Category: Book Review (Page 3 of 6)

Early Jewish Attitudes Toward Images

July 29, 2013 / Robert Arakaki / 33 Comments

Book Review: Early Christian Attitudes toward Images by Steven Bigham (2 of 4)

This blog posting is a continuation of an earlier review of Fr. Steven Bigham’s book. In this posting I will be reviewing and interacting with Bigham’s arguments in Chapter 2.

Chapter 2 examines early Jewish attitudes toward images. This is important because modern Protestant iconoclasm assumes that the early Christians inherited from the Jews a hostile attitude towards images. However, if it can be shown that there existed an open attitude toward images among early Jews then the basis for the hostility theory becomes problematic.

Steven Bigham notes that a distinction needs to be drawn between figurative art and pagan idols. He presents Jean-Baptiste Frey’s theory that an alternation took place between a rigorist and less rigorous interpretations of the Second Commandment (pp. 22-23). This challenges the implicit assumption that Jewish opposition to images to be fixed and unchanging. This new approach allows for more flexible readings of the biblical, rabbinical, and historical data. It is suggested that a liberal attitude towards images existed from the period of monarchy to the exile, then a rigorist attitude from the restoration to the Hellenistic period. Later, an accepting attitude was found among the Amoraïm, the successors to the Pharisees.

Biblical Evidences

In sub-section 3 (pp. 22-32), Bigham reviews the biblical evidence for the use of art and images in Israelite worship: Exodus, Numbers, 1 Kings, Ezekiel, and Ecclesiasticus. In considering the Old Testament evidence, Bigham excludes passages relating to pagan idolatry and examines passages pertaining to Israelite worship (p. 26).

The Tabernacle in Exodus

Tabernacle in Exodus

Bigham finds it significant that Exodus which contained the Second Commandment (Exodus 20:2-6) also contained divine instructions for the construction of the golden cherubim over the Ark of the Testimony (Exodus 25:1-22), as well as the manufacture of curtains embroidered with cherubim (Exodus 26:1, 31). Bigham notes,

Placed so close to God himself and so intimately linked with the worship of the true God, the cherubim could never be separated from that worship and become themselves the object of misdirected, idolatrous worship. The cherubim on the Ark of the Testimony are a real problem for the advocates of rigorism, because God himself ordered Moses to have them made. The untenable contradiction in the divine commands disappears if we assume a relative interpretation of the 2^nd Commandment that allows for non-idolatrous, liturgical images (p. 26).

All too often Protestant iconoclasm has equated idolatry with images, but this is too simplistic a definition. In his examination of the passage on the bronze serpent, Bigham notes that a sculpted image can be used in a non-idolatrous way. In response to the poisonous snakes sent to punish the Israelites, God ordered the making of a bronze serpent as a means of healing (Numbers 21:4-9). Later, King Hezekiah destroyed the serpent because the Israelites had begun to misuse it (2 Kings 18:1-4). Bigham notes:

This episode shows how an object, an image, normally not considered to be a idol, can become one. Idolatry is determined by a person’s intention and attitude toward an image, and not by the image itself (p. 27; emphasis added).

What Bigham has done here is to clarify the difference between religious art and idolatry. Furthermore, he has resolved an apparent contradiction in the Old Testament. His contextual understanding of the Old Testament passages avoids the difficulties caused by the more rigorist interpretations of the Second Commandment which would clash with subsequent passages that mandate the making of religious art.

In doing so, Bigham has rendered a tremendous service to Reformed-Orthodox dialogue. In any conversation on the Second Commandment and the proper role of images in worship, it is important that a balanced and biblically based definition of idolatry be established at the outset. If the two sides start from disparate definitions, the conversation will go nowhere. One question for the Reformed Christians and Evangelicals to consider is whether Bigham’s understanding is both biblical and balanced. If not, then they should put forward an alternative definition for the Orthodox to consider.

Solomon’s Temple

Bigham describes Solomon’s Temple in 1 Kings to be “a veritable art gallery and a nightmare for the advocates of the rigorist interpretation” (p. 28). King Solomon did not just replicate the Mosaic Tabernacle, but expanded and elaborated on the religious art work in connection with the worship of Yahweh. He had two enormous cherubim sculpted out of wood and overlaid with gold (1 Kings 6:23-28).

