| First of two 1996 post WRT John K. La Shell's work
Here is the first of two posts citing the work of John K. La Shell ("Imagination and Idol: A
Puritan Tension", WTJ, Fall 1987; “Imaginary Ideas of Christ: A Scottish-American Debate” [Ph.D. dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1985]). Matt has the first article posted here. I am editing out names in this post since there lacks context from the full thread. As for the nature of the post, folks will understand it is snipped from an old debate and I trust the reader will pardon mistakes and any 'immaturity' in an 11 year old post. Apologies also that it repeats points already made or ground already covered in earlier posts in this thread. The bits of interest are the La Shell remarks. Quote:
********************
Item #4
********************
Subject: RE: Covie-forum (May 17, 1996) Images: Some questions
for the "general" vs. the no exceptions opposers of Images
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 17:31:08 -0500
From:Chris Coldwell
To: "'Douglas W. Comin'"
If Covie-forum will pardon yet another post on this issue of images
and if the moderator permits, I have questions which perhaps Pastor
C or those still in the debate may be able to answer, or at least
help me to understand more of the dynamic going on here.
1. If the images of Christ do not and are not intended to stir up
devotion, then what precisely *IS* the point of having them?
2. How is the conundrum, postulated by Durham down to Murray
(17th to 20th century) -- that rock and a hard place - of being
caught between the second and third commandments avoided? Or how
is the argument -- If the image stirs up devotion it is idolatry,
if it doesn't it is vain - unsound?
3. If the answer to question 1. is for artwork and decoration,
then I ask how can we avoid violating the third commandment?
4. If the answer to question 2 is to instruct the ignorant, then
how is this argument different from the one between the Reformers
and the Papists - the RCs said pictures were the books for the
unlearned? If the answer is that they are to teach children,
then I fail to see any difference. If we want any full assurance
that how we teach our children about God will redound to his glory
and their good, then shouldn't we look to Scripture for our rule in
this, for perhaps one of the most important things we do -
instructing the next generation in the ways of God? 2 Tim 3:14-17.
"And that from a CHILD thou (Timothy) hast known the holy scriptures,
which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which
is in Christ Jesus. (16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness: (17) that the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished unto all good works." Scripture is sufficient to
teach children the ways of God and furnish them unto ALL good works.
No pictures needed here by Lois and Eunice. If we are looking to do
our children good lets not go looking to break the commandment which
curses THEM and succeeding generations in the violating of it!
5. I appreciate Pastor C's or anyone's willingness to
continually examine what we believe and jettisoning whatever
is unsound no matter what the pedigree or history. However, I
have failed to grasp the significance or purpose in this case.
If the no exceptions folks are wrong in forbidding all use of
images of Christ, then what exceptions are allowed? If for
Instruction, then what objections in my question 4 are unsound
and why? If for artwork or decoration, then how without violating
other of God's commands?
I realize piling up questions like I've done may make it appear
that I'm angry (I'm not) or come across as bullying (I don't
intend to be); and I hope this doesn't sound shrill or scolding.
But I'm not dispassionate in this matter either. After all we
aren't discussing differences over flavors of ice cream! I have
appreciated the care with which Pastor C has couched his
"concerns" but I do want to know what practical use this discussion
has? Perhaps another, yet lengthy quote may be helpful, and that
from someone who is apparently not an absolutist on pictures of
Christ (according to my reading of him).
[I wrote this in an earlier]post to a different discussion group.
Quote:
In one of the earlier posts on this topic of images, I
recommended John K. La Shell's "Imagination and Idol: A
Puritan Tension", WTS Journal, Fall 1987. There I said he
was not in the absolutist camp on the unlawfulness of pictures
of Jesus, but he was hesitant to endorse the benefit of their
use and qualified heavily any use they might have. Someone who
wants to seriously pursue a thorough study of the literature on
the topic should not ignore La Shell's other piece on the topic,
his "Imaginary Ideas of Christ: A Scottish-American Debate."
