Word, Sacrament, and Buddy Jesus

Lately I've been following some of the back-and-forth between the Bayly Brothers (both PCA ministers) and a Missouri Synod Lutheran, Rev. Paul McCain. Some of the pointed disagreement is, predictably, over the Doctrines of Grace. Of interest to me, however, is the issue of the use of icons and images in worship.

Unlike many of my Reformed brethren, such as the Bayly's, I am not a pure iconclast. I only want to clast most icons. Seriously, I cannot see Scriptural warrant for prohibiting all use of images in worship or depictions of Jesus. I'm not going to take the time to argue my view, since Ra McLaughlin has done a better job of it than I could here. However, I also believe that the vast majority of modern uses of images are terrible for a variety of reasons.

McCain actually supplies us with a perfect example of one of these reasons, namely a painting of Christ meekly knocking on a door. If McCain wanted to convince us that the use of images of Christ is a good thing, he really shouldn't have used that picture in his blog post. The aforementioned Thomas Kinkadesque Meek Messiah is only slightly more honoring than the above-pictured "Buddy Jesus." These folks seem to want to extend Christ's state of humiliation to the present day, instead of acknowledging Him as He is: exalted at the right hand of the Father. Revelation 3:20 tells us that Jesus does indeed "knock" on the doors to our hearts, but as one who demands repentance (vs. 19), not as a beggar. Beggars don't have two-edged swords coming out of their mouths.

Let's set aside, for now, the clear misuse of images of Christ and consider the question of whether images and icons are inherently dishonoring to God, even if the images are more, um, reverential and theologically astute than the sentimental silliness we just saw. I will, in sincerity, take McCain at his word when he says that he opposes abuses and misuses of images.

I think of the use of icons in much the same way as Pascal's Wager thinks of belief in Christianity. Pascal's Wager says that if Christians are wrong about their faith in Christianity, we lose nothing (because we cease to exist after death); but if Christians are right, then unbelievers have everything to lose (because they are consigned to hell). Therefore, it is reasonable (or, at least, there is incentive) to believe in the Christian faith, all other things being equal. Similarly, Gadbois' Wager states that if iconclasts are wrong about their disdain for icons, they lose nothing by disdaining said icons. However, if the iconclasts are right, then iconographers have offended God in their use of icons.

The only objection to this reasoning I can see is if someone could present a positive case that establishes the biblical requirement to use images or icons (whether in the context of worship or not). I don't know that anyone has ever made such an argument, and I don't know what NT passage one could possibly use to support such a case, unless one wants to really stretch definitions and call the elements at the Lord's Supper an "image" of sorts. [Side note: if the Lutherans are right, and Christ is bodily present at the Supper, then, actually, it is not an image at all.]

Strangely enough, while this Lutheran crowd does not make the above argument, it seems that they still raise the issue to the level of a test of orthodoxy. Behold the stunning logic:

Don't miss the trump card: the Christological dogma. God became man and
therefore God *can* be depicted; iconography is simply fully embracing the dogma
of the Incarnation.

You'd think that affirming the Athanasian Creed and Definition of Chalcedon would be good enough to embrace the dogma of the Incarnation, but apparently you're a lightweight if you haven't gone all the way and tacked up an icon or two in your house or place of worship. One chap even went as far as to say that us Calvinsits have a "semi-Nestorian and Satanic Christology" and "deny the hypostatic union" in a comment at Baylyblog. Although the issues are certainly related (as are all issues in theology), having a perfect Christology simply isn't going to select for a particular understanding of worship. We can "fully embrace" the Incarnation yet still question the propriety of depicting the Incarnate God and using such depictions in worship of the Incarnate God.

In all of this I keep wondering, "is Word and Sacrament simply not good enough for you folks?" I worry about what sort of answer I would get from this bunch of Lutherans. Are we really missing out on something vital here? If so, please prove from Scripture that it is vital or even important to Christian worship. If so, then why does it seem to be missing from the first century church, as depicted in the New Testament? If it is not vital to Christian worship, then why dost thou protest so much? If we took away your icons, would you cease to function as a church, or at least by spiritually crippled? Would you, personally, find yourself in spiritual or emotional doldrums without them?

McCain quotes Luther in this respect:

Images, bells, eucharistic vestments, church ornaments, altar lights, and the
like I regard as things indifferent. Anyone who wishes may omit them.

It is hard to tell, but it may very well be true that McCain agrees with Luther here. I hope so. Certainly, no Eastern Orthodox cleric could make such a statement.

Given this reasoning, one may ask why I am not a full-blooded Baylyesque iconclast? I have a mountain of respect for such brethren, but I cannot go along with their blanket prohibition against the use of images. The Gadbois Wager makes me extremely wary of the use of images, but the hole in the Wager that prevents me from prohibiting images is the doctrine of Christian freedom. If McLaughlin's reasoning in his article is right, the Scriptures do not strictly prohibit the use of images in or out of worship, and the doctrine of Christian freedom tells me that it is a sin for me to prohibit that which Scripture does not prohibit. This principle is the only thing that gives me any sympathy at all for McCain's side. It is hard for me to see how visual depictions in worship can possibly be inherently wrong if they were used prominently in Old Testament worship (ex. the Temple and Tabernacle). Furthermore, since the cultural mandate includes the task of visual artistry, I think we should use all forms, means, and tools that are not prohibited by Scripture to do so.

As a practical matter, however, I think that in our age we must, more often than not, break our bronze serpents to pieces (2 Kings 18:4), whether commissioned by Moses himself or painted by a Thomas Kinkade wannabe.

-------------------------------------------------

P.S. - I have no clue what sort of ecclesiological theory is behind the following statements by McCain concerning Calvinists:

[The Bayly Brothers] are fine, pious, and sincere Christian pastors who are
conservative Calvinists.

and then:

They can expect no fellowship from me.

Category: Theoblogia