Worship & idolatry

I subscribe to an email news service, ZENIT, published from the Vatican. Recently, they included an interview that's interesting because of its statement of the need to explain to Protestants the devotion to the Virgin Mary and to the (eucharistic) theology of the Roman Catholic Mass at the center of Mel Gibson's "Passion."

Although this would not, in itself, keep me from attending the movie, it should be cautionary to those who do attend. As we are not adept at recognizing idolatry, we also are limited in our ability to recognize and take protective measures against false doctrine. Here is an excerpt from that interview:

As I finished up the blog entry immediately below, I checked my email and found a piece of spam with this subject line:

Do you need Jesus footage for your worship service or Easter program?

Softened up by Gibson's movie (which I have not seen), I allowed myself a peek and here's the actual text I found:

Several friends have passed on excerpts from fathers in the faith concerning the nature and meaning of the Second Commandment. I'm putting them up here, hoping others will be instructed by them as I have been myself. Thank you to Bob Patterson, Jim Goodloe, Richard Burnett, John McKenzie (and numerous web sites) for calling our attention to these texts. And of course, everyone would do well to start by reading the fourth chapter of J. I. Packer's modern classic, Knowing God.(To save entering lots of html code, none of these excerpts will be indented. Also, other quotes of Martin Luther would support the use of images in worship, but I've chosen to include this earlier quote only since it, at least, agrees with the thrust of the Protestant reformers here presented.)

While I believe The Passion of the Christ is a violation of the Second Commandment, I'm quite sympathetic to Mel Gibson's desire to honor the Lord through this work. Further, I consider the accusations of "anti-Semitism" Gibson and his movie have suffered an almost perfect illustration of the truth our Lord spoke concerning His habit of teaching in parables:

Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. (Matthew 13:13)

Like Gibson, Joe Sobran is a Roman Catholic with sympathies leaning more to the Council of Trent than Vatican II. For over twenty years I've subscribed to the Roman Catholic publication, The Wanderer. And I've maintained my subscription in large part because each issue contains a half-page column of Sobran titled, "Washington Watch."

Recently, Sobran took up his pen in defense of Gibson's work. Check out his piece, "The Witness of the Howling Mob," the first few paragraphs of which I post here to whet your appetite:

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST has finally reached the theaters, and the reviews are pouring out: "the most virulently anti-Semitic movie since World War II" (New York's DAILY NEWS), "sadistic" (NEWSWEEK), "the product of a distinctly perverted sensibility ... pornographic" (the NEW YORK POST), et cetera.

All this indignation and sheer bile over a mere movie? A filmed version of a story the reviewers profess not to believe in? Obviously there is more here than meets the eye. These reviewers aren't people who usually object to sadism and pornography on the screen, which they habitually praise for "candor." How has this film struck the limits of their otherwise boundless tolerance? Why can't they bear "candor" about the crucifixion....

[NOTE FROM TIM: David posted this on Baylyblog eight years ago, in 2004.]

Lutheranism seems to be the newest new thing in Reformed circles, in particular, the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod (LCMS), which has developed a certain degree of cache within elements of the Reformed Church no doubt because of its unique position in the Lutheran world: standing for the inerrancy of Scripture, against the ordination of women and admitting that other Protestant denominations contain at least a small portion of Spirit and Truth.

Is this a good development? Two areas of observation, then several conclusions....

First, though, my credentials as commentator. Over the years I've had a number of more-than-glancing contacts with the LCMS, beginning with my parents sending me to a LCMS junior high and high school--where I went through the pre-confirmation catechetical training required of LCMS students. Moreover, I have a number of friends who have been lifelong Lutherans, the majority of whom were raised within the LCMS. Finally, I have several friends and acquaintances who converted to LCMS Lutheranism later in life: one, a lifelong Roman Catholic entered the LCMS upon marrying a divorcee, several others who have entered the LCMS from Reformed backgrounds.

Our Wednesday morning men's Bible study and prayer group has been going through 1Timothy. Two weeks ago, we looked at the Apostle Paul's command in 1Timothy 2:8, "Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension."