Interior of Solomon’s Temple

Solomon also had cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers carved on all the Temple walls and on the door to the Holy of Holies (1 Kings 6:29-31). Solomon made a molten sea which was placed over twelve statues of bulls (1 Kings 7:23-26). Furthermore, Solomon ordered the making of movable stands on which were carvings not just of cherubim, but also of lions and bulls (1 Kings 7:27-37).

The laudatory tone with which Solomon’s construction of the Temple for Yahweh was presented and the absence of any criticism makes 1 Kings quite problematic for those who hold to the iconoclastic position.

Solomon’s throne likewise was a huge work of art comprised of ascending steps with sculpted lions on both sides of each step leading to the throne (1 Kings 10:18-20). While less holy than the Temple, the throne was nonetheless the seat of the Lord’s anointed. This biblical passage points to an acceptance of images beyond the Temple into “secular” domains.

The favorable attitude among Jews continued into the post-exilic period. Bigham found in I Maccabees 1:22 and 4:57 evidence that the front of the Second Temple (520-515 BC) had been decorated with gold.

Ezekiel’s vision of the restored Temple continues the favorable attitude towards the use of images. As a prophecy it is significant because it extends the orthodoxy of religious images from the Mosaic Tabernacle of the past into the future worship of the Messianic Age, i.e., the Christian era. What is astounding is the profusion of images in Ezekiel’s future temple.

As far as the nearby wall of the inner and outer courts and along upon the wall all around within and without were depicted cherubim and palm trees, between cherub and cherub. Each cherub had two faces, the face of a man toward a palm tree on one side, and the face of a lion toward a palm tree on the other side. Thus it was depicted throughout the house all around. From the floor to the threshold, the cherubim and the palm trees were interspersed upon the walls (Ezekiel 41:17-20; OSB).

Taken together, the combined witness of passages across the Old Testament–from the time of Moses, the royal kingdom, and the prophetic tradition–presents an immense challenge to those who hold to the rigorist interpretation of the Second Commandment which disallows any and all forms of images in connection with the worship of Yahweh.

Non-Religious Images

In sub-section 5 (pp. 34-41), Bigham notes that additional evidence in support of Jewish tolerance or acceptance of images can be found in coins decorated with symbols like wreaths, horns of plenty, palms, cups and amphorae. It seems that these were accepted by Jewish authorities and rabbis. Similarly, Bigham found in Josephus’ The Antiquity of the Jews evidence that a certain prominent Jew, Hyrcanus, built a castle decorated with animals engraved on its walls (Bigham p. 37).

Angel on Jewish Sacrophagus – Beth Shearim

Detail of Sarcophagus at Beth Shearim, Israel. Source

Carving of Lioness on Hyrcanus Palace

Josephus and Philo

In sub-section 6 (pp. 41-66), Bigham examines the evidence used to support the notion that first century Judaism prohibited “images of animate beings” on the basis of the Jewish Law. Two early sources, Josephus and Philo, have been used to bolster the claim that first century Judaism was by and large iconophobic. Bigham notes that behind this iconophobia was hostility to symbols of Roman rule. In other words the first century rigorist reading of the Second Commandment may be rooted just as much in politics as in religion (p. 44). Josephus in his Antiquities XVIII, III, 1, explained that Jewish opposition to the Romans display of the emperor’s image on military standards was due to the Second Commandment. However, Bigham notes:

We can also see Josephus’s motivation for painting the incident in religious, rather than its obvious political colors: The Roman authorities for whom Josephus wrote would be less offended by an insult to the emperor’s image based on the Jews’ well-known sensitivity in religious matters. In any case, Josephus’s presentation of the Law – “our law forbids us the very making of images” – is simply wrong since previous and subsequent Jewish history shows that such images were made and accepted under certain conditions (p. 45).

Recent Archaeological Discoveries

Dura Europos Synagogue. Source

In sub-section 7 (pp. 66-78), Father Bigham devotes several pages (pp. 66-70) to the archaeologists’ discovery of the Jewish synagogue in Dura Europos in 1932. Its complete burial allowed it to be preserved virtually intact. Due to the widespread assumption at the time that early Judaism was aniconic, the building was initially mistaken for a Greek temple.

Image of Baby Moses – Dura Europos Synagogue. Source

The Dura Europos synagogue has profoundly challenged many misconceptions of early Jewish worship. The Dura Europos synagogue was not an isolated exception; other ancient synagogues had figurative arts (p. 67).

