This article succeeds in reinforcing the unbiblical dichotomy between word and image. Do we really need to make statements like, "pagan spirituality is based on image. Christianity of course, is word based"? What about the eucharist or baptism? I suppose these are merely inconsequential aspects to Christianity's nature.
Instead of making claims like this author does, a more balanced assessment would be to note the ways in which Christianity is both word- and image-based. Doing so takes the blame off of our society and furthermore, helps to avoid some traps inherent in this author's position. For instance, by accusing our society of being too image-based, the author is implicitly stating that previous periods in American history had been more Christian by virtue of their dependance on word to transmit information between people. This easily becomes a general criticism of technology, since it is primarily technology that drives the transmission of information through images.
As I see it, Christianity is both word and image-based. Christ is the logos, and he is revealed to us in the Holy Scriptures. But he is also revealed to us viscerally in the Lord's Supper, in baptism, and in the community of believers. None of these takes their meaning to be primarily verbal, but rather, are imaged representations of Jesus Christ. The paganism that I fear this author has imbibed is a kind of hyper-rationalism which has reduced Christ and his religion to theological statements and data.
Posted by scott at December 28, 2003 11:54 PM | TrackBackIt goes right along with the deemphasizing of the sacraments in many PCA churches. Sometimes it seems like everything else in the service is just a prelude to the sermon. I don't think we really understand liturgy very well in the PCA as a whole.
Posted by: Evan Donovan at December 29, 2003 01:03 AMI'm afraid that a more honest statement of the author's meaning would be, "Roman Catholic spirituality is based on image. The PCA, of course, is word based."
Posted by: mesh at December 29, 2003 11:09 AMI'm glad you wrote this. I was thinking the same thing when I read that article.
Posted by: barlow at December 30, 2003 01:40 AMEvan, you mention a deemphasizing in the PCA, do you know of a time that it was emphasized? Every baptism I have ever been to in a PCA Church, which has always been infant, was preceded by an explanation of why nothing is really happening in the baptism, more or less an infant dedication with a sprinkle.
I am in the midst of studying Colossians and verse 1:15 states, "He is the IMAGE of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." There is a lot that could be said about this, but suffice it to say that Paul was a genius. Here he is addressing a Jewish error to a mixed, but most likely predominant Gentile Church, and he picks up on language from both cultures and describes Jesus as the image of God. Yes, it most definitely is a both/and when it comes to images, especially with the Word made flesh.
Posted by: thewhitedwarf at December 30, 2003 09:15 PMSeems like it would be much safer to talk about Judaism being word rather than image based. Neil Postman talks about this for a bit in _Amusing Ourselves to Death_. One could certainly make the case that the restriction on images was one of the things that defined judaism against the pagan religions. Things cetainly get a bit more complicated in the NT, as the dwarf nicely points out above.
Posted by: Paul Baxter at December 31, 2003 10:13 AMHmm, I posted before I read the link. I get the impression now that the book is little more than a watered down Postman book aimed at Christians. On the nature of the probem he discusses, I did find Marva Dawn's book very helpful.
Posted by: Paul Baxter at December 31, 2003 10:16 AMYeah, as I was writing that, I kept thinking about Postman's book. My impression from reading the review was that the book was similar to Postman's idea of "media as epistemology."
I'm not too familiar with ancient Judaism and its use of images, but I get the sense that while images may have been restricted (Ex. 20:4-6), they were also commanded and used in worship (the designs of the temple, for instance, as well as the symbolic annual celebrations, feasts, etc.). I get the sense that the restrictions weren't such that you could make the type of statement that the author made - paganism equals image; christianity equals word, etc.
Posted by: scott cunningham at December 31, 2003 03:23 PMWhat about the very basic image of the bronze serpent? The Israelites had merely to look up and see the serpent, and be healed.
Of course, later on the Israelites would come to worship the image and named it Nehushtan, but who's counting? ^_^
Posted by: Charles Rozier at January 4, 2004 03:42 PM