What's with the "lifting up holy hands?" Is this an incidental description or a divine prescription? Is it simply a parenthetical note about the way men prayed at the time, or is it a command parallel to the next, "...without wrath and dissension?"

Patrick Fairbairn, who has written one of the best commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles, comments, "The lifting up of the hands in their more formal exercises of devotion appears to have been common among the nations of antiquity, Jew as well as Gentile." Similarly my friend George Knight comments: "Raising of hands in prayer is known in the Old Testament and in Jewish and Gentile literature, as well as among Christians... in catacomb illustrations (and in the writing of early church fathers) Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian." But Knight continues, "The reference to 'hands' seems to be introduced (only) to serve as a vehicle for conveying his concern for holiness...." Really?

The September Wired has a piece by Frank Rose on ESPN's upcoming takeover of Monday Night Football. Here's a quote:

The ultimate goal at ESPN is to bring fans closer to one another. As (ESPN's new media editorial director) Papanek says, "There's nothing more communal that human beings do, outside of worship--and sometimes it's hard to tell the two apart."

In thinking about images and idolatry, it is important to remember that idolatry begins with graven imagery. Graven imagery is first degree idolatry. Second degree idolatry is one step removed from graven imagery--mental idolatry versus physical. When Paul warns the Colossians of "greed which is idolatry" Scripture endorses the concept of second-degree idolatry.

There are, in other words, mental idols. The second commandment can be broken in the heart as can the sixth, seventh, and virtually all the rest.

But, of course, second degree violations of any commandment are dependent upon the existence of first degree violations. If it were impossible to kill your neighbor physically, there would be no basis for Jesus' second-degree extension of that commandment in the Sermon on the Mount. The same goes for adultery: mental adultery is inconceivable in the absence of physical adultery.

Thus, when we consider only second degree violations of the second commandment without ever linking them to first degree violations, we eviscerate the commandment of reality: life and blood, warp and woof. It becomes entirely an academic, cerebral violation, and thus a cold sin. But idolatry is a sin of passion and enthusiasm. It is not cerebral. It is pulsating.

And Scripture routinely warns against first order idolatry. In fact, it primarily and overwhelmingly warns against physical images when it speaks of idolatry. Nor have we advanced beyond first degree violations of the second commandment. We are as image-besotted and beset as any culture in any age of human existence. Yet we do not worship any graven images? We do not commit first-degree idolatry?

In fact, nothing is more common to our condition than first degree idolatry. Hear the Word: "Little children, guard yourselves from idols." What weak little children we truly are. God protect us from thinking we stand in regard to the second commandment.

Adding fuel to the fire, yesterday I received an announcement that Covenant College had instituted two new merit scholarships, one for a student planning to major in community development and the other in art. Here's how the announcement described Covenant's art department:

The art department nurtures the skills and gifts of students so that they are prepared to speak to a diverse, visual culture through a Christian worldview by using works of art with paint, clay, plaster, photography, digital imaging, and any other materials.

In a decadent culture, art is the religion so it worries me when the church's initiatives are so predictable, so precisely tuned to our culture. This scholarship will fund the preparation of men to one day present a prophetic word in the vulgar tongue of our time. But if it's preaching we want, why train the prophets to use a visual rather than a verbal medium.

"The two aren't mutually exclusive," might be the answer, but I'm not reassured. At this late date, can anyone imagine Covenant College's administration presenting a new merit scholarship for men preparing for the ministry of the Word and Sacrament? That would be an old, not a new, initiative.

"What we're about today is community development and art."

Well, the late unbelieving hippie, Neil Postman, has a word for us in his superb book which should be required reading for everyone who loves God and His Word and has the responsibility for that foolish work, preaching. It's titled, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business.

Put simply, Postman's thesis is that our culture is no longer verbal, but visual and auditory--words have been left behind and now we communicate through pictures and sounds. Thus Covenant's announcement that its new initiative will prepare students "to speak to a diverse, visual culture" through the visual arts.

