Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Iconoclasm and apostasy


MR. FOSI SAID:
Jonathan's comment interests me.
It interests me in light of the many posts I have seen here regarding images or depictions of Jesus. The argument that is consistently made here (generally spearheaded by Steve) is that images of Jesus in cartoons and such aren't "graven" in the sense that they are idolatrous.
I know this is off-topic, but my interest is really piqued. Is stepping on a cast crucifixual image apostasy? If not, why not? If so, is it the specific act of stepping on the image (seems idolatrous)? Or because the act itself is somehow a failure to confess Christ?

  STEVE SAID:
Fosi,
It's a question of intent. The act itself wouldn't constitute apostasy, but the outward expression of a prior apostate attitude. 
  MR. FOSI SAID:Steve,
Thanks for indulging me. :^D
One follow-up if I may: The intent to avoid being recognized as a Christian (to avoid torture and death) is the inner apostate attitude you refer to?

We need to back up and reframe the discussion. There can be different motivations for iconoclasm:

i) A Puritan’s motivation is pious rather than impious. He isn’t trying to commit sacrilege. Just the opposite: he thinks a crucifix (to take your example) is a superstitious amulet which leads people astray.

And, of course, Puritans could appeal to the OT precedent of desecrating pagan shrines.

ii) By contrast, an apostate deliberately commits sacrilege to publicly demonstrate his contempt for the Christian faith.

At the same time, it’s not the sacrilegious act that makes him an apostate. For he wouldn’t perform this external deed unless, psychologically speaking, he was already an apostate. The motive precedes the deed.

iii) Apropos (ii), even that needs to be qualified. For instance, when he was young and dumb, Peter Hitchens burned his Bible in a public spectacle. That was consciously sacrilegious. But he didn’t thereby cross a line of no return. Indeed, as we know, he later became a Christian.

iv) You’re raising the example of persecution. The classic case was Christians in pagan Rome who were forced to either submit to the imperial cult or else be executed.

As a rule, when Christians are confronted with that choice, it’s incumbent on them to choose martyrdom over compromise. The locus classicus is Mt 10:30-33.

v) However, I think that’s subject to certain caveats:

a) In the OT (Isa 44) and the NT (1 Cor 8), idols and idolatrous rituals have no inherent significance. Their significance is ascriptive rather than intrinsic. What they stand for in the mind of the idolater.

b) There is also a striking passage in 2 Kgs 5:17-19, where Naaman is given permission to dissimulate about his religious allegiance. There’s a contrast between his outward action and his ulterior intent. He mentally assigns a different significance to the action:

17 Then Naaman said, “If not, please let there be given to your servant two mule loads of earth, for from now on your servant will not offer burnt offering or sacrifice to any god but the LORD. 18 In this matter may the LORD pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, leaning on my arm, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon your servant in this matter.” 19 He said to him, “Go in peace.”

v) Are there any analogous situations? During WWII, some Christians sheltered Jews. So there were probably some Christians who were nominally Nazis, who belonged to the party and went through the motions, but they were leading a double life. And their Nazi identity was a cover to shelter Jews.

An analogous situation might be a spy for the French Resistance. Manipulate the system to subvert the system behind-the-scenes.

Sometimes that's a prudential question rather than a question of principle. 

vi) I don’t think recanting under torture is inherently apostate. The sensation of pain is involuntary. We normally have no control over that. If you crack under torture because the pain is unbearable, that’s a physiological response. You didn’t really recant your faith. 

3 comments:

  1. ...Peter Hitchens burned his Bible in a public spectacle...But he didn’t thereby cross a line of no return. Indeed, as we know, he later became a Christian.

    Steve, do you think those who have taken the "Blasphemy Challenge" have committed the "Unpardonable Sin"? I personally don't think so. But honestly, I'm not sure what the Unpardonable Sin is (though, I've heard and read different definitions). If you haven't already, could you one day address *what* that sin is and how one could commit it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey! My own TBlog post! :^D

    I asked about a person who wishes to avoid torture and death and for that there are some solid Biblical directives, which you captured in this post. I'm with you there vis a vis the precedent of Christian martyrdom throughout history and the reasons behind it.

    I'm still confused on the example from Silence of Jesuit priests who, in 17th century Japan, chose to trod upon a crucifix, not to avoid identification as a Christian, but rather to spare peasant villagers torture.

    As I attempt to get my head around this, I'll summarize how I understand your examples and qualifiers:

    1) Puritan piety = not apostate

    2) Apostate contempt = apostate

    3) Apparent apostate contempt followed by repentance and belief = not apostate

    4) Imperial cult reverence or Christian martyrdom = indeterminate

    a) idols and their rituals have no inherent significance

    b) Naaman's request to appear idolatrous is sanctioned

    5) Ostensibly Nazi Christians harboring Jews = deceit is not sinful

    6) French Resistance spy's cover life = deceit is not sinful

    7) Torture-induced apparent apostasy = indeterminate

    I am going to ignore 6 and 7 for now because I don't want to have to evaluate the analogical arguments in 6 and 7 is related but a different question.

    Given: All of these hinge upon inward status.

    1) I get puritan piety. The puritan trusts Christ for his salvation by grace alone and is motivated to honor Him out of gratitude. The puritan believes that crucifixes, relics, rosaries and the like steal glory and honor away from Christ because people who use them trust in them and their power rather than Christ and His blood.

    2) I get apostate contempt. If a person truly despises Christ, then it doesn't matter whether they trod upon or kiss a rosary, Bible, or whatever.

    3) I get repentance and the gracious forgiveness of sins through faith. Sins can be repented of and forgiven, including deliberate and public despising of Christ and his work.

    4) I get historical Christian martyrdom. Those who choose to die rather than publicly pay homage to Caesar or Allah or Vishnu or what/whomever. Out of gratitude, they choose to publicly honor Christ and trust in Him.

    5) This is where it gets sticky.

    Continued...

    ReplyDelete
  3. It seems to me that the example of the Jesuit(s) may fall under 5.

    In the case of the priest in the book, who apparently doesn't preach the gospel of Jesus Christ's propitiatory sacrifice and who doesn't clearly explain whom the peasants are to worship, it seems that his act of stepping on the pictorial crucifix is simply an outward manifestation of his inward unbelief.

    However, what if the priest did believe? Even if he was remiss in his duty, not having catechized and fed the flock under his care, knowing that if they die, they will die not believing and will therefore go to hell. If the priest believed on Christ and chose to stamp on the crucifix... What then? Not apostate but rather prudential and loving of others as himself?

    I know that I am risking devolving into the sort of hypothetical legal moral reasoning that you can find in many RCatholic blogs, but this is the sort question that I've often wondered about.

    If a person truly trusts in Christ, then, as Jesus Himself said, they will not fear those to can kill the body but rather Him who can destroy both body and soul in hell. Doesn't that mean that such a person would never submit or capitulate?

    At what point can we divorce the inner conviction and the outer deed?

    It certainly seems as though Namaan was given a certain blessing to kneel in a pagan temple but secretly sacrifice to the Lord. It is also clearly articulated by Paul that idols, meat sacrificed to them, special days and seasons have no intrinsic value, but rather only extrinsic value ascribed by a person's intent.

    So are we left in a situation of complete mystery because we can't know what is going on in a person's mind?

    Or what about me? What if, in the near future, Christianity is declared illegal and those practicing it will be jailed. Can I lead a double life, telling myself that it is for the protection of my family that I do so, or do I live boldly because trust on God's promises to work all things out for my (and hopefully my family's) good?

    ReplyDelete