Sacrilege and Blasphemy

"I don’t want to get into the specifics of the incident here, we hope the controversy brought about by the controversy will ultimately produce light rather than the heat of yet another conflagration on the internet. It might help, though, if we understand what sacrilege and blasphemy are." - Don Johnson

6509 reads

There are 81 Comments

Don Johnson's picture

Jay, can you really distinguish between "what to think" and "how to think" that easily? I think it is hard to do either one without some measure of the other. One informs the other. "How" teaches philosophy; "what" applies philosophy. Don't you think both are necessary.

As for Bert's claim about guilt by association fallacies, I have the impression that Bert once read a book on fallacies and now sees them in every argument he doesn't like.

In any case, I don't see Kevin as teaching guilt by association. It is undeniable that any culture can express itself in corrupt forms. Christians should avoid those forms, especially when they are "all the rage," lest it confuse the Christian message.

 

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

T Howard's picture

Don Johnson wrote:
As for Bert's claim about guilt by association fallacies, I have the impression that Bert once read a book on fallacies and now sees them in every argument he doesn't like.

... Or, perhaps, certain people are reliant on logical fallacies to make their argument. Instead of arguing the merits, proving their point, and persuading others, they use logical fallacies to short-circuit the thinking process. They want to tell you what to think about a particular issue, but care little about how to rightly think about the issue (to Jay's earlier point).

Some favorites of the modern fundamentalist movement: ad hominem, slippery slope, guilt by association

AndyE's picture

It is a sad time we live in, when Christians by and large are no longer capable of identifying things as blasphemous or sacrilegious.  If something is not spelled out directly in Scripture, they are more fearful of going beyond what is written, than making sure these actual and serious Biblical commands are not violated.  

Regarding the gender issue, it appears the student knew he was pushing boundaries here, because he mentioned it several times as something done intentionally.   

Like I said in the other thread, I’m very glad Dr. Pettit addressed it.  I actually do think fashion can and should be done according to a Biblical worldview, promoting Christian principles of modesty, appropriateness, and gender consciousness. I would have thought that is exactly what such a program at BJU would be designed (pun unintended but recognized) to do.

Don Johnson's picture

I will say that no one side in an argument is entirely free from fallacies. Nevertheless, just calling something a fallacy, or making a sweeping statement that an argument is full of fallacies, without proving it, is also a fallacy.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

T Howard's picture

AndyE wrote:

It is a sad time we live in, when Christians by and large are no longer capable of identifying things as blasphemous or sacrilegious.  If something is not spelled out directly in Scripture, they are more fearful of going beyond what is written, than making sure these actual and serious Biblical commands are not violated.

Andy, the fact that some fundamentalist and conservative evangelical Christians are hesitant to go beyond what is written in Scripture to condemn something is a good development! I hope that the days of knee-jerk, reactionary, fear-mongering (and logically fallacious) rhetoric within fundamentalism are coming to a well-needed end. Instead of forming lines in the sand based on a superficial understanding and analysis of a situation or waiting on the gatekeepers to tell us what we should think, let us slow down, examine the situation, gets all sides of the story, study the Word, and seek to determine its significance to the situation. If there is an error to make, it's better to error on the side of grace than judgment.

In the case of art (or fashion), it's probably best to view these things on a continuum. Does any artistic rendering of Jesus qualify as blasphemous or sacrilegious? How about what is known as Jesus junk, including WWJD braclets? Does a t-shirt that reads, "Jesus is my Homeboy" qualify? How about the artwork known as "Piss Christ"?

Some would say that all of these examples are blasphemous or sacrilegious. Some would say, "It depends." How do we apply Scripture to these examples to help us make the determination? That is the discussion worth having.

Bert Perry's picture

Don Johnson wrote:

<snip>

As for Bert's claim about guilt by association fallacies, I have the impression that Bert once read a book on fallacies and now sees them in every argument he doesn't like.

In any case, I don't see Kevin as teaching guilt by association. It is undeniable that any culture can express itself in corrupt forms. Christians should avoid those forms, especially when they are "all the rage," lest it confuse the Christian message.

 

Nice potshot, Don.  Keepin' it classy as usual, I see.