Is this initiative by Covenant College wrong? Maybe not, but I'd be reassured if I knew art majors were required to take a course in the history and application of the Second Commandment within reformed Protestantism.

That would be truly prophetic.

Idolatry has always been one of the principal threats to the soul of man. The Sons of Israel were taken down by it with a damnable regularity, starting under Mt. Sinai with Aaron making the golden calf; the Roman Catholic church's obscenely ornate and graphic Sistine Chapel and St. Peters were the appetite that demanded Tetzel's indulgence machine; and today, the fornication and adultery of our moving (and still) pictures, our publications, and our internet are the beast that demands the death of our unborn children. Abortion is the placing of our most precious possession, our children, in the mouth of the central god of our time--adulterous and idolatrous imagery.

So now, anyone want to argue that all this talk about idolatry is just a theological debate, an intellectual discussion, straining at a gnat? If so, read on.

Here's a comment posted by Jay Green, a history prof at Covenant College:

Your idea of the visual arts is a little anemic, methinks. Here's what (King) David had to say about the very visual (though other senses are surely invoked too) art that is God's creation:

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." -Psalm 19

Declare. Proclaim. Speech. Voice. All these (King) David attributes to that most glorious of all the visual arts. You might want to rethink your overly scholastic and propositional rendering of the Gospel and its transmission. And you may also want to consider the fact that the visual arts might offer more than simply a didactic moment of communicating the truth of Christ.

Actually, I think Dr. Green confuses himself. My brother and I are not arguing that the visual arts are impotent, but rather entirely too potent. It's not that they have too little power, but too much; and because of that power, they tend to idolatry.

Please note that word "tend." Neither David nor I have ever stated that we are convinced that all man-made images are idolatrous. But given the wholesale visual idolatry of our culture which should be obvious to any man alive whose heart and mind are owned by the Word of God, we do wonder where the boundaries are on this one, and ask our good readers to join us in our wondering.

That, of course, is precisely what our good readers are refusing to do, instead trotting out canards and straw men galore, but ultimately refusing to do the work of spiritual diagnosis and biblical exegesis that such wondering requires. What gives?

Speaking as a pastor...

(Note: Again, David Bayly wrote this entry but Tim Bayly posted it.)

I find it fascinating that simply questioning the emphasis of modern Evangelical and Reformed culture on the visual arts should provoke such wounded outrage among some readers of this blog.

Fascinating, first, in that those who have disagreed tend to move fluidly between seeking to justify the visual and the logocentric arts. They don't seem to understand what is absolutely essential: that objectively speaking, visual representations are fundamental to idolatry.

Fascinating, second, in that the linkage between artistic imagery within the Church and the visual arts in general is made by those wishing to counter my criticism of the Church's infatuation with the arts. I've not been the one to cast the net wide over all forms of representational art. I've spoken specifically, first, about the danger of visual imagery in worship and as a vehicle of advancing the Gospel; and second, about our attitude toward objective idols such as the Buddhas at Bamiyan.

Yet, despite my not having called for the abolition of all forms of visual art, those who oppose my position immediately accused me of doing so. Ironically, it's my opponents who have extrapolated from my opposition to visual imagery in the life of the Church to an opposition to all forms of visual art. Thus, intentionally or not, they make clear the legitimacy-even necessity-of addressing art in a broader context than merely that of worship. Nevertheless, focusing on imagery outside the boundaries of the Church and Gospel has never been my primary focus.

And yet, there are good reasons to consider whether some portion of the imagery we are inundated with in society is forbidden by the Second Commandment.

First, there is the issue of the Second Commandment. It's often assumed by apologists for imagery that the second clause of the Second Commandment ("...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...") simply modifies the initial statement ("You shall not make for yourself a carved image.")

Indeed, numerous modern Bible versions conflate the initial clauses of the second commandment to make it read this way. The NIV's wording of Exodus 20:4 is one example: "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above.."

Would that it were so simple.

There are two problems with this reading. First, the Hebrew word translated "idol" by the NIV and other modern translations does not have the exclusively worshipful implications of the English word "idol." A better translation would be "carved image," a word lacking the immediate religious freight of "idol"...

