Iconoclasm and private property

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Many of the Reformed are in favor of iconoclasm and have posted proudly about destroying "idols" in churches and other places during the Middle Ages and also in the Byzantine Empire.

How did this square with protection of private property? Were churches seen as belonging to the people and, therefore, the people could remove the idols? Or was it an act of illegal destruction of property?

If my Catholic neighbors have the Virgin Mary in a half-bathtub decoration on their front yard, I cannot destroy it without sinning due to destruction of a neighbor's property. So how did this become praiseworthy in ages past?

Anarchy, mob rule, and vandalism in the name of religion.

Was iconoclasm blameworthy or praiseworthy, and why or why not?
 
I think idols should be obliterated. I also think that it would be sin for me to destroy my neighbor's property. I haven't been called to destroy anything. I do believe that our rulers should enforce the law of God in all respects and also seek to destroy what God hates. Unfortunately they have refused to do so.
 
Private citizens should not take up such things. Magistrates also should rule according to sphere and current laws (true laws), and work toward proper reformation.

I do love the John Knox galley slave story about seeing if “our lady could swim.”
 
When Knox was enslaved on a French galley the French tried to force him to kiss some sort of icon of Mary. He grabbed it and threw it overboard and made that statement. I don't think that was wrong; but, he must have taken a beating. I don't recall if he says; but they didn't try to force any of the Scots to do that during the daily mass again.
Private citizens should not take up such things. Magistrates also should rule according to sphere and current laws (true laws), and work toward proper reformation.

I do love the John Knox galley slave story about seeing if “our lady could swim.”
 
I agree that the Knox instance was not wrong. Was just reminded of it, and posted it stream of consciousness.
 
I think Josh is right. It is not the place of individual, private citizens to take up such a task. I do think the Reformation was a little different, though. In most cases, the magistrate itself was Papist, so there was no magistrate to take up the purification of the church. Somebody had to do it, for the sake of millions of souls. While the destruction of church property might not have been altogether above board, I don't think it is altogether unworthy of praise, either.
 
I think Josh is right. This is not the place of individual, private citizens to take up such a task. I do think the Reformation was a little different, though. In most cases, the magistrate itself was Papist, so there was no magistrate to take up the purification of the church. Somebody had to do it, for the sake of millions of souls. While the destruction of church property might not have been altogether above board, I don't think it is altogether unworthy of praise, either.
In the presence of evil rulers, then who can take up the cause? And what to do about the cost of damages?
 
In the presence of evil rulers, then who can take up the cause?
I'm not sure. Like I said, it needed to be done, but in places where the magistrate itself is steeped in Papist idolatry, the only ones left to purge the evil from the land is the common people, and that is what happened.

And what to do about the cost of damages?
I'm sure Rome had plenty of money sitting in their indulgence coffers—money which had been stolen from those whom Rome spiritually raped for centuries—to cover the cost of constructing more demon statues.
 
In the case of Scotland in the first reformation, it was also war, so no reparations to the enemy. The churches were literally whitewashed over night, but largely led by the Lords of the Congregation. To what extent the populace got out of hand I don't recall. The population was largely still Catholic. In the English civil war, a sergeant on hunt by parliament's orders for idolatry famously took Ruben's Crucifixion from the Queen's private chapel (the wife of Charles I was a French papist), and tore it into bits and tossed them in the Thames.
 
What distinguishes good ol' fashioned Iconoclasm with tacky religious vandalism? Are there scenarios nowadays where it would make sense?
 
In the case of Scotland in the first reformation, it was also war, so no reparations to the enemy. The churches were literally whitewashed over night, but largely led by the Lords of the Congregation. To what extent the populace got out of hand I don't recall. The population was largely still Catholic. In the English civil war, a sergeant on hunt by parliament's orders for idolatry famously took Ruben's Crucifixion from the Queen's private chapel (the wife of Charles I was a French papist), and tore it into bits and tossed them in the Thames.
So in Scotland's case the rules of Just Warfare would apply and enemy properties seized or destroyed justly? Would citizens siding with the Reformers then be seen as just combatants in this warfare and thus not acting unjustly in destroying idols?
 
So in Scotland's case the rules of Just Warfare would apply and enemy properties seized or destroyed justly? Would citizens siding with the Reformers then be seen as just combatants in this warfare and thus not acting unjustly in destroying idols?
If they were thinking they needed to justify it maybe; it was likely more justified from OT example of reform; removing monuments of idolatry. The reformers if I'm remembering were not fans of the mobs being out of control. That was what ruined iconoclasm for Luther
 
If they were thinking they needed to justify it maybe; it was likely more justified from OT example of reform; removing monuments of idolatry. The reformers if I'm remembering were not fans of the mobs being out of control. That was what ruined iconoclasm for Luther
So they saw Josiah's reforms maybe as a template for their own? Did they see that this was not a good comparison since in the OT Israel was a civil state and they were not? Or did the doctrine of "covenanting" make it ok?
 
