Art alive, well and Reformed

The Times-Union ^ | March 04, 2009 | THE REV. JAMES HART BRUMM

[Alex Murphy]

Lately I have been examining the changes in how people in the Reformed-Presbyterian faith traditions understand the role of art in worship. As I prepared for the fellowship I am now engaged in, friends and colleagues gently chided me, saying this will be one of my briefer presentations; everybody knows Reformed folks don't do art.

A little background may be helpful here. Among the many catalysts for the 16th century Protestant Reformation in Europe was the issue of art in worship. The Roman Catholic Church, struggling to hold the Western world together during the Middle Ages, used art as a way to convey theological concepts to a largely illiterate society. Drama, paintings and sculpture told biblical stories. Music was pressed into service as a tool for memorization and to convey a sense of the divine and the infinite to people whose lives were very finite and earthbound.

Unfortunately, by the Renaissance, excesses and abuses and misunderstandings had crept into all of this (this is one small cause of the Reformation, and greatly simplified here; years can be spent studying all the nuances I am trampling). As a result, the theologians at the forefront of what became the Reformed tradition — John Calvin, working in Geneva, and especially Ulrich Zwingli, in Zurich — were concerned that art was getting in the way of proclamation, drawing attention to the artists instead of God. The classic understanding of their response: Just say "no" to art; no art in churches, no music or drama in worship.

So why is it that, if you step into almost any Presbyterian, Reformed or United Church of Christ house of worship, you will find all sorts of visual and performing art going on? Even the simplest churches have colored tablecloths and pulpit hangings. Alfred V. Fedak of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Albany is one of the leading organists and composers in North America. Drama groups from the Community Reformed Church in Colonie have been featured on network television. A rock guitarist (Stacy Midge) is on the pastoral staff of First Reformed Church in Schenectady and a dramatic storyteller (Harlan Ratmeyer) pastors First Reformed Church of Bethlehem in Selkirk. The RCA Classis of Albany is re-purposing one of its older houses of worship to become the Spiritual Art Center of the Boght. What happened to the dour Reformed folks?

The answer is twofold. First, the position of the Reformers was much more nuanced than classic history tends to remember. Both Zwingli and Calvin were trained in arts themselves, and had great respect for them. They saw beauty as a gift of God: in the third book of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin insists that God has created things "not only for necessity," but also for enjoyment. Calvin wanted music and singing in worship (and never tried to remove the two organs from his own church in Geneva), and called for the Lord's Supper — with its visual and tactile use of bread and wine — to be celebrated as often as the Word is preached because we learn in more than one way.

The second part of the answer is that nearly five centuries have transpired since the Reformation began. As our understanding of God and ourselves evolves, so must the church. The growing use of art in Reformed worship can be seen not as abandoning the Reformer's teachings, but building upon them. The problem becomes that much of this change has happened without discussion, without reflection on the why and what of changing, which is why studying the past becomes important. And this becomes a metaphor for all our lives. It is too easy for us to oversimplify subtle arguments. Then certain caricatures of positions and understandings become frozen, and we forget that they can change with time. We also forget to keep discussing, learning and changing as we evolve. We must be ready to discuss and examine why things change and how they change us. History is a tool for us to understand where we have been, giving us a frame of reference going forward — something everyone needs for art, for worship and for life.

[Marie2]

I don’t see warrant for art in worship from Scripture.

In OT times, we had the precise nature of temple art dictated to us, to the nth degree.

But in NT times, where we do not worship at the temple, we have no direction to use art in worship. There is incidental art in any place, of course, but not art as a worship tool.

[Martin Tell]

With respect, you have the distinction between Old Testament and New Testament worship wrong.

The incarnation of Jesus Christ renewed all things, including "art."

There is nothing new about a controversy over use of imagery (icons) in Christian worship.

In the East, under the influence of Islam (around 700 to 800 AD), some seriously misguided "reformers" (Iconoclasts) tried to destroy all Holy imagery. Those who believed in the proper use of Holy Icons ultimately prevailed.

This Sunday, we Orthodox will joyously remember the return of the Holy Icons to our churches, an event we call "The Triumph of Orthodoxy."

For a comprehensive and scriptural examination of the proper place of Holy art in worship, I ask that you carefully read St. John of Damascus, "Against Those Who Decry Holy Images," at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/johndamascus-images.html. He wrote this at the time of the Iconoclast controversy, so it is of great antiquity.

And please accept my prayer of good will and sincere best wishes.