Question: What do atheist idols look like?

Answer: They don't.

Since the bee hive is already disrupted, a few more thoughts about the rampant idolatry of our age....

Most of the arguments that have been offered here in defense of the religious and secular imagery of our lives against the indictment of the second commandment could equally be used by atheists to defend against charges of violating the first commandment:

"What do you mean I have other gods before God? I don't worship a false god. How can you say I've preferred some other god to the One True God? I don't bow to gods. I don't go to the temples of gods. I don't reverence gods. I'm no more a worshipper of false gods than I am an idolater."

But of course, the definition of false gods is not left to the worshipper any more than the definition of idols is left to the idolater. God defines the crime, not the sinner.

Idols are pathways: pathways away from the One True God into false worship of false gods designed in accord with the perverse desires of the idolater.

Is it any surprise, then, that an age whose fundamental conceit is that it has no gods is unable to conceive of itself as having idols?

Yet look afresh at our television sets, our movie screens, our violent computer games, our magazines and internet browers--look at the fetishization of male and female flesh, the glorification of material things, the empowerment of fantasy vs. reality--and you will see that our age has exceptionally potent idols, so potent that we have come to the lowest ebb of idolatry: the worst idolater, the lowest form of idolatry is that which regards the image as real, which no longer discriminates between image and object but is willing to live as though the image is real.

So, on 9/11, the whole of America said, "It was just like in the movies."

No, atheists have no idols....

It used to be that women of the church gave to evangelize the pagans. The new trend, however, is for women in the church to give to paganize the Evangelicals.

Acts 17:29-30 (ESV)

Realizing some of our good readers are Lutheran and others Roman Catholic or Orthodox, I trust them to understand that both my brother, David, and I (as well as the officers of both churches we serve) subscribe to the Westminster Standards as containing the system of doctrine taught by Scripture. "The Westminster Standards" is the comprehensive label for three documents--the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Westminster Larger Catechism, and the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Also, here is a page of harmonies of reformed catechisms.

Here then is Part 2 of compilation of expositions of the Second Commandment by reformed men taking as their starting point Questions 49-51 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Although I've changed some of the formatting, this text is from the Westminster Shorter Catechism Project, a web site I highly commend...

(Note from Tim Bayly: Good readers, whatever else you read, please don't miss the two links at the end of this post.)

As David and I have discussed the Second Commandment and its application to life today, it's become clear that a central question is whether the Second Commandment is composed of two clauses somewhat independent of one another, or a principal and subordinate clause. To be specific, is verse four subordinate to verse five or does it stand on its own?

(Exodus 20:4, 5) 4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me...

Are two things forbidden in the Second Commandment--first, making idols and likenesses of any part of creation; and second, worshipping or serving those idols or likenesses. Or, one principal thing is forbidden--worshipping or serving idols or likenesses--and therefore, constructing any idols or likenesses with the purpose of worshipping or serving them is also forbidden.

Stated as directly as possible, here are the interpretive choices:

Do not make idols or likenesses of anything. Do not worship or serve the idols or likenesses you have made.

OR

Do not make idols or likenesses of anything that is intended (or might) be worshipped or served.

How do these two options work out in practice?

Well, if verse four stands on its own, then the making of images and likenesses is forbidden regardless of the intent of the artisan. Orthodox icons, statues of Mary, stained glass windows, wayside crosses, paintings, pictures, movies, sketches of the human anatomy illustrating surgical manuals, and children's dolls are all forbidden.

On the other hand, if verse four is to be understood as subordinate to verse five, then the artisan's motive and the anticipated use of the image and likeness are primary. If the artisan doesn't mean for the image to be worshipped, or to be an aid to worship (either public or private), and the anticipated use of the image is unlikely to grow beyond the artisan's purpose, morphing into idolatry despite the artisan's best intentions, then the image or likeness is not a violation of the Second Commandment because its use has no connection to idolatry.

Obviously, under option one every aspect of our lives from the time we wake up until we go back to bed is filled with idolatry...

