people.

[redgolum]

I would have thought that solid, non revisionist Lutheranism would be attracting people.

Sadly, the lure of the mega church growth program has made the leadership change directions. The focus on the Word and Sacrament has been turned by some to presentation and showmanship. No more is focus being paid to the law and gospel of the Bible, but more and more on things like the Purpose Driven Life, guitar bands, and being seeker friendly (whatever that means). Couple that with a lot of the older rural churches slowly dying out (like a lot of the local towns), a very suspicious election last year that resulted in a class action lawsuit (in which the current synod president is saying is invalid, since Pastors are not legally members of the Synod!), things don't look that good. That doesn't even take into account the fight over the prayer during a 911 interfaith (not just inter Christian) event at Yankee Stadium!

Also, there are a lot of those who flee the ELCA and end up in the LCMS who want to change a "few things". Woman's ordination is being pushed quietly in certain circles, which if that ever happened I would lay my BOC (Book of Concord) on the pews of the church I grew up in and leave with much sadness.

In short, while doctrinally the LCMS remains (and in areas like the birth control pill getting more) conservative and orthodox, there are worrying signs that the many in leadership positions are not. Having seen this play out in the ELCA, I am not that optimistic that things will remain so. To many have wanted to build huge buildings and congregations, while neglecting that there is more important things than the size of the gym.

[kosta50]

You know, it saddens me too to see that, instead of returning to the Apostolic Church, the Protestants are only getting more liberal and, shall we say, less "orthodox" (which is soemwhat of an oxymoron in this case). In fact, I think it is becoming obvious that there is no hope for Protestant Christianity. One branch will go into syncretism and complete apostasy, and the other will return to the Apostolic Church. My feeling is that it will be 90% of the former and 10% of the latter.

You mentioned the mega "churches." I have listened to some of these "feel-good" purpose-driven stage-shows. Well, some of these so-called churches will be closed on Christmas!

Kind of tells you what's it all about, doesn't it?

[redgolum]

You know, it saddens me too to see that, instead of returning to the Apostolic Church, the Protestants are only getting more liberal and, shall we say, less "orthodox" (which is somewhat of an oxymoron in this case).

In most Lutheran circles, we speak of being "catholic" which really confuses those who don't follow such things. So I use "orthodox".

I did read a rather interesting post on a Lutheran forum the other day. The poster was mentioning the recent decision of a congregation in Texas to join the Orthodox Church (not sure if it was OCA or not), and he brought up a great point. That for the most part the Orthodox churches in the US haven't conformed to the US culture that much yet. The feeling of closeness is still there, of a community bound together for God. Most American Lutheran synods used to be that way until about World War I, and even then many kept up some of the older traditions.

But there was a slide to more syncrentism from the culture at large. The end result is the Church of What is Happening Now (to use a term from my Calvinist friends) which holds few beliefs, few doctrines, but has a great social hour.

The poster also mentioned that while the Orthodox have been spared some of this, that there is an increasing trend to "Americanize". He predicted that many of those who have swum the Bosporus would not find there new home as secure as they thought.

One branch will go into syncretism and complete apostasy, and the other will return to the Apostolic Church. My feeling is that it will be 90% of the former and 10% of the latter.

I have a felling that you are right, but that it will happen in the catacombs (so to speak). There are signs of things already in Canada that actual belief and practice of Christianity is against the will of the State, and will not be tolerated. Much like pre WWII Germany, some will hail the new order and embrace, some will quietly do nothing, and some will be lead into captivity for taking a stand.

[Kolokotronis]

"The poster also mentioned that while the Orthodox have been spared some of this, that there is an increasing trend to "Americanize". He predicted that many of those who have swum the Bosporus would not find there new home as secure as they thought."

The trend towards "Americanizing", if anything, is in retreat, not increasing. The uprising over the failed Archbishop Spyridon may have given him this impression, but aside from some of his more vocal opponents, the overwhelming majority of the people against him were out to get him because he was attempting to impose a Latin Church type system on the Greek Orthodox Church in America, in effect, marginalizing the ancient role of the laity in the Church. It may be that he has seen the trend towards the vernacular in the Liturgy, but that too is of an ancient heritage.

