HEIDELBERG CATECHISM, Part 2, Comments, on Q&As 96-98: My comments, Part 2: How should Reformed Christians respond to all this? My fear is that my own little contribution here will only raise more questions than answers! It is clear from history and today, that we have a very dim view of icons, pictures of Jesus, statues, crucifixes, and the like. Regardless of how we view private worship and devotional life, we do not agree with the Roman Catholics (RC) and Eastern Orthodox (EO) that such things should be mandated as part of public worship, even if there is any context in which they are not seen as objects of outright worship. In fact, it is the very controversy over what governs worship, not only between us and the RCs and EO, but also between us and the two other branches of the Reformation faith that has been a major distinguishing mark of a specifically Reformed identity. In the history of the Reformation, because we all had come out of the Roman, western church, and had to sort it all out, what to reform, what to retain, and so on, two principles arose to govern what true worship should look like, in relation to the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura, the Scriptures as the final authority in matters of faith and practise: 1) The Regulative Principle of Worship and 2) Adiaphora (things indifferent). The Regulative Principle became adopted by the Reformed and the Adiaphora was mainly adopted by the Anglican and Lutheran branches of the Reformation, to such an extent, that one has written, to this day, worship in these traditions is generally the most elaborate among Protestant denominations. To narrow them down to their most basic ideas is this: The Regulative Principle states that whatever is commanded is required; what is not commanded is forbidden. The Adiaphora states, whatever is not forbidden is allowed (thus, things indifferent!- you can take it or leave it!). Since Im in no position to speak authoritatively for any Reformed group, not an ordained elder or minister, but only an ordained, though inactive, deacon in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), and I always emphasize that I represent my own views as a lay person, I have chosen to quote from writers for Ligonier Ministries on some penetrating questions on the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW). R.J. Gore, Jr., has written an article entitled, Adiaphora in Worship on the Ligonier web site. He raises some of the same questions I have often had on this [Regulative] principle, which frees the church from acts of impropriety and idiocy... yet it does not commit the church to a cookie-cutter, liturgical sameness. Within an adherence to the principle there is enormous room for variation in matters that Scripture has not specifically addressed (adiaphora). Examples he gives, which would affect major issues of formal worship, are, whether we should use Psalms only in singing and worship, or hymns as well? What about contemporary music? Are choirs acceptable? Choir robes? And Christmas candle lighting services? He continues: To summarize, the RPW is not quite the same thing as reformed according to the Scriptures. The RPW is narrower than the Biblical data requires- or allows. Moreover, the RPW has left the church with a confusing view of circumstances so that even those who affirm the principle find it difficult to agree on its applications or to pracitse it consistently. To reform worship according the Scriptures, we need to allow Christian liberty for those indifferent things- or adiaphora- that are not elements but too substantial to squeeze into a narrow definition of circumstances. A covenantal principle of worship allows room for Gods people to express themselves contextually- not by inventing new elements of worship, but by adopting worship (such as rites, ceremonies, special days) to their times and places. In conclusion, John Frame has contended that, in some sense, there are no indifferent things, for everything we do- or dont do- should be for the glory of God. On that point, there is no room for indifference. Early on, in my own thinking on these things, in application to icons, statues, etc., I saw things in the Scriptures themselves that caused me to pause and, I hope, make me think more deeply about what worship is exactly. I am much slower to pass judgment, as in painting broadly others in another faith tradition than my own. For example, the Orthodox insist that they do not worship the icons, that they are mere symbols and windows into the heavenly places as it were. Scripture is not against the mere making of pictures or statues, and before I even knew the Orthodox pointed to the Divine command in the Old Testament to cast golden cherubim (angels), and actually place them in the most sacred place of the Tabernacle (later Temple) directly over the mercy seat, I had argued that the mere presence of carved images doesnt prove worship of them (Exodus 25-30)! I began to see that even God Himself commanded these likenesses in the most sacred part of the Jewish temple, and since God doesnt contradict Himself, if Hes God- then all the prohibitions against images, statues, etc., was in the context of *worshiping* them! I know that many of my Reformed brethren