[Marie2]

Ah, you come from orthodox tradition. Worship-wise, very different from us reformed Presbyterians.

We utilize the regulative principle (anything not commanded for the worship is forbidden, unless incidental.)

Of course art outside of icons or what have you, in other words, all the fine arts, outside of the formal worship service, are considered good and positive and are encouraged.

Thank you for your kind words. As an aside I have just discovered a truly, truly great author, Boris Akunin, who writes multi layered mystery novels of great genius (laying it on thick, I know, but he is really fantastic). His main settings are in the Russian Orthodox setting. You may really enjoy them if you try them.

[Martin Tell]

And thank you for your very civil reply. Yes, our workship traditions are very different.

I shall make it a point to look into Mr. Akunin. Of course, I must recommend Dostoevsky!

[Lee N. Field]

We utilize the regulative principle (anything not commanded for the worship is forbidden, unless incidental.)

Some do. Decades back I was 14 years in a CRC congregation I still miss, before that, grew up PCUSA. I don't recall once hearing anything about a regulative principle.

Now-a-days I'm smack dab in the middle of evangelicalism, where they'll do any old thing it comes into their heads to do. Movie clips, sure. Give the whole service over to a skit -- sure. "Walmart sermons" (bought, ready to deliver) -- youbetcha.

If you perceive a bit of frustration there, you see rightly.

I'm personally of the opinion that, in worship, we need to be very careful about delivery of the message by visual means. Especially in this modern era by moving images, video clips, Powerpig presentations, etc. If they can't read, well, read it to them.

[annalex]

I celebrate the Triumph of Orthodoxy in Catholic Melkite Church last Sunday (Catholic Lent calendar is different).

It is a very stirring rite that precedes the regular liturgy. Upon entering the church one notices that the portable icons, normally hung on the walls all around are missing in their ordinary places and instead are stacked face down on a side table. Lead by the priest, in silence, the parishioners pick up the icons as the priest hands it to them. A procession is formed as the faithful carry the icons, like babies, three times around the church and a hymn is sung.

I carried St. Nicholas, in a reversal of the familiar scene of Santa Claus letting little children sit on his lap.

Finally, the procession ends and the icons are returned to their rightful places.

Holy Resurrection Romanian Orthodox Church in Warren, Ohio

The Triumph of Orthodoxy is itself an iconographic type:

The Restoration of the Holy Icons
Modern Greek icon

[Marie2]

“I’m personally of the opinion that, in worship, we need to be very careful about delivery of the message by visual means.”

Scripture is clear on that, in my opinion. We don’t see, by instruction or example, any ordained leaders getting all creative with the worship process.

[Martin Tell]

Thank you so much.

What a beautiful post!

In my parish we are encouraged to bring our "personal" icons from home - so in my case St. Mark the Evangelist (he seems like an old friend now) - for the procession first around the outside of the church building and then the inside.

That evening, the Faithful from all of the Orthodox parishes in the city will gather in one place for Vespers.

What a blessing!

[Martin Tell]

Especially in this modern era by moving images, video clips, Powerpig presentations, etc.

There is a very real danger there. In some megachurches, one sees huge Jumbotrons displaying the image of the preacher.

What is being worshiped?

[Lee N. Field]

huge Jumbotrons

The layout, the seating, the stage: it's an entertainment venue.

[annalex]

There are at least these two scripture verses that suggest some use of the Holy Images in the Early Church:

16 But when [the children of Israel] shall be converted to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. 17 Now the Lord is a Spirit. And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all beholding the glory of the Lord with open face, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord. (2 Corinthians 3)

You can argue that the glory of the Lord is beholden in a spiritual sense and not as a physical icon of Christ. But notice that the veil that Moses wore was to prevent the physical vision of God, rather than an inward concept. So the context points to the physical contemplation of the image of Christ, which, in Corinth, could only be iconographic.

O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been set forth, crucified among you? (Galatians 3:1)

Unlike the previous passage, the mentioning of the image of Christ crucified among the Galatians is incidental to the context. However, unless the Galatians were looking at a crucifix, how else would St. Paul's phrasing be possible?

[Marie2]

Well, I accept both passages you cite as authoritative, certainly. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. And Christ was certainly set forth as crucified to the Galatians.

I don’t draw the same conclusions, though.

There are prohibitions against making a picture of God. Jesus is both God and man. Personally I don’t know that it is a sin to depict Jesus as a man, but I am not sure. I am sure you can’t try to make a picture of God. I can certainly see that one obvious bad fruit of that would be to start worshipping the “thing” rather than the God it represents. Were I to have a picture of Jesus here or there, I’d be watchful about it.