As debate has waxed and waned over the issue of imagery in worship and evangelism on this blog, I've been eager to hear some who advance the opposing view speak forthrightly of the defects of their position.

Though I have not finally concluded that the first table of the Decalogue excludes all visual representation, I'm inclined to explore this position further for the following reasons: 1) a simple reading of the text tends that way; 2) it seems difficult, in light of the text, to separate the use of imagery from the creation of imagery (honestly, the historic Roman Catholic distinction between veneration and worship of imagery seems as Biblically defensible as the distinction between didactic and worship use of imagery); 3) historic Jewish readings of the Decalogue embrace such a view; 4) denials of this view tend toward an ever-expanding embrace of almost all forms of visual imagery--in fact, both views tend toward totalitarianism, either the rejection of all imagery or the embrace of all imagery; 5) rejection of such a view makes violation of the second commandment entirely subjective, hinging on what constitutes one's view of "worship" or "carved images," and; 6) historical chauvinism remains a core assumption of those seeking to limit idolatry to theoretical and mental imagery.

Of course, ultimately, the most important reason for considering this view further is the danger of idolatry. If idolatry were not a grave danger to the human soul, I would not be worrying over the second commandment to this extent. But idolatry is an omnipresent danger. The fact that the age ends with an image worshipped in opposition to Christ clearly places the burden of proof on those wishing to justify visual imagery rather than those questioning it.

It's hunting season in Ohio and one of the axioms of deer season is that you don't shoot if there's any doubt as to whether it's a deer or a hunter passing through the brush. Even if it's almost certainly a deer, the responsible hunter awaits certainty before shooting.

The same should be true of our approach to visual imagery. If there's the slightest chance an image will pull us from the proper worship of God we should flee it.

We've been discussing how the arts can advance the message of the Gospel. Here's one example.... This Sunday evening the church I pastor presents its second annual Messiah Sing-Along.

In 2004, our first Messiah Sing was unpublicized yet attendance was good. This year, due to the work of our publicity committee and the help of friends inside and outside the Christ the Word family, we anticipate attendance nearly tripling.

This year's publicity for the Messiah Sing included fifty targeted television spots and three highly-visible billboards. Along with the advertising donated to the event by local organizations, a Toledo graphic artist designed a logo for the event without charge. And so, on billboards, television sets and the walls of local Paneras, coffee shops and libraries across Toledo, Handel's Messiah is promoted.

The Sing is presented without cost. In its middle we pause briefly to speak of the Messiah's glory.

The Sing's soloists and musicians (all believers in Christ) are guided by our assistant pastor, Andrew Dionne. Included among the soloists are Curtis Cook and Rebecca Cullison of Bloomington, IN, and Donald White, Sarah Dionne and Robert Fredrick of Toledo.

Paul Jones, composer of Hymns for a Modern Reformation, will join the forces of this year's Sing-Along, performing from both the piano and organ. Paul will also speak at the Friday Night Bible Study, an outreach Bible study led by Christ the Word elder Robert Forney.

This is art to the glory of God: art filled with graphics, words, music, vocal and instrumental talent in praise of Christ. And yes, it would be just as God-glorifying to present something less classical and more edgy in praise of the Messiah's birth. The fact that it's classical music doesn't render it legitimate any more than drums would render a concert to Christ's glory illegitimate.

If you'd like information or help in running a similar artistic outreach in your community, feel free to contact us.

Friends, I ask your forbearance a moment as I prod your thinking about Narnia and Aslan.

I've enjoyed and recommended the Narnia series for years and I'm sure if you looked through my past sermons you would find illustrations from Lewis. But with the release of the movie, the icon of Aslan and Narnia, too many idolatrous Narnia-related currents have entered the Church to ignore.

Churches are promoting Narnia as a window into the Christian faith. Sermon after sermon is being preached on Narnia. Numerous books by reputable Christian authorities exegeting Narnia-as-Christian-faith have been published.

Can anyone deny that we've left the weak-beer realm of fable and entered the strong-drink land of mythology? From the pulpits of hundreds of churches this Sunday Narnia will be preached as a window into Christian truth.

