I was on a closed Facebook group (the group has since been shut down). One of the other group members posted a link to Pastor Doug Wilson’s website where he was answering a question regarding the Eastern Orthodox Church. I was intrigued. First, it was the first time I had come across someone from evangelical Christianity who was attempting to answer something about Eastern Orthodoxy and remain in the evangelical Christian ‘tradition’ (I’m not sure whether it was a morbid curiosity or not). Second, in the past I had read some of his books and so he was someone I have a fair amount of respect for (it does take a certain courage to be able to put your controversial beliefs in a book and address some difficult issues as he has done). I have to say overall I was disappointed in his answer.
The question asked was: “Can you please address the idea that the Eastern Orthodox are the only true church because they alone can stake a claim on historical Christianity. I have a friend who recently converted and I have heard there are many leaving evangelical churches for orthodoxy. I understand how compelling it is that they can trace their Christian heritage back to before Roman Catholicism and Reformed churches and I cannot find a good resource addressing this issue.” (Copied directly as is).
I listened to Doug Wilson’s answer. He started out by stating any claim of ‘historical Christianity’ by the Eastern Orthodox was ‘laughable’. I can only conclude he was referring to claiming historical Christianity in a spiritual sense, because if you look strictly at Church history the claim is very well founded.
On the other hand, if you look at the Bible, and particularly these two verses from Jude and Matthew. ‘Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints. ’(Jude 3), and ‘And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.’ (Matt 16:18). These point, not only to the church beginning in apostolic times, but to it continuing and not be overcome through the ages. Taking this into account, then the claim of historical Christianity is not only shown through history, but also spiritually in the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Doug Wilson closed this segment with a classic argument from the evangelical Christian perspective against Eastern Orthodoxy: icons. He used (earlier in the segment admittedly) a single example of iconoclasm done by Epiphanius, a bishop from Salamis in the fourth century, as proof that icons were not ‘biblical’ and therefore anyone having them or venerating them is committing idolatry. I decided to go to one source that has helped me in my understanding of Church history (even though it is written by a protestant writer): Phillip Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church”. Epiphanius is described by Schaff in turn as, ‘[one] who achieved his fame by his learned and intolerant zeal for orthodoxy’, ‘His good nature easily allowed him to be used as an instrument for the passions of others, and his zeal was not according to his knowledge’, and ‘at times he violated ecclesiastical order’. Schaff concludes his overall assessment as ‘He was possessed by a boundless credulity, now almost proverbial, causing innumerable errors and contradictions in his writings. His style is entirely destitute of beauty or elegance. Still his works are of considerable value as a storehouse of the history of ancient heresies and of patristic polemics.’ Looking back, he was probably not the best person to use if you’re going to make this kind of argument.
Doug Wilson also used the ten commandments to further his argument against icons. This showed a non-understanding of the Eastern Orthodox theology of icons at a minimum. To put it at its’ most basic: Orthodox Christians do not pray TO icons. When in front of an icon, I as an Orthodox Christian see that it is an image of either Christ, the Virgin Mary, a saint, or an event from the Bible. I understand that it is something that comes from this earth. Why would I venerate such a thing? Let me try and use an example to help you understand. I have pictures of my parents and other family members. Some are portraits, others are from events in my past. Looking at those pictures, they bring my mind back and focus it on those people and events, and with it feelings of love. The same thing occurs when viewing icons. Now, to answer Doug Wilson’s use (and many protestant Christians as well) of the ten commandments (the second commandment in particular) to say praying and having icons is idolatry, I will add a quote from the Orthodox Christian Information Center website’s page on icons:
The issue with respect to the 2nd commandment is what does the word translated "graven images" mean? If it simply means carved images, then the images in the temple would be in violation of this Commandment. Our best guide, however, to what Hebrew words mean, is what they meant to Hebrews—and when the Hebrews translated the Bible into Greek, they translated this word simply as"eidoloi", i.e. "idols." Furthermore the Hebrew word pesel is never used in reference to any of the images in the temple. So clearly the reference here is to pagan images rather than images in general.
Let's look at the Scriptural passage in question more closely:
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image (i.e. idol), or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor shalt thou serve (worship) them..." (Exodus 20:4-5a).
Now, if we take this as a reference to images of any kind, then clearly the cherubim in the Temple violate this command. If we limit this as applying only to idols, no contradiction exists. Furthermore, if this applies to all images—then even the picture on a driver's license violates it, and is an idol. So either every Protestant with a driver's license is an idolater, or Icons are not idols.
Leaving aside, for the moment, the meaning of "graven images" lets simply look at what this text actually says about them. You shall not make x, you shall not bow to x, you shall not worship x. If x = image, then the Temple itself violates this Commandment. If x = idol and not all images, then this verse contradicts neither the Icons in the Temple, nor Orthodox Icons
One thing in his answer did pique my interest: his mention of a book titled ‘through western eyes’ by Robert Letham. I may have to see if I can find it, perhaps again for that morbid curiosity. However the title of that book gave me the title for this post.
Having been in both the western (Lutheran, evangelical) and eastern churches, there is one thing that to me that is a common thread through the discussions/disagreements I have come across. Both sides view salvation, grace, the church, and scripture from such different perspectives there is almost no common ground to begin any kind of agreement from. I’ve heard this phenomenon described as follows: ‘It’s not just the answers that are different, there are different questions being asked.’ Dismissive, argumentative statements that make no attempt to take perspective into consideration only make the situation worse. We need to be able to try and understand those who have a different perspective than us. Admittedly, it can be difficult to try and help someone see a different perspective, or to be able to see a different perspective ourselves. As I see it, if there are people who can understand the perspectives of both, and articulate those perspectives so they are understood by everyone involved, then perhaps we will have a better chance of coming to a common knowledge and understanding.
I don’t think Wilson is an informed dialog partner when it comes to Orthodoxy. He’s tried some hatchet jobs in the past with Credenda Agenda and they got their heads handed to them on a plate by Carmen Fragapane and others. It seems he hasn’t learned his lesson.
ReplyDeleteEiphanius won’t help him for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that there are good reasons for rejecting those passages as being authentic. They appear in no pre-Iconoclastic era copy of Epiphanius’ works and that is just for starters. Try Bingham’s little bk, “Epiphanius of Salamis, Doctor of Iconoclasm? Deconstruction of a Myth. If Wilson and others are going to go toe to toe with an opponent, here is lesson one. You need to read what they are reading. You need to read the best of the other side. If you can’t do that, you’re going to get creamed. There is no shortcut to actually doing the work. All Wilson is doing is taking pre-fabricated arguments against Rome and throwing them at the Orthodox and hoping something sticks.
As for Letham’s book. It is a good book if you want to see how the Reformed are making attempts to engage the Orthodox. It is not a good book if you want to understand Orthodoxy.