Replies

It seems to me that Johnson here failed to distinguish the lesser problem that westerners should have with the Orthodox's eucharistic practice and icons.

Having given the book away and never had it returned I cannot speak with accuracy, but I don't recall the book discussing much about the eucharist.

As for icons....our theology about them goes deeper than simply surrounding ourselves with "windows to heaven".

As Mama Fred herself said in the book, "Still, there seems something shocking about using representations of Jesus in our worship. It is the same shock that is sometimes called "the scandal of particularity"--that God who is ineffable and invisible, who commanded that no image of him be made, took flesh and became a baby. He became visible, concrete, with shocking specificity: a man of a certain height, build, and eye color, eating a real roast fish on a Sunday afternoon."

Our theology of icons is about the representation in the flesh of God here on earth, or Christ. And we are all "icons of God", made in His image.

A writing you may find enjoyable here. I laugh every time I read the line about the Orthodox leaning against the barriers.

Having given the book away and never had it returned I cannot speak with accuracy, but I don't recall the book discussing much about the eucharist.

Well, I was not so much criticizing the eucharistic belief of the Orthodox (shared with Rome and with Lutheran Protestants) as I was commenting that Johnson seemed to entirely dismiss it as a relevant topic. Johnson is sharper than this.

As for icons....our theology about them goes deeper than simply surrounding ourselves with "windows to heaven".

The icons thing goes along with the statues of saints or of Mary found in the Roman churches. The Roman church at the time of the Reformation led its ignorant followers to literally worship these idols. Protestants (including Baptists and evangelicals) have always had a horror of this practice. They oppose it as the creation of a graven image of God and the worshipping of a false god. At any rate, I just thought that Johnson, as a Protestant, really soft-pedalled these differences.

Now, having said the preceding, I don't think the Eastern churches ever came close to what Rome did in the West in these practices. So Johnson failing to note this is not a great mistake. In truth, no Protestant can ever have the kind of attachment for an icon or statue or other artistic work or reliquary as does the Roman church, and to a far lesser extent, the Orthodox. But a Protestant should still at least indicate the difference in theology, tradition and culture. To read Johnson's article, one might come away thinking that the Orthodox are just a rather colorful Protestant church.

There are, after all, distinctive theological principles and practices that many tens of thousands of people have died to protect and preserve. It seems to me that we are obliged, inasmuch as they are our forbears, to at least acknowledge the differences in an honest way.

Our theology of icons is about the representation in the flesh of God here on earth, or Christ. And we are all "icons of God", made in His image. ~ MarMema

Well, even granting that we are all "icons of God", which gave me a mental image of bowing down and worshipping before my wife as if this would somehow be pleasing to the Father, the Command against making any image is given to us, not to God. He is perfectly free to make any image and likeness of Himself He wishes. Of this, I am grateful. Woody.