So they saw Josiah's reforms maybe as a template for their own? Did they see that this was not a good comparison since in the OT Israel was a civil state and they were not? Or did the doctrine of "covenanting" make it ok?
Absolutely they saw application from the godly OT examples for the Christian civil magistrate but also direct precept guiding those examples. See the WLC 108:
Q. 108. What are the duties required in the second commandment?
A. The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his Word;518 particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ;519 the reading, preaching, and hearing of the Word;520 the administration and receiving of the sacraments;521 church government and discipline;522 the ministry and maintainance thereof;523 religious fasting;524 swearing by the name of God;525 and vowing unto him;526 as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing all false worship;527 and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.528
 
So they saw Josiah's reforms maybe as a template for their own? Did they see that this was not a good comparison since in the OT Israel was a civil state and they were not? Or did the doctrine of "covenanting" make it ok?
You might find Joseph Boot's large work 'The Mission of God' helpful in terms of working through some of the knotty issues
 
Absolutely they saw application from the godly OT examples for the Christian civil magistrate but also direct precept guiding those examples. See the WLC 108:
Q. 108. What are the duties required in the second commandment?
A. The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his Word;518 particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ;519 the reading, preaching, and hearing of the Word;520 the administration and receiving of the sacraments;521 church government and discipline;522 the ministry and maintainance thereof;523 religious fasting;524 swearing by the name of God;525 and vowing unto him;526 as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing all false worship;527 and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.528
Isn't that applying the rules of the church to the civil sphere? We would not apply the 2nd commandment the same inside a church as we would inside Congress, would we?
 
Isn't that applying the rules of the church to the civil sphere? We would not apply the 2nd commandment the same inside a church as we would inside Congress, would we?
The Ten Commandments are not “rules for the church.” They are the moral law of God which binds all men, everywhere, at all times, in any circumstance, and in every sphere—private, ecclesiastical, or political.
 
It is a duty to all; there may be differences in how it is carried out in different spheres, times, form of civil and ecclesiastical government, etc. as the answer says, according to everyone's place and station.
Isn't that applying the rules of the church to the civil sphere? We would not apply the 2nd commandment the same inside a church as we would inside Congress, would we?
The Ten Commandments are not “rules for the church.” They are the moral law of God which binds all men, everywhere, at all times, in any circumstance, and in every sphere—private, ecclesiastical, or political.
 
The Ten Commandments are not “rules for the church.” They are the moral law of God which binds all men, everywhere, at all times, in any circumstance, and in every sphere—private, ecclesiastical, or political.
The Ten Commandments cannot be enforced the same way within the church as outside the church. Church discipline and the laws of the land (even just laws) vary widely in transgression and penalty.
 
The Ten Commandments cannot be enforced the same way within the church as outside the church.
I agree. The Church has the powers of the keys, and the civil magistrate has the sword. Even so, however the manner of enforcement might differ in this or that particular, depending on the authority granted by God, the obligation of enforcement holds true across the board. It is incumbent upon the civil magistrate "that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed" (WCF 23.3).
 
Do you ever anticipate a time in which iconoclastic actions might happen again? Church and state are rarely joined unless you are a Muslim. Also would you call the removal of "racist" statues in the USA a form of liberal iconoclasm?
 
Do you ever anticipate a time in which iconoclastic actions might happen again?
I doubt it. I don't think most people really care about such things anymore. If it interferes with politics then maybe, but I don't see Christians doing such a thing anytime soon.
 
Church and state are rarely joined unless you are a Muslim.
I do want to clarify: I vehemently believe in the separation of church and state. I firmly believe that is the biblical and Reformed position. However, separation of church and state only has reference to authority structures, not the religious basis of law. In other words, no minister should make laws or rule society as minister, and no church instruction should rule society, but the law of the land should be based squarely on the Law of God.

Do you ever anticipate a time in which iconoclastic actions might happen again?
I don’t really know. It’s hard to be that prescient.

Also would you call the removal of "racist" statues in the USA a form of liberal iconoclasm?
Yes, because liberalism—as well as all its leftist baggage of communism, socialism, welfarism, wokism, etc.—is a religion, and that of the devil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top