Yes, saying "a music form born of irreverence...." does amount to a guilt by association fallacy--you can look it up--and yes, regrettably, fundamentalists in general and the FBFI in particular seem to love them.  

Maybe I should join in the fun and start telling churches they ought to separate from music from BJU because obviously, BJU's musical culture flows from its previous habit of supporting segregation and the like. The music does have its roots in this form of nasty sin, after all, and while Frank Garlock's work doesn't emphasize these roots anymore for obvious reasons, he does basically recycle those old racist arguments while sanitizing them a touch.

Or will Don start demanding we adhere to the standard forms of logic when it's his ox being gored?

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

AndyE's picture

T Howard wrote:
In the case of art (or fashion), it's probably best to view these things on a continuum. Does any artistic rendering of Jesus qualify as blasphemous or sacrilegious? How about what is known as Jesus junk, including WWJD braclets? Does a t-shirt that reads, "Jesus is my Homeboy" qualify? How about the artwork known as "Piss Christ"?

Some would say that all of these examples are blasphemous or sacrilegious. Some would say, "It depends." How do we apply Scripture to these examples to help us make the determination? That is the discussion worth having.

I’m actually happy you are willing to go down this road at all.  I think many would say, the Bible doesn’t address it, so it is area of Christian liberty.

I personally don’t think we should have any artistic depictions of Christ or God, as that is a violation of the 2nd commandment (cf., Deut 4:12 “form”, 15-16 “form”; 5:8 “likeness” ESV). I know that is a minority position within both evangelicalism and fundamentalism.  I remember going to the Holy Land Experience in Orlando one time and they had an exhibit regarding the tabernacle and used a spotlight to represent the shekinah glory of God – I thought at the time how inadequate and thus inappropriate that was. It didn’t and could not give the right representation of what that glory is. That’s the problem with all representations – they all misrepresent. And they all direct worship to something other than what God actually is, due to those misrepresentations.

So, I think it is wrong in general, but if you add in elements that are disrespectful (like piss), or common/novel/cute (i.e., things that replace the splendor and majesty of God with triteness – like homeboy), or gender-fluid (like a feminine coat), then you are adding sacrilegious if not blasphemous elements to the problem.  If you are going to represent Christ in art, which I don’t think you ought to do, you ought to be VERY careful that you don’t add elements that give people the wrong view of God.  This is so serious, that erring on the side of caution should be the norm.

T Howard's picture

AndyE wrote:
I personally don’t think...

AndyE wrote:
So, I think it is wrong in general...

AndyE wrote:
I don’t think you ought to do...

And, this demonstrates the problem. There is an explicit command in Scripture that forbids making "a carved image, 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. You shall not bow down to them or serve them." Note, this is a prohibition to create any image, not just an image of God. Although, in ANE and Greco-Roman cultures many of these images were specifically created to be worshipped. We also have the experience of God's dealings with Israel and reoccurring anthropomorphisms in Scripture to describe God's dealings with his creation. Beyond that, Scripture points us to Jesus Christ to understand, experience, and know God.

So, there isn't a direct Scriptural prohibition forbidding artistic renderings of God or Jesus, limited and misrepresentative as they by necessity are. Thus, we have everyone's opinion: "I think this is right"; "I don't think this is right."

During the medieval period and the Renaissance, you have a ton of religious art depicting God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, including most of what we now consider the masterpieces. Are all these verboten? Should they all be considered blasphemous and sacrilegious because they depict God or Jesus? Or, is it best to conclude with Potter Stewart of the SCOTUS that like obscenity, you'll know blasphemous and sacrilegious art when you see it?

So, I'm asking, what Scriptural principles should we apply to determine whether art (or fashion) violates Scripture in its depiction of God?

AndyE's picture

T Howard wrote:

AndyE wrote:
I personally don’t think...

And, this, demonstrates the problem...

 

I think it is wrong to murder.  Does that also demonstrate the problem? 

Anyway, I admitted that I was in the minority regarding images of Christ.  On the other hand, my position is not novel, either. I am in basic agreement here with the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Quote:
"The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instated by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them, all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever, simony, sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed" (Q. 109).