I remember throwing away an old nativity set many years ago. Into the literal dumpster (I lived at a storage place), went lambs, wise men, Joseph and Mary, but seeing the baby Jesus in there was really disturbing. I felt terrible, as though I were throwing Jesus into a dumpster. Intellectually, I knew it was just some clay, but psychologically, it was more than that.

I don’t remember how I dealt with it. Did I leave it in the dumpster? Remove it and get red of it more formally? Either way, I was not comfortable.

[topcat54]

The classic understanding of their response: Just say "no" to art; no art in churches, no music or drama in worship.

Calvin’s foundational reasoning, which seems sound, is this:

Having observed that the word of God is the test which discriminates between his true worship and that which is false and vitiated, we thence readily infer that the whole form of divine worship in general use in the present day is nothing but mere corruption. For men pay no regard to what God has commanded, or to what he approves, in order that they may serve him in a becoming manner, but assume to themselves a licence of devising modes of worship, and afterwards obtruding them upon him as a substitute for obedience. If in what I say I seem to exaggerate, let an examination be made of all the acts by which the generality suppose that they worship God. I dare scarcely except a tenth part as not the random offspring of their own brain. What more would we? God rejects, condemns, abominates all fictitious worship, and employs his word as a bridle to keep us in unqualified obedience. When shaking off this yoke, we wander after our own fictions, and offer to him a worship, the work of human rashness, how much soever it may delight ourselves, in his sight it is vain trifling, nay, vileness and pollution. The advocates of human traditions paint them in fair and gaudy colors; and Paul certainly admits that they carry with them a show of wisdom; but as God values obedience more than all sacrifices, it ought to be sufficient for the rejection of any mode of worship, that it is not sanctioned by the command of God. (The Necessity of Reforming the Church)

Calvin viewed the human heart as the real issue. He wrote, "[T]he human mind is, so to speak, a perpetual forge of idols," and "[E]very one of us is, even from his mother’s womb, expert in inventing idols." Art and music lend themselves in a somewhat unique way to idolatrous practices. Without the clearly defined boundaries of the word of God, all manner of corruption are bound to take over in worship.

[annalex]

But what conclusions do you draw? The scripture is there for a reason: it speaks of beholding an image (icon) of God. St Paul speaks of Christ Himself being an image of God in several places. Therefore, at least images of Christ and, by extension, of His saints (who are made in the image of God, here’s that i-word again) are not prohibited.

I would, by the way, agree that images of God the Father are a bit silly, but not because they were prohibited the Jews. It is, simply, a bit futile and confusing to portray the Father as an old man when Jesus said in effect, if you want to see the Father, look at me. Traditional religious art avoids images of the Father for that reason. Often, a blessing hand appears from the Heavenly Vault; that is a nice solution because it is purely symbolic and confirms that the Father you cannot directly see.

The fear that God would somehow lead you to error by giving you His holy image is puzzling to me. Do you really think that these people carrying the icons (on the photo above) do not understand that they are paint on wood forming an image of people and not God?

An image is by its definition not the original thing. but it has a relation with the original. So it is not mere clay that you were about to throw in the dumster. It was, granted, not Jesus himself, but it was His image. Not just “psychologically”, it was objectively an image of Jesus. By mistreating the image you insulted the original — I know your intentions were pious, but the insult, objectively, remains. This is why you were not comfortable.

[topcat54]

Therefore, at least images of Christ and, by extension, of His saints (who are made in the image of God, here’s that i-word again) are not prohibited.

Have you ever seen an image of Christ? No, you haven't. What you have seen are fraudulent representations of "Christ" based on the imaginative process of men. They are violations of not only the 2nd Commandment, but also the 9th Commandment, "You shall not bear false witness."

[Martin Tell]

The Nativity scene story reminded me of a story I read about the Iconoclasm controversy.

The Iconoclastic emperor was testing monks by having them trample a cross. One monk refused. The emperor urged him on,"It means nothing; it's just a piece of wood!"

The monk asked for a coin. It had the image of the emperor on it. The monk trampled on the coin. He became a martyr.

[annalex]

What makes you think they are fraudulent?

What makes you think people worship an idol if they venerate His icon?

[annalex]

I wonder how many people would be terrified of violating Divine Law as they keep the pictures of their family members around.

[Martin Tell]

Yes, I worship idols.

Now, will you leave me alone since I won't argue with you?