Well. A few loony people shot up Paris the other day,
(ostensibly) because they’re insulted at some cartoons that poked fun at
Mohammed. Not only is it forbidden to ridicule the prophet, but we shouldn’t
even speculate as to what he looked like. This prohibition comes not from the
Q’uran but from the Hadith, an early oral history that became the foundation
for much of Islamic tradition, including Sharia Law.
For the prophet is a mere man, not deity; and human nature
being what it is, images tend to evolve into icons, which eventually become
objects of worship. I get it.
Wait, this theme sounds familiar. I’m beginning
to think the Muslims are on to something.
.
Much of my earliest religious training took place in a
classroom (or sanctuary) replete with icons: Paintings, statues, images on
candles. Jesus here, Mary there, this or that saint in-between. The protocol
was important; every believing home should have one, if not several. Depending
on the situation, we should bow or kneel in prayer before them.
.
But why? Never got a straight answer on that one. Good
Christian boys don’t ask questions, they just do as they’re told.
Through the ages, churches laid out vast sums to either
fabricate or purchase religious images. Over time, sacred art made Mary more
prominent than Jesus. The business of sending out missionaries, or feeding the hungry
or healing the sick in their midst, suffered. They couldn't imagine worshipping
God without a full complement of worldly trappings.
A first-time visit to an Orthodox sanctuary can induce a
state of sensory overload with bright colorful images everywhere. During the
Reformation, Zwingli, Cranmer, and others called for the destruction of such
images. History has labeled them iconoclasts (image-smashers). With this upheaval, the real mission of the church was neglected in
many places.
Back in the 1980s, a black preacher in Los Angeles hired a
local artist to paint a black Jesus and produce hundreds of copies. Once this
task was complete, he called for all members of his congregation to destroy any
images of the “white Jesus” in their homes and replace them with this new one. Granted, Jesus probably looked more like Morgan Freeman than Ted Neely. But really?
Perhaps these “sacred images” serve to foster greater
devotion and piety among the faithful. I doubt it. One thing for sure, it never
worked for me. And in the record of history, they have served to distract and
divide the flock again and again. Sectarian splits. Racial separation.
Political controversy. None of it has ever converted a single soul to follow
God.
The cause of Christ (that is, the one we see described in
the pages of Scripture) isn’t about buildings and statues and paintings. It
isn’t about bestowing earthly treasures on a heavenly institution.
If you can’t worship Jesus in a forest, or a bungalow, or
your bedroom…
Or if you’d rather expend your congregation’s resources for
steeples instead of people…
Then perhaps it’s time to rethink exactly what it is that
you’re worshipping.
Yes, I do believe the Muslims have the right idea. Let’s direct
our devotion to God, not stuff.
Hi, Steve ---
ReplyDeleteI was told by an Orthodox priest that icons (which not only have images of Jesus, Mary, etc., but also depictions of biblical events) originated to help illiterate people learn Bible stories. I was tempted to ask, "Why not promote universal literacy, as the Jews of Jesus' day did? And if most of your congregation can now read, aren't these icons obsolete?"