 

T Howard's picture

AndyE wrote:
I think it is wrong to murder.  Does that also demonstrate the problem?

No, because we have several explicit prohibitions in Scripture against murder. We have none against art generally or against portraying God in art (in a context that isn't idolatry).

AndyE wrote:
Anyway, I admitted that I was in the minority regarding images of Christ.  On the other hand, my position is not novel, either. I am in basic agreement here with the Westminster Confession of Faith:

And, there are many churches within the PCA that allow for disagreement with this particular WCF interpretation. The issue addressed by the WCF is improper worship of God. Does having a visual depiction of God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit necessarily incite or encourage improper worship of God?

dgszweda's picture

AndyE wrote:

Anyway, I admitted that I was in the minority regarding images of Christ.  On the other hand, my position is not novel, either. I am in basic agreement here with the Westminster Confession of Faith:

I respect those to hold to this position.  It has a level of consistency to it.  The Westminister Confession of Faith on this topic has always caused struggle with me.  Especially when it says no images in the mind.  Given that God created man to create images based on text and the Bible is filled with imagery in its language, it is nigh impossible to read a passage in the Gospel and not experience an image of what took place in your mind.  I lay in the camp of some Reformers that held the idea that since God took on a physical form that our idea to imagine Him in a physical form is not sin.  As someone who has traveled to practically all of the great galleries in Europe and seen more religious paintings than I can remember, I struggle with what took place at BJU on some level.  I know that Don stated, that making art can create a "base" image of something that should be exalted.  And I totally get that statement.  But a lot of the art created during the Protestant Reformation, showed Christ or religious scenes in a very modern context.  The paintings would be equivalent to having a painting of Jesus with jeans and high tops on.  Many Christians, and even BJU has in the past viewed these paintings with a level of regard.  For example, Albrecht Durer's "Last Supper", is something that gained the respect of Luther.

To those who hold to AndyE's standards, I can definitely see what took place as bad.  And I won't argue that AndyE is taking an incorrect position.  It is definitely a position that has some credibility to it.  For those of us who don't hold to that position as tightly, there is a lot of nuance to unpack here that is so multi-layered.

AndyE's picture

T Howard wrote:

No, because we have several explicit prohibitions in Scripture against murder. We have none against art generally or against portraying God in art (in a context that isn't idolatry).

Sorry, I guess your quoting my phraseology three times and then stating that conclusion led me astray... Smile

So, look, I'm not all that interested in defending my position here.  But, I actually do have explicit scriptural prohibition.

Deuteronomy 5:8 (ESV) You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 

Is God in heaven above?

The context is the 10 commandments. And yes, the danger is that you would worship that image rather than the one true and living (v 9). But, the command is not just, don't bow down to the image, it is don't create the image at all.

I understand the arguments for and against.  For what it is worth, my wife disagrees with me on this one, too. :)   But I do have scripture, explicit scripture.

 

Dan Miller's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Don Johnson wrote:

<snip>

As for Bert's claim about guilt by association fallacies, I have the impression that Bert once read a book on fallacies and now sees them in every argument he doesn't like.

...

Nice potshot, Don.  Keepin' it classy as usual, I see.

Bert, maybe you should just take this as a compliment. 

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

AndyE wrote:

But, I actually do have explicit scriptural prohibition.

Deuteronomy 5:8 (ESV) You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 

Is God in heaven above?

The context is the 10 commandments. And yes, the danger is that you would worship that image rather than the one true and living (v 9). But, the command is not just, don't bow down to the image, it is don't create the image at all.

I understand the arguments for and against.  For what it is worth, my wife disagrees with me on this one, too. :)   But I do have scripture, explicit scripture.

I've always wondered about whether we should understand that commandment in the absolute sense, given that even in the making of the tabernacle and the priestly garments, some images/likenesses were used, at a minimum cherubim, pomegranates, and almond blossoms.  (The bronze serpent would be another case.)  It has always seemed to me that it meant we don't make or use images that we worship in any sense, even as a representation of the true God (just as you said the danger was), but that the making of images couldn't be completely forbidden, given that God commanded them to make some.  Either those were exceptions, or an absolute prohibition on making any images is not the right meaning of that commandment.