Moses and Burning Bush – Dura Europos. Source

The Binding of Isaac – Beth Alpha. Source

Mosaic at Beth Alpha

This leads Bigham to write:

… it seems increasingly clear that Judaism led the way in developing figurative art and that Christianity followed, at least at the beginning. We have already seen that this hypothesis is upheld by many scholars. Even in areas other than art, we see the same phenomenon: early Christianity often modeled itself on its Jewish parent. “For the ancestry of most elements of early church worship, we must look to the synagogue rather than the home … (C. Filson)” (Bigham p. 68)

These archaeological evidences present serious problems for those who hold to the hostility theory, especially on the assumption that early Judaism was uniformly aniconic and iconophobic (Bigham p. 89). However, if first century Judaism accepted religious art, then it makes sense that the early Christianity reflected its Jewish roots. It can then be argued that it is the iconoclastic hostility theory that represents an alien intrusion into Christian history. The hostility theory was easy to uphold when the evidence was buried in the ground but when archaeological discoveries over the past century unearth these evidences that theory lost its foundation.

Religious Art in Early Jewish Synagogues

In addition to the startling discoveries at Dura Europos, there are other evidence of religious art in Jewish synagogues.

Zodiac – Synagogue Mosaic on Mt. Carmel. Source

The zodiac mosaic at Beth Alpha was not an isolated example. Other similar zodiacs have been found in Israel, e.g., Hammath Tiberias on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, Naaran near Jericho, Sepphoris slightly north of Nazareth, En Gedi by the Dead Sea, and Huseifa near Mt. Carmel.

Religious Art in Medieval Judaism

Torah Shrine – Butzian Synagogue in Cracow, Poland

An examination of religious art in medieval Judaism shows an attitude more accepting of religious art than that found in the Reformed tradition. One example is the carving of images on the ark in the Butzian Synagogue in Cracow, Poland.

Findings and Conclusion

Fr. Steven Bigham has conducted a wide ranging review of evidence about early Jewish attitudes toward images. The evidences include both biblical and extra-biblical sources, as well as secular literary sources and archaeological evidences. Bigham notes that the evidence is not conclusive, but it does call into question the assumption that early Judaism was uniformly and rigidly opposed to images. Early Jewish acceptance of images even in the context of synagogue worship lays the historical basis for the acceptance of images in early Christian worship.

Robert Arakaki

See also: “The Biblical Basis for Icons“

Clearing the Way for Reformed-Orthodox Dialogue on Icons

July 23, 2013 / Robert Arakaki / 6 Comments

Book Review: Early Christian Attitudes toward Images by Steven Bigham (1 of 4)

In recent years icons have become a matter of public debate among Protestants and Evangelicals, and Orthodox Christians. Where in the past Protestants thought of icons as an Orthodox peculiarity or a quaint dispute quickly passed over in church history class, they are coming to grips with the fact that icons present a serious theological challenge to their theology. In addition to the discovery that a rereading of Scripture from a different angle can lead to a solid biblical basis for icons, they must also grapple with the implications that ripple out from the historic role of icons in the early Church. Cardinal John Henry Newman’s quip: “”To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” might be more true than most have considered! [See my articles: “How an Icon Brought a Calvinist to Orthodoxy” and “The Biblical Basis for Icons.”]

In the recent dialogue between Protestants and Orthodox over icons both sides have appealed to evidence from early Christianity. One of the challenges in this conversation has been unfamiliarity with early Christian sources on the part of some participants. Oftentimes it seems that those opposed to icons find some surprising evidence from early sources that appear to refute the Christian use of icons. What is needed is a comprehensive overview of early Christian sources on the use of images in worship. Steven Bigham’s Early Christian Attitudes toward Images (2004) seems to fit the bill.

The purpose of this review is to assess Bigham’s book in terms of its usefulness to the Reformed-Orthodox dialogue on the use of icons in Christian worship. I plan to review Bigham’s book in four installments.

Overview

Given the highly charged nature of the topic it is important that we put out certain facts on the table at the outset. Father Steven Bigham, Ph.D., is an Orthodox priest serving the Carpatho-Russian diocese in Montreal, Canada. The book is published by the Orthodox Research Institute. In his preface Bigham gives the book’s objective: “Eliminate once and for all the idea that the Christians of the first centuries were iconophobic.” Thus, Bigham’s book is an unabashed Orthodox apologia for icons.