Our younger priests today are theologically well educated for the most part and very conservative and traditional. Finally, we all know that the future of the Orthodox Church in America is dependent on converts, and they, for the most part, are very well read theologically and conservative in praxis. Unlike so many in the immigrant and post immigrant generation, they feel little or no need to "pass for white". Frankly, the future looks pretty good to me.

[kosta50]

There is a tendency to "Americanize" the Orthodox Church in America, or shall we say "westernize" it. The converts are all from western Christian groups, from Roman Catholics to Calvinists and Baptists. They bring with them some of that convenience Americans are known for, and that "rules are meant to be broken" phronema or mindset.

Thus, for instance, while I am certainly not perfect in my fast, I struggle if I find myself too weak to keep it. For intsance, I cannot drink coffee with non-dairy creamers, so I use skim milk in my coffee even on fast days. I am not happy about that and I hope that I can overcome my weakness and selfishneess, but I do not take my weakness lightly.

That is not what can be said about the OCA parish I have been to several times lately. First they all received "special dispensation" (Orthodox?) to eat turkey on Thanksgiving -- there is a conflict between keeping fasting calendar and being American! Then in the middle of the pre-Nativity 40-day fast, the after-church crowd is feasting on cheese and bagels, as well as eggs and similar food containing the same!

They do it without any remorse or pain or discomfort. They brought with them a "Roman Catholic" idea that fasting means no-meat. Clearly, that is not what the Orthodox Church teaches.

So, perhaps outwardly and theologically the new American Church may be getting more Orthodox, so to say, the life of that church is still apparently eons from Orthodoxy.

In a way I don't blame them, because becoming Orthodox is really going against the grain of the American culture (in this case your very own!), which is largely Protestant in its mindset and therefore alien to Orthodoxy. I would venture to say that being truly Orthodox is diametrically opposed and incompatible with being American -- going out on Fridays, not fasting, etc. It makes you anti-social and "strange" to your own friends and even family.

[ArrogantBustard]

A point of order:

They brought with them a "Roman Catholic" idea that fasting means no-meat.

That idea is not "Roman Catholic". I'm not sure whose it is, but it ain't ours.

We call that "abstinence" ... "fasting" means not eating (or at least eating in microscopic quantities). Those are two distinct disciplines.

[Kolokotronis]

"We call that "abstinence" ... "fasting" means not eating (or at least eating in microscopic quantities). Those are two distinct disciplines."

Its a common misapprehension among Orthodox. When we speak of fasting we mean, if we are doing what we Greeks call a monastic fast, no meat, no fish with a backbone, nothing which comes from an animal like milk, cheese, butter or other animal fats, no oil and no wine. Its tough enough just to do without the meat. Anyway, abstaining from meat alone would not qualify as fasting for the Orthodox, hence Kosta's comment about "fasting" from meat alone being a Roman Catholic idea (by the way, your Eastern Rites fast the way we do). All in all, AB, you guys are real sissies when it comes to fasting! :)

[Kolokotronis]

"The converts are all from western Christian groups, from Roman Catholics to Calvinists and Baptists. They bring with them some of that convenience Americans are known for, and that "rules are meant to be broken" phronema or mindset."

Kosta, when we prepare to run an important race, we need to train for it, work up to peak condition to run the long course. One shouldn't discourage the Xenoi or set them up for failure. They didn't have mothers and grandmothers armed with wooden spoons watching them like hawks lest they eat that piece of cheese during a Lent! Like the Greeks say, "sega sega", slowly, slowly.

[ArrogantBustard]

AS I said, it's two different disciplines ...

abstaining from meat alone would not qualify as fasting anybody that I know of ... If you insist on misidentifying our relatively mild discipline of abstinence from meat with our much more strict discipline of fasting, you're going to cause confusion and misunderstanding.

As for 'sissies' ... whatever. Catholics don't fast or abstain in order to prove how 'manly' we are. That would be a sin of pride and of 'self-esteem'. We do it (among other things) as a mortification of the flesh; a way of allowing God to draw us away from the things of this world.

I'm sure your real reasons are similar ...