Dave Barnhart

AndyE's picture

T Howard wrote:

So, I'm asking, what Scriptural principles should we apply to determine whether art (or fashion) violates Scripture in its depiction of God?

So, I actually did try to address that.  I think you got distracted by my initial objection to any images at all.   Here is what I said:

AndyE wrote:
So, I think it is wrong in general, but if you add in elements that are disrespectful (like piss), or common/novel/cute (i.e., things that replace the splendor and majesty of God with triteness – like homeboy), or gender-fluid (like a feminine coat), then you are adding sacrilegious if not blasphemous elements to the problem.  If you are going to represent Christ in art, which I don’t think you ought to do, you ought to be VERY careful that you don’t add elements that give people the wrong view of God.  This is so serious, that erring on the side of caution should be the norm.

If the representation of Christ is disrespectful or mocking, de-glorifying, or in some other way shows Christ or God at odds with revealed scripture, all that is wrong.  I use "de-glorifying" in the sense above as taking something sacred and turning it into something common, or novel, or cute, or anything the lowers the dignity and majesty of God.  We could probably explore this last idea more to some profit.  I would not expect the other two ideas to be controversial, but what do I know.

T Howard's picture

AndyE wrote:

So, look, I'm not all that interested in defending my position here.  But, I actually do have explicit scriptural prohibition.

Deuteronomy 5:8 (ESV) You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 

Is God in heaven above?

The context is the 10 commandments. And yes, the danger is that you would worship that image rather than the one true and living (v 9). But, the command is not just, don't bow down to the image, it is don't create the image at all.

Andy, I'm not asking you to defend your position. I just want the biblical principles people use to arrive at their conclusions. In the case of Deut 5:8, it forbids an image or likeness of ANYTHING. To be consistent, do you take pictures of anything? Your wife, children, your pets, scenery, etc.? What pictures do you keep on your phone or computer? Aren't these images in violation of Deut 5:8 according to your interpretation?

T Howard's picture

Dave is right. The first 2 commandments are prohibiting false worship and/or idolatry. They aren't prohibitions of visual art in general.

If that is the case, then we must next ask the question: Can someone visually depict God (i.e. the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit) without inducing false worship and/or idolatry?

T Howard's picture

AndyE wrote:

If the representation of Christ is disrespectful or mocking, de-glorifying, or in some other way shows Christ or God at odds with revealed scripture, all that is wrong.  I use "de-glorifying" in the sense above as taking something sacred and turning it into something common, or novel, or cute, or anything the lowers the dignity and majesty of God.  We could probably explore this last idea more to some profit.  I would not expect the other two ideas to be controversial, but what do I know.

The Bible says that God is invisible spirit. Does that mean any visible representation of God the Father is at odds with revealed Scripture and wrong and "de-glorifying"?

Bert Perry's picture

If all sculpture is prohibited, then we've got an interesting issue with the pomegranates, bulls, angels, and the like depicted in the Tabernacle and Temple, no?  Regarding depictions of the Spirit (ruach, "wind") of God and the Father, that would run into the reality that apart from Christ, we have no real idea from Scripture whether they can be visually represented.  And with Christ, we've got Isaiah 53; either you're faithful to that, and people suggest you're blaspheming Him by making Him ugly, or you're unfaithful to that, and people point out Isaiah 53.  The artist cannot win there.

And then if you take some of the miracles, you've got a situation (e.g. Acts 2) where one would be tempted to make a rather cartoonish rendition along the lines of "God's Gym" t-shirts.  Avoid that, and you're going to make things so subtle that people don't get the point.

I'm a fan of some Christian art--the Dutch Masters often did a nice job, I appreciate a fair amount of medieval art, and then Marc Chagall's stained glass at St. Stephens' in Mainz is exquisite--but if one tells me it's hard to do good Christian art, I won't argue that point.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

AndyE's picture

dcbii wrote:
I've always wondered about whether we should understand that commandment in the absolute sense, given that even in the making of the tabernacle and the priestly garments, some images/likenesses were used, at a minimum cherubim, pomegranates, and almond blossoms.  (The bronze serpent would be another case.)  It has always seemed to me that it meant we don't make or use images that we worship in any sense, even as a representation of the true God (just as you said the danger was), but that the making of images couldn't be completely forbidden, given that God commanded them to make some.  Either those were exceptions, or an absolute prohibition on making any images is not the right meaning of that commandment.