I obtained copies of both pieces in preparation of my support
document (Indifferent Imaginations, Blue Banner v. 3 #7-8) for
the petition one of our elders had before North Texas Presbytery
(PCA) on images at presbytery meetings. However, while holding
the door open to some images in a guarded way (realizing that
they can be a stumbling block to sin) in his attempts to evaluate
the psychological "insights of Jonathan Edwards and the equally
important cautions of Ralph Erskine," La Shell is far from the
aggressive endorser of pictures of Christ seen here on KR, nor
does he reject the historic understanding of the regulative
principle. It should be noted La Shell is mainly investigating
the study of the debate that took place between Ralph Erskine
and James Robe over visions and mental images of Christ, in the
context of the Great Awakening. This of course leads him into a
discussion of images as well as mental images of Christ. While
some of La Shell's theorizing may put him outside the historical
Puritan position, he seems to remain, for all practical purposes,
in that camp. From that standpoint he lends a great deal of support
to the arguments I previously posted against the expedience and
indifference of images.
La Shell concludes the following Quote:
"Another important area for investigation is indicated by a rising
consciousness of the arts as a valid Christian vocation. The
problems associated with Christian themes in art can be approached
from the viewpoint of the artist or from the perspective of the
Christian public. If Puritan exegesis of the second commandment
is essentially correct, then certain restrictions are placed on
the creativity and freedom of the artist. Even if art based on
Gospel history is permitted, <
that such art should focus on Christ, particularly on Christ
in any great detail>> the artist needs to steer a careful course
between two dangers. If he attempts to reproduce a biblical scene
as it appeared to a first-century observer, he may miss the inner
significance of the event. On the other hand, if he clearly depicts
the inner meaning of an event, he runs the risk of obscuring its
true historicity (Rookmaaker 1971, 16; La Shell 1976, 70-72). The
perspective of the Christian public poses, if anything, an even
more difficult problem. In the first place, many Christians are
extremely resistant to parting with beloved pictures. Second,
many of them find it difficult to make fine distinctions such
as those which have been discussed. They want to know if pictures
are good or bad - period. When faced with those alternatives,
it may be wisest to reject even Gospel history as a proper subject
for art.
Perhaps three incidents from the experience of the author will
help in illustrating the difficulties frequently encountered
among Christians who have never considered the implications of
the second commandment. In the first, a chalk artist produced a
larger-than-life head of Christ. While his family sang "Beautiful
Savior," the room was darkened and the picture flouresced under
ultraviolet light. Then the audience was invited to contemplate
the crucified and risen Savior. The atmosphere was charged with
emotion; scarcely a dry eye was to be found in the auditorium.
The service was followed by eager competition among the young
people for possession of the picture, and no one seemed to
consider that devotion stirred up by an image might be displeasing
to God. The second incident occurred during a pastoral visit in a
home. A grandmother asked her small granddaughter whose picture hung
on the wall. The child responded, "That's God." The author realized
that an image of God can only teach lies, and that the child had been
cruelly deceived. However, it would have made matters worse to tell
her that the picture was not really God, but only Jesus, for Jesus
is God. The final incident followed a (perhaps foolhardy) message
on idolatry delivered beneath a large stained glass image of the
Good Shepherd. One indignant parishoner provided perfect confirmation
of the danger of exalting images over the Word of God. Her icy glare
was accompanied by the claim that she frequently received more spiritual
blessings by meditating on that window than she did from the sermons.
As these examples illustrate, Puritan concern regarding images of
Christ has relevance even today. Moreover, the danger of external
images is totally unrecognized in many segments of the modern church,
what can be said about mental idolatry? As difficult as it may be, it
appears that the subject ought to be addressed. The perils of
coveteousness and of mental adultery are regularly proclaimed from
the pulpit. Perhaps it is time to include instruction on the ways
in which men defile God's glory by their vain imaginings of Him.
| | Thus far La Shell.
I appreciate Covie-forum's and the Moderator's indulgence.
snip.
|
Last edited by NaphtaliPress; 11-17-2007 at 09:56 AM.
Reason: punc.
|