We recently came across an article that created some interest and concern that we felt compelled to comment on. The article in view here is a review of the movie Bella contributed by one Eric Rauch contained in the December 2007 edition of American Vision’s monthly publication Biblical Worldview. In the review, Rauch gives his positive critique of the movie, the content of which is adamantly pro-life, and quite effective in its presentation. Bella, he notes, was produced by a Roman Catholic film production company. However, interlaced with his critique of the movie itself is a not so subtle criticism of the abilities of Protestants to create good cinema.
Rauch complains that Protestants are hamstrung by their emphasis on and commitment to word based faith. This, he says, results in “dry, preachy, and surface-level films”. On the other hand, he admires the Romanist ability to communicate in symbols, ritual, and imagery. He provides some additional support in the form of quotes from a Dr. Thom Parhan, apparently an associate professor of film at Asuza Pacific University, who is likewise enthralled by these abilities which he argues are the result of three tenets of Romanists: an intuitive understanding of iconography, a grasp of the incarnational function of art, and their understanding of the sacramental nature of life. All in all, both men seem to argue for the perceived virtues and world view of Romanism over the dry, dusty, and narrow view of word-based Protestantism.
All of this is quite interesting, especially in view of the similar ideas expressed by Jeffrey J. Meyers in his book The Lord’s Service, in which he lays out his argumentation for what has become known as covenant renewal worship. In his book Meyers argues that rather than worship, and liturgical practices in particular, being informed by the revelation of the Word, our understanding of the Word needs to be defined by, and learned from, our liturgical practices. And where are these practices to be themselves acquired? Why, from Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy, and maybe some Lutherans. There does seem to be something odd going on here.
Historic Protestantism has always been focused on the Word. This is simply because the Bible itself is presented to us in such a fashion, and assumes both the Word Incarnate and the Word inspired as being the harmonious declaration of what God has given us to know about Him and His ways in this life. On the other hand, iconography and other image representations of Him are strictly forbidden. Why do we need some sort of “work around” for this sort of thing? If these men want to argue for the superiority of Rome and others in relation to imagery, ritual, and symbolism, they are going to have to prove far more than they have so far with their critiques of what they consider to be lackluster abilities of Protestants in art and idolatry.
Rauch complains that Protestants are hamstrung by their emphasis on and commitment to word based faith. This, he says, results in “dry, preachy, and surface-level films”. On the other hand, he admires the Romanist ability to communicate in symbols, ritual, and imagery. He provides some additional support in the form of quotes from a Dr. Thom Parhan, apparently an associate professor of film at Asuza Pacific University, who is likewise enthralled by these abilities which he argues are the result of three tenets of Romanists: an intuitive understanding of iconography, a grasp of the incarnational function of art, and their understanding of the sacramental nature of life. All in all, both men seem to argue for the perceived virtues and world view of Romanism over the dry, dusty, and narrow view of word-based Protestantism.
All of this is quite interesting, especially in view of the similar ideas expressed by Jeffrey J. Meyers in his book The Lord’s Service, in which he lays out his argumentation for what has become known as covenant renewal worship. In his book Meyers argues that rather than worship, and liturgical practices in particular, being informed by the revelation of the Word, our understanding of the Word needs to be defined by, and learned from, our liturgical practices. And where are these practices to be themselves acquired? Why, from Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy, and maybe some Lutherans. There does seem to be something odd going on here.
Historic Protestantism has always been focused on the Word. This is simply because the Bible itself is presented to us in such a fashion, and assumes both the Word Incarnate and the Word inspired as being the harmonious declaration of what God has given us to know about Him and His ways in this life. On the other hand, iconography and other image representations of Him are strictly forbidden. Why do we need some sort of “work around” for this sort of thing? If these men want to argue for the superiority of Rome and others in relation to imagery, ritual, and symbolism, they are going to have to prove far more than they have so far with their critiques of what they consider to be lackluster abilities of Protestants in art and idolatry.
No comments:
Post a Comment