Yes, so, without going too far into this, the general idea is that if you see God, what should your response be?  It should be worship.  You can look at an image of a bird, or a mountain, or the moon and not be driven to the worship of that thing.  But that is not true of God. If you see an image of God, you should fall down on your face like Isaiah did. If the image doesn't do that to you, it is because it doesn't represent God like it should.  Long and short is that no image of God truly represents God and thus diminishes or distorts him in someway, and therefore ought to be avoided, per the commandment. So to be precise, given the objections you raised, people reason that the commandment can't be the absolute prohibition of any image at all, but any images related to the worship of God. To quote Alan Cairns, "The first commands us not to worship false Gods. The second commands us not to worship the true God in a false way."  Much more could be said, and probably said better, but that is the general reasoning.  

AndyE's picture

T Howard wrote:

The Bible says that God is invisible spirit. Does that mean any visible representation of God the Father is at odds with revealed Scripture and wrong and "de-glorifying"?

Yes, absolutely, outside of Christ.  Can you provide a counterexample?

dgszweda's picture

AndyE wrote:

 

T Howard wrote:

 

The Bible says that God is invisible spirit. Does that mean any visible representation of God the Father is at odds with revealed Scripture and wrong and "de-glorifying"?

 

Yes, absolutely, outside of Christ.  Can you provide a counterexample?

 

Maybe not entirely related to God the Father, but the church during the Apostle's time, used the Dove to represent the Holy Spirit.  The two Greek letters, X and P interlaced to signify Christ, a fish to signify Jesus Christ, and a Shepherd to signify Christ.  These are all images that represent a part of the Godhead, which were inscribed on the catacombs dating before 60AD.  There is little if any, in the way of the actual God the Father, that I am aware of.  The closest is the visual representation of God seated on His Throne in Isaiah 6.  While it gives no physical representation of actually God the Father, the visual imagery is so robust that it is difficult to read the passage without visualizing something in your mind, as the imagery is clearly in place to generate an imagery in someone's mind.

AndyE's picture

dgszweda wrote:
Maybe not entirely related to God the Father, but the church during the Apostle's time, used the Dove to represent the Holy Spirit.  The two Greek letters, X and P interlaced to signify Christ, a fish to signify Jesus Christ, and a Shepherd to signify Christ.  These are all images that represent a part of the Godhead, which were inscribed on the catacombs dating before 60AD.  There is little if any, in the way of the actual God the Father, that I am aware of.  The closest is the visual representation of God seated on His Throne in Isaiah 6.  While it gives no physical representation of actually God the Father, the visual imagery is so robust that it is difficult to read the passage without visualizing something in your mind, as the imagery is clearly in place to generate an imagery in someone's mind.

Those are interesting examples.  I would say that letters and symbols are not really the same thing as an image.  We are allowed to use words to refer to members of the godhead. A fish is not really intended to be a visual representation of Christ. You wouldn't look at the fish and say, that's Jesus. A shepherd? Maybe.  And the dove example is also interesting. I'm not sure what to make of that.  We could explore in more detail what exactly counts as an image.  I haven't thought through everything.

Regarding Isaiah 6, getting a vision of God via revelation is exactly how God wants to be revealed to us.

Don Johnson's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Yes, saying "a music form born of irreverence...." does amount to a guilt by association fallacy--you can look it up--and yes, regrettably, fundamentalists in general and the FBFI in particular seem to love them.  

A guilt by association fallacy would be something like the argument I once heard about listening to music performed by Mantovani's orchestra. Allegedly he had an alternate lifestyle, therefore, his music should be avoided. That is guilt by association.

On the other hand, when rock-music (anachronistic term) was developing, its leading composers claimed the music was about rage, rebellion, and sex. They said that's what it communicates. You can argue with that if you like, but if they are correct, opposition to using contemporary forms of music isn't merely guilt by association.