If Narnia is legitimate Christian myth, where does legitimate Christian appropriation of mythology end? Should we add the god-man-king Gilgamesh to the list? If preaching in India, should we use Krishna as a type of Christ? Could Paul have used Dionysus, the Greek god in human form born of a mortal mother and divine father who dies and is resurrected, as a springboard into Christ in Athens?

Of course, my point is not that we should use myth to preach Christ. My point is that Narnia and Aslan are becoming Christian myth. And the occasion of Narnia's transformation from fantasy into Christian mythology has been the creation of the Narnia movie. Does this mean I'll no longer allow the book on my shelves? No. But it does mean that the creation of visual images is inherently dangerous, tending toward the idolatrous. Worship of false gods is never far away when we start viewing God through the prism of an idol. And what is an idol? Well, the calf at the foot of Horeb was an Israelite idol. It wasn't a lion, but it was a representation of the One True God who had led the people of Israel out of Egypt. It was God imaged as a beast, just like the movie Aslan.

Finally, the patron saint of American Evangelicalism is certainly Rehoboam, who made bronze shields to replace his father Solomon's 300 shields of beaten gold after they were hauled away by King Shishak of Egypt.

We've lost the glory. We've had the glory of God in Christ stolen away from us as a result of our sin. Paul would never have mentioned Dionysus--except as one of the false gods of Athens--because he knew the true God, Jesus Christ. He saw His glory. He had visited the third heaven and seen things incapable of being told. Why settle for myth when reality beats the pants off it? We turn to Disney's Narnia idol, we write and preach on it because we've lost sight of Christ.

The answer to the loss of our golden shields is not bronze shields. The answer is repentance and weeping before God, prayer that He might send times of refreshing and visions of His Son in glory such as sustained Paul and Stephen, not the near beer of Disney's Aslan.

Yesterday many of us gathered at a funeral home and then a graveside. We were bound in grief and joy by memories of a departed friend who, though her body remains earth-bound, has departed this world for eternity. One week ago if we had gathered around her, we would have spoken directly to her. We would have called her by name and laughed with her.

Yesterday, we spoke of her. We placed pictures from her life around her. We told stories about her. We might have watched videos of her. All things that a week before we would never have done because a week before she was with us.

This morning we worship Christ, not through picture or allegory, but directly. We do not approach Him through such things as pictures, video and allegory because these are forms of remembrance for the dead.

Pictures are for visualizing the absent. Video and allegories are for a god no longer with us. Jesus is living. Jesus is here, in our midst. Those who possess reality do not resort to images.

We no more sit and look at His picture or speak of Him through allegory than I look at pictures of you rather than looking directly at your face, than I would describe you to others in theory and by allegory rather than exhibiting you directly.

Christ is not in the grave of video, pictures, memories and allegory. He has risen. He is with us.

What purpose do the idols (video, drama, film, Powerpoint picture shows, etc.) of modern worship serve? They cover a tragic lack of connection with the risen Christ....

CedarCreek Church in Perrysburg Township, the largest church in northwest Ohio, is among those that will not be open on Christmas Day. Instead, the nondenominational "seeker-sensitive" church will squeeze six services into its Christmas Eve schedule -- at noon, 1:30, 3, 4:30, 6, and 7:30 p.m., with total attendance of 10,000 expected.

The decision not to hold Christmas Day services was made late last year, according to the Rev. Lee Powell, CedarCreek's senior pastor, and was unaffected by national news that other "megachurches," including Willow Creek Community Church in suburban Chicago, would be closed.

"Our reasoning is that, No. 1, we certainly are celebrating Christmas," Mr. Powell said. "That's obvious by having six services on Christmas Eve."

The pastoral staff also felt it would be a burden to ask the 300 to 500 volunteers needed every weekend at CedarCreek to serve on Christmas Day.

"Jesus said he was Lord of the sabbath and criticized the hypocrisy of religious zealots who were very legalistic about it," Mr. Powell said. "I feel fully confident that if we could tap into Jesus today, He would support our decision."

