In my last post, I noted the destruction by lightening of ‘Touchdown Jesus’ down in fundamentalist Ohio, and commented on the tendency of Christianity in general (and evangelical Christianity, in particular) to favor grandiose images of its Savior despite the injunction against graven images from the religion actually practiced by Jesus (i.e., Judaism). I also made some positive references to the philosophies of the Buddhists in contrapoint.
Since then, it has occurred to me that the Buddhists have never been shy about keeping statues of the Buddha, some incredibly large. Interestingly (and also distressingly), some very large and ancient Buddha statues carved into mountain cliffs in Afghanistan were destroyed by the Taliban in 2001, blown to bits by dynamite and other weapons.
Archeologists and historians were extremely upset by this; hopefully the Buddhists took it in stride. Huge statues intentionally placed in public view step over the line between spiritual power and world power, between teaching and politics. Buddhists have not been immune to politics, of course, and Buddhist war is not unheard of. But the founders of both Buddhism and Christianity were men of peace; they were teachers and not politicians. Their followers have certainly strayed into politics, often with bad results. Perhaps both Touchdown Jesus and the Buddhas of Bamiyan are good reminders of the wisdom behind the Second Commandment.
Jim, I find myself taking a different view of idolatry. (What else is new when it comes
to your tho’ts and my tho’ts?) I can’t take the “graven images” thing too seriously.
I see “idolatry” much more in the sense of “consumerism”–people just having to have
the latest new tech thing that hits the market. And they do this even to the point where
they are in danger of not having a place to live. Some people (too many it would seem
from our current economic situation) actually don’t hesitate to spend mortgage money on
unnecessary things; they don’t seem to think in terms of paying off bills or even figuring
they have to pay the mortgage. Now that’s some big time idolatry if you ask me. Then
there is all the constant competition of “keeping up with the Jonses” in our society–
another form of “idolatry” as I see it. Everybody has to “win”, beat the other guy, etc.
As to the Buddhist statues that were destroyed by the Taliban: I saw their destruction as
the loss of some very beautiful art that had lasted for so very long only to be destroyed by
some fanatics whose attitude is/was you must think and do as I think and do or you’ll go
to hell. Well, we have plenty of history to disprove that point.
I see statues (or graven images? as you say) as more of a reminder of the person behind
the image and what that person stood for: e.g., a picture of Martin Luther King or one of
John Kennedy–or for that matter of Christ or the Mother of God, etc. I even include
pictures of my loved ones who have died in this category for I surely do pray to them
and have never forgotten them.
It seems to me that in this technological/informational age we need to look in other areas
for the graven images we erect. Once again, this is just my take on the “graven image”
concept.
MCS
Comment by MCS — June 20, 2010 @ 10:55 am
Mary, I realize that it is popular in liberal Christianity to equate the Second Commandment with the condemnation of runaway materialism, and thus with a political-economic viewpoint that centers itself on maximization of individual material well being. I.e., good old capitalism and libertarian free-market strategies. And I will agree that this is one possibly valid interpretation (although capitalism and market freedom have done humankind much good along with all the bad, and such good can be harnessed if properly overseen and regulated by collective social agency, i.e. by government; too bad that the Minerals Management Service under the Obama administration missed this cue regarding deepwater drilling in the Gulf).
BUT, before you throw out my own theory that the Second Commandment is meant to keep religious establishments themselves in check, consider the idol that is still vigorously defended and worshiped by the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy and other conservative Christian religions, an idol that many within liberal Christianity challenge. And that is the idol of the male body. These churches still teach, implicitly if not explicitly, that the male body is closer to God (because Jesus happened to be male); and thus, only those with male bodies can assume the highest ritual and teaching positions. To me, that is just as crazy as the ancient idea that a bronze or stone statue somehow held a power related to the divine, and should be worshiped.
I believe there are other “idols” within religion that aren’t necessarily physical but still qualify as violating the prohibition of idolatry. And yes, there are plenty of physical religious statues and icons that are not idolatrous, so long as they are used and taught in the proper context; i.e., worship the idea, not the image, the image is but an imperfect reminder of the idea.
Just something to think about next time the question of a female priesthood is raised. Jim G.
Comment by Jim G — June 27, 2010 @ 6:47 pm
Jim, How perfectly correct you are about the male body. In the end perhaps “idolatry”
boils down to an inappropriate/excessive/misdirected approach to statues, pictures, etc.
My own example of pictures of loved ones can be taken to extremes when some make “shrines”
to loved ones who have died, refusing almost to acknowledge that the person is dead, and
almost “waiting” for the person to return sometime soon.
So in the end, anything can be taken and used inappropriately. MCS
Comment by MCS — June 28, 2010 @ 2:55 pm