So try again.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Andrew K's picture

Don Johnson wrote:

 

On the other hand, when rock-music (anachronistic term) was developing, its leading composers claimed the music was about rage, rebellion, and sex. They said that's what it communicates. You can argue with that if you like, but if they are correct, opposition to using contemporary forms of music isn't merely guilt by association.

Why would he be correct? That's an odd notion. Why should one pay him anymore attention than if Isaac Asimov said that science fiction is all about "a return to paganism," or some such?

At best all it tells us is how he understood his music.

Cynically speaking, if I wanted to market my music to a bunch of young people I can't think of a better way to get their attention.

T Howard's picture

AndyE wrote:

 

T Howard wrote:

 

The Bible says that God is invisible spirit. Does that mean any visible representation of God the Father is at odds with revealed Scripture and wrong and "de-glorifying"?

 

Yes, absolutely, outside of Christ.  Can you provide a counterexample?

 

Andy, Scripture is full of anthropomorphic descriptions of God even though "God is not a man..." In other words, Scripture describes God using human terms in order for us to better understand him. The God-man Jesus is the epitome of this. Obviously, we can never fully understand God. But, we can truly understand God because of how God has chosen to represent himself in the Scriptures.

By depicting God using anthropomorphic visualization (e.g. Michelangelo's creation of adam), is not the artist helping us to better glorify God and his creative work?

AndyE's picture

T Howard wrote:
Andy, Scripture is full of anthropomorphic descriptions of God even though "God is not a man..." In other words, Scripture describes God using human terms in order for us to better understand him. The God-man Jesus is the epitome of this. Obviously, we can never fully understand God. But, we can truly understand God because of how God has chosen to represent himself in the Scriptures.

By depicting God using anthropomorphic visualization (e.g. Michelangelo's creation of adam), is not the artist helping us to better glorify God and his creative work?

I feel like we are getting hung up on this one point, one that I've already conceded is a minority view.  I probably should not have mentioned it at all.  My only reason for bringing it up was to point out that some people, probably not many, don't think we should go down this road at all in regard to artistic visualizations of God or Christ.  If you really want to get me, you could say that I'm very inconsistent, because I have taken pictures of my girls at their performances in the BJU War Memorial Chapel, and the big painting of the ascension of Christ is right there in the background.

T Howard's picture

AndyE wrote:
I feel like we are getting hung up on this one point, one that I've already conceded is a minority view.  I probably should not have mentioned it at all.  My only reason for bringing it up was to point out that some people, probably not many, don't think we should go down this road at all in regard to artistic visualizations of God or Christ.  If you really want to get me, you could say that I'm very inconsistent, because I have taken pictures of my girls at their performances in the BJU War Memorial Chapel, and the big painting of the ascension of Christ is right there in the background.

Fair enough. What biblical principles (not your minority view or opinion), then, should we employ to determine whether a particular piece of art depicts God (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit) in an appropriate way, given the reality that we can never fully / accurately visually describe God?

By the way, it's not just visual representation that falls short. We can never fully / accurately describe God in words either. The Christian hymns that many of us cherish, love, and sing also face this same dilemma. God is indescribable; yet, we attempt to describe him every Sunday AM in our songs, hymns, and spiritual songs.

Here are principles you've laid out above:

AndyE wrote:
If the representation of Christ is disrespectful or mocking, de-glorifying, or in some other way shows Christ or God at odds with revealed scripture, all that is wrong.  I use "de-glorifying" in the sense above as taking something sacred and turning it into something common, or novel, or cute, or anything the lowers the dignity and majesty of God.  We could probably explore this last idea more to some profit.  I would not expect the other two ideas to be controversial, but what do I know.

We've already conceded that we can never describe God as he truly is. Therefore, we are left with how to best describe God visually given our finite understanding of God.

Mark_Smith's picture

Can someone clearly and explicitly tell me and I am sure other readers, what happened or was shown at this fashion show at BJU that is being called blasphemous or sacrilegious? I have no idea. All the veiled references mean nothing to me. This whole thread seems pointless unless you clearly state what happened.

Pages