12/17/05 Toledo Blade

Idols are never found among those who know the glory of Christ's promise, "Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there am I also." But where He is not, icons create the similitude of His presence.

Does anyone remember what God commands immediately after delivering the Decalogue to Israel?

The context is this: Moses is in front of the people before the Lord. God speaks the Ten Commandments. When the people see the lightning, fire and smoke and hear the thunder and blare of trumpets, they stand far off and ask Moses to speak for them. Moses enters the thick darkness where God is; there in the darkness God demands three additional things concerning worship:

1) Do not make gods of silver or gods of gold to be with Me.

2) Make My altar of earth. Perform your sacrifices on that altar. If you make Me an altar of stone, do not make it of dressed stone, for by wielding your tool on it you profane it.

3) Do not go up to my altar on steps, for by so doing you expose your nakedness.

For those who have followed the discussion over the meaning of the second commandment on this site over the past several years, here is a typically helpful post by Doug Wilson on the current and ancient debate over icons in worship.

It seems to have occurred to no one else so I'll stick my head out and say it....

The Da Vinci Code has provided many with support for their rejection of Scriptural and ecclesiastical authority. And what is the most viscerally powerful argument in The Da Vinci Code's arsenal?

Not the apocryphal gospels of Thomas and Mary (otherwise the book's title would have reflected them), but the idol piece by Leonardo Da Vinci known as "The Last Supper."

Had the church of Jesus Christ not embraced that idol for centuries, had we not reproduced it time and again, implicitly stamping it with Christianity's imprimatur, the presence of that girly disciple to Christ's right would never have amounted to a hill of beans.

Dan Brown was able to make a viscerally (if not logically) powerful argument for Mary Magdalene as Christ's premier disciple not simply because Da Vinci painted an idol, but because the church has embraced Da Vinci's idol for centuries.

The attempt to distinguish between liturgical and non-liturgical use of icons is a distinction without a difference. Sooner or later icons will enter worship. But the commandment is not simply not to worship icons. The commandment is not to make them.

It's not for nothing that God routinely describes idolatry as "whoredom" and "adultery." If God is His people's husband by covenant, if we, the Church, are His Bride, bought at a price, then our looking to other gods is whoredom and our consorting with the idols of other gods is adultery.

And there is always correspondence between spiritual reality and physical. That's why it's so important that we don't separate the spiritual from the physical in our worship. If we say, "I'm worshipping on the inside," but our countenance never shows it or our posture never reveals it, the truth is we're not doing it on the inside. This is why we bow in confession--not that bowing makes it true, but because true repentance is lived out in every area of life, including the physical. The same is true of rejoicing.

Thus, when we are spiritually adulterous, spiritually promiscuous, whoring after other gods, we will be physically promiscuous and immoral as well. This is why idolatry walks hand-in-hand with sexual perversion and sexual immorality.

This is an iron spiritual law: where there is sexual perversion, where there is physical adultery, where there is sexual promiscuity and unfaithfulness, there is spiritual promiscuity and unfaithfulness as well. Without the spiritual adultery of idolatry, physical adultery cannot take place. Where there is sexual immorality--remember that the progression of sin in Romans 1 begins with rejection of God and turning to idols and advances from there into sexual sin--there is idolatry.

This means that we need to rethink what we consider the base sin at the core of pornography. We have tended to think of pornography as only a sexual sin. But at the core of pornography is the sin that is found whenever an image is worshipped: idolatry. Pornography is idolatry. It may also be sexual sin. But first it's the worship of an image, plain and simple. Pornography equals idolatry. Pornography is the modern term for the worship of Venus and Aphrodite and Artemis and all the love gods and fertility goddesses of the past. Past cultures had their sexually charged images, their lust idols with oversized genitalia and crudely sexual meanings or their sophisticated goddesses of love. So do we.

Here is the beauty of idolatry in the eyes of the idolater. It demands giving way to the flesh. It demands immorality. Our flesh wants to be sexually promiscuous and adulterous? Why how convenient: the idols of our gods call us to that as well.