will dismiss the Orthodox distinction between latreia and proskunesis as a distinction without a real difference, but I cannot judge their hearts and will, for myself, leave that to God, especially in light of the fact that they themselves make a distinction and seem to understand that the highest adoration is preserved for God alone! The Regulative Principle of Worship also seems difficult to hold to in a few other instances. For example, the Jewish feasts of Purim and Hanukkah. No where in the Book of Esther are we told that God commanded or authorized the Jews to come up with this feast to celebrate the Gods deliverance from Haman! Yet, it seems obvious that it pleased God, glorified God, and the Book of Esther made its way into the Canon of Hebrew scripture! Then in John 10, we see Jesus in the Temple on the Feast of the Dedication or Lights, a intra-Testamental feast that the Jews also invented, to celebrate the victory of the Maccabees over Antiochus Epiphanes! On that very day, Jesus tells his opponents that *He* is consecrated by the Father, and thereby alluding to the fact that He is the true Temple of God! Elsewhere, He says He is the true Light that enlightens every man! He is the true Hanukkah! And yet this Feast has no Divine authorization! But doesnt it? Finally, I wanted to let another Reformed scholar speak, Dr. Robert Letham, who has written a very brilliant and fresh book on Eastern Orthodoxy, entitled, *Through Western Eyes, Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective,* 2007, Mentor books, Great Britain. It was actually a gift to me from an Eastern Orthodox friend, and of which I am very grateful! (Im open to reading uncharitable, more critical works as well if anyone wants to send me books too!). I quote him because I was surprising in agreement with him and he only strengthened my own views and enriched them! Here, he points out that Man himself is the very icon (Image) of God, and the Incarnate Jesus is the most supreme Icon of the Father! He writes on page 160: There is a surprising area of agreement between teh Reformed and the Orthodox. Reformed theology believes in icons too! I have already hinted at that. The whole idea of image (eikon) is an obvious Biblical category- man as made in the image of God, Christ as the image of the invisible God as the second Adam. However, it stretches even beyond this. For the Reformed *everything* is iconic (his emphasis). God has imprinted evidence of his own beauty and glory throughout creation. In the words of the Psalmist the heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge (Psalm 19:1,2). And again, O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! (Psalm 8:9). In line with this Paul can say that his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. (Romans 1:20). Every blade of grass, every tree and flower displays the glory of God. Every square inch belongs to Christ, the mediator of creation (Col. 1:15-17, Heb. 1:1-3). If icons are windows to draw us to God, opened books to lead us to heaven, so too is the entire order of creation- the beauty of the hills, the colours of the grass, sea and sky, the trees and plants, the changing of the seasons. Now, this is the distinction between the Creation being the icon of God, pointing us TO God, and creation as an idolatrous object of worship, as in Romans 1. Clearly, the passages in Deuteronomy and Romans, condemning worship of the Creation and the passages in the Psalms, praising Creation as declaring the handiwork of Yahweh are not in conflict! The problem is NOT the Creation. The problem is not statues, images, as such! No! Its what we do with them! Do we worship them, or the one they point to as the eternal, invisible, transcendent Maker of them all? That is the issue. If the Orthodox have a problem, or dangerously close to true worship of their images and pictures, do we look into our own hearts and see what we esteem, perhaps a little too highly? Calvin did remind us that our hearts are idol factories! We should always be seeking our Lord for deliverance of *every form* of idolatry, and the rest of the issues that I may have left open, I will just leave those to the judgment of the reader, and perhaps some interesting interaction! Letham ends with this one interesting thought: What Calvinism did was to open the door to a thoroughly this-worldy appreciation of beauty. By eliminating art and sculpture from the place where the church gathered to worship God, it drove it out of the church and into the world. It placed the aesthetic in the context of general revelation rather than special revelation, as a witness to God in the world rather than as the focus of the worship of God in the church. The result of this was the enormous flowering of creativity in post-Reformation culture. In a context permeated by the impact of John Calvin and Reformed theology, there flourished the Dutch masters, such as Rembrandt and Van Ruysdael, and English landscapists like Constable. Increasingly, they portrayed not the supernatural realm of angels and demons, but the world around them displaying the glory and beauty of God. - p. 162
Posted on: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 03:27:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015