Infinite Monkeys

(finite) Idol Speculation [Updated]

Recently I wrote about not wanting to read or hear too much about The Passion before I saw it. It turned out that even the little bit that had seeped in already wound up interfering with my ability to watch the film without overanalyzing nearly every frame. And it is for that reason that I will refrain from passing on my personal observations and reflections for some time longer. But there is something that I wish to bring up about the movie now. Will it ruin the movie for you? Who knows... It could, but by its nature it's the sort of thing one may want to have dealt with before having seen the movie.

At the school where I work Rhetoric is an essential part of our educational focus. When it was time to choose a topic for the most recent intra-school high school debate, our Rhetoric instructor decided to use an issue that had been a topic of much discussion among the staff: would viewing The Passion Of The Christ constitute a violation of the commandment* forbidding idolatry?

*[I say "the commandment" instead of "the Second Commandment" since most Protestant (not the Lutherans') versions of the Ten Commandments divide the verses in different places than Catholics do, combining either the commandments on idolatry [the first one(s)] or those on covetousness [the last one(s)]. Oh, and there are also some slight variations when one accounts for the Judaic version. They're all given a fair treatment on this page from Wikipedia, the surprisingly dependable "open-source" online encyclopedia. For a more succinct accounting, see this table (though I can't speak for the site it's on).]

The students' debate went well. But the topic is far from settled on campus. No, I haven't been prevented from including Byzantine icons and famous depictions of Christ from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in my Art History class. But talk about the finer delineations of idolatry and The Passion keep coming up again and again. So of course it's time to bring it into the Blogosphere. There's a respectable article supporting the yes-it-seems-to-violate-the-commandment camp by Ron Gleason on PCANews.com ("The Web Magazine for the Presbyterian Church in America," which is the Reformed division of the Presbyterians, not mainline. Thanks to George, a discussion participant at Polemics.us for finding the article.)

Pastor Arden Hodgins (not "Hodges" as has been mistakenly passed around) of Port Cities Church in Lewiston, Idaho, in a letter to his congregation and readers (used here with permission) states,

"The second commandment forbids the attempt to represent God by visible and material objects or re-enactments. It is not to be done. Now, how could a command of God be any more clear?"

Well, I have to admit that upon viewing the Scriptural text, the points that Hodgins makes are not that crystal clear to me. Some aspects of his point are not even hazily visible. From Exodus 20 (English Standard Version):

4 You shall not make for yourself a carved image, 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. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them..."

Now, to be fair, Hodgins goes on to make some good points in his letter. But I don't believe they are points that serve to uphold his premise about the film, others like it, or passion plays in general constituting idolatry.

Elsewhere, Hodgins makes another argument that is common among modern iconoclasts (somewhat literally defined): that an image or a movie presents "a truncated gospel." The folks in Hodgins' camp often cite the idea that words were the method chosen by God to communicate to us, and that words and "the foolishness of preaching" should be sufficient to the point of exclusion for all other means of representation of any aspect of the gospel. But I have to wonder how any presentation of the gospel is not truncated, be it in a man's text or delivered in a sermon. Hodgins rightly claims, "Drama cannot replace preaching for this very reason. Drama gives us a two-dimensional look – it only helps us see the surface of things." Despite the fact that I think it is an overstatement to claim that any serious person is advocating The Passion as an encompassing replacement for preaching, I think that his description of the "two-dimensional look" is accurate. But it is accurate about far more than just drama. Can any man's commentary, sermon or series of sermons gives a fully three-dimensional view? As RobbL Monkey mentioned in an offline discussion earlier today, we are not only corrupt beings, but finite as well. Could even Adam before the fall have given a full accounting of God's?

I asked in a discussion yesterday if one sermon could sufficiently include the myriad elements that dramas are accused of lacking. I was told that a good one should. But this leaves me somewhat speechless. Did the sermon you heard last week meet this standard? The one before that? Would you call them inferior or insufficient? You might if you were expected to only ever hear one and then no other at all. Of course that would be folly. But isn't that the model for this form of criticism of passion plays and dramas? It seems to be a straw man to set up these productions as one-shot encapsulations of all one needs to know about the Lord. Doesn't God's own Word span 66 books to lay out the full message? In the same way that it is not wrong for us to present truncated versions of the explanation in our books, tracts, sermons, and attempts to evangelize, I don't see limitation in scope as a necessarily a disqualification for dramas, movies, or paintings.

I do not claim to be a teacher on these points. I am no theologian, pastor, or seminary student. I do know that I am not currently convinced by the claims of Hodgins or Gleason. But I can't stop thinking about the issue. I should point out that I do believe that there are downsides to a movie like The Passion. Again, several of these points I will not discuss yet, since so many who are planning to have not yet seen the film. But I wanted to get these ideas out there. I would be indebted to folks like Joe Carter (Evangelical Outpost), Joshua Claybourn, and Mark D. Roberts if they would weigh in. (Okay, honestly, I'd like to see the whole Blogdom of God take a look at the issues.)

Concerns over idolatry ought not be dismissed lightly. I would admit that I have given far from a complete treatment of the limited points that I dared address here. But the discussions ought to be happening, particularly on the true shortcomings of The Passion, and on the way movie images can be, as Hodgins describes, "indelibly etched upon the mind." I especially agree with some of what he says about the "spiritual agony" of Christ. Other subtopics that I would anticipate a need to flesh out during the investigation of these issues would be A) a reasonable definition of worship in light of the commandment forbidding idolatry (if one beyond the very text's "bow down and serve" is necessary), and B) a clear distinction between images and symbols.

I hope to have Hodgins' letter up in another post here on the blog soon, so folks can see it. (It was given to me on paper.) It's up now. I don't disagree with everything he has to say, and he deserves to be read.

UPDATE: It doesn't show up in our TrackBack, but theologian Mark D. Roberts has answered the call. It even appears to be a multi-parter.

Posted by Brad at February 28, 2004 10:19 PM | TrackBack