Do you know where I could read the Palmer article?

Chuck

Your basic argument seems to be that many people are inspired by art and images (in some mystical way, they are spying the God who made them through the inspiration of the art made by his creatures). You add to that, “Proof is in the effect upon the reader, listener or viewer, not the work itself.”

The contrast between your point and mine is that you are rooting your case in that is which inside people — i.e., what they experience. But I am saying nearly the opposite: To find the truth of the matter ‘Does God want images to be used in worship?’, we don’t turn to ourselves (our experiences or the effect we get from art), we turn to the Bible.

God made a covenant, and in it guarded how he is to be known. The essence of this discussion is how God can be known. And art is the one thing he forbade! And it is the same exact thing you are protecting as valid for ongoing revelation. God did not forbid art, he forbade its use in worship. That means that any historical arguments about the Renaissance (or centuries of artwork flowing from churches) is to be judged as equally problematic, for the Word of God is the Bible, not the collective happenings of the Renaissance, nor the impact of art on the soul or psyche.

So there is a clear contrast here. And I think it is nearly the same as the contrast between Reformation theology and Catholic theology. To that end, what I articulated in this article is that God has spoken in his Word, and that Scripture Alone is the basis for us discovering the mind of God in these matters.

God articulates his will in his Word, the Bible. We humans articulate the antithetical, “yeah, but…” God says, “No images used in the worship of me!” And we say, “But images help us.”

If someone wants to argue that images are good for worship or good for coming into contact with God, then it should be shown from the Bible — God’s word must shed light on the matter. Mormonism (which you mention) is a good test case in this. For, just like Mormonism, you are open to more writings. Where you say you differ from Mormons, you seem most like them, for it is the idea of ongoing revelation that is core to their religion. New books. New prophets. New writings from God. More than just the Bible. One man’s art is another man’s book of Mormon.

Some other potential entries might have included Patrick’s conversion of Ireland. I include that because it was from Ireland after the collapse of the Roman empire that Christian civilization was revitalized. (See Cahill’s book “how the Irish saved civilization).

I also might have included St. Francis and how the Franciscans kept the Church from becoming anymore secular in the 13th century, and provided an example of simple piety that exists to this day.

I might have included St. Benedict as it is hard to imagine Christianity without the effects of Monastaries and monasticism. Without Benedict there is no Aquinas.

I might have included St. Hildegard, and Joan of Arc. They provided a feminine leadership aspect to Christianity that is not duplicated in any other major religions.

But all in all well done.