While many of our readers hold strong theological convictions, I am confident that they are likewise committed to the use of critical reason and evidence based approach to forming of their faith convictions. In other words, we are not trapped by partisan categories; rather through an evidence-based approach one can come to a critically informed position on icons one way or the other. The primary criterion driving this review is historical. That is, how comprehensive is Bigham’s survey of the evidence from early the Christian period? How balanced is Bigham’s assessment of the evidence? How significant a contribution can the book make to the Reformed-Orthodox dialogue?

The book is divided into four chapters. Chapter 1 deals with the “hostility theory” which holds that the early Christians were hostile toward images. Chapter 2 deals with early Jewish attitudes toward images. Chapter 3 deals with the early Christian attitudes towards images, that is, the pre-Constantinian period. Chapter 4 deals with Eusebius of Caesarea who witnessed the beginning of Constantinian era.

The Hostility Theory

The argument against icons has taken several forms. One major line of attack has been biblical, giving special attention to the Second Commandment. Another has been a historical argument against icons. The “hostility theory” proposes: (1) that first century Judaism was aniconic or iconoclastic, (2) the early Church reflecting its Jewish roots was likewise aniconic or iconoclastic, and (3) the incorporation of images can be attributed to Christianity’s assimilation into Roman society under Emperor Constantine. For the reader’s convenience Bigham presents a lengthy excerpt that exemplifies the hostility theory (see pp. 2-3).

Bigham conducted a literature review that shows much of the hostility theory can be traced to nineteenth century liberal Protestantism. The contention here is that the modern historians invented the early Christians hostility towards images. In his assessment Bigham notes that the theory assumes the absence of images in first century Judaism and that this theory has been weakened by recent archaeological findings of images used in connection with Jewish religious life.

When the hostility theory was being developed, our knowledge of ancient Judaism was much more limited than it is today. The artistic monuments we know today were all still underground. It is easy to see why no one questioned the notion that Judaism was monolithically iconophobic, but throughout the 20^th century, our accepted ideas about the attitudes and the practices of ancient Judaism have gone through a radical revision and this especially as a result of recent archaeological discoveries. Once again, artistic monuments, this time Jewish ones, have challenged the advocates of the hostility theory to reconcile the supposed Jewish aniconia and iconophobia with the Jewish artistic monuments found in the archaeological digs (Bigham p. 6).

Bigham examines the recent archaeological finding in Chapter 2. But issue before us here is the way the hostility theory is framed. It is important to keep in mind that much of the recent Protestant opposition to icons has been influenced by nineteenth century Christian liberalism and is thus markedly different from the iconoclasm of the seventh and eighth centuries, and from the iconoclasm in Calvin’s Institutes. By deconstructing modern Protestant iconoclasm Bigham has made a substantial contribution to Reformed-Orthodox dialogue. His analysis enables us to become critically aware of the issues and assumptions that unite us and divide us. All too often it has been the hidden assumptions that have derailed inter-faith dialogue. This creates a window of opportunity for two different theological tradition to converse with each other with understanding and empathy.

Image versus Idol

Another important task Bigham carries out in Chapter 1 is drawing the distinction between image and idol. The term “image” covers a wide range of meaning. Image can mean: (1) image of pagan deities, (2) religious art in the Mosaic Tabernacle and later Jewish temples, (3) decorative art in Jewish life, and (4) religious art used in Christian worship. This distinction is important for how we understand the prohibition in the Second Commandment. An awareness of these conceptual categories helps in the assessment of historical and archaeological evidences.

One frequent problem I’ve noticed is the tendency by some to interpret the Second Commandment as a blanket prohibition against any and all images. These critics then take early sources that denounce the use of images in pagan worship and apply them to the use of images in worship in Christian worship. The issue here is not pagan religions, but worship in the Jewish and Christian traditions. Leaving out irrelevant ancient sources critical of pagan idolatry reduces the amount considerably leaving us to consider relevant evidences. And even when those who oppose icons do find ancient sources critical of the use of images in Christian worship they must show that these are not isolated individual instances but part of a broader consensus opposed to the use of images in Christian worship. So far they have failed to do this.

Differing Understandings of Tradition

Another frequent problem in the dialogue between Orthodox and Protestant dialogue is the disparate understandings of Tradition. Some Protestants assume that for Orthodox Christians Tradition is static, allowing no room for development. This is not the case. Bigham counters that stereotype noting:

Few defenders of the idea of Tradition claim that nothing has changed since the beginning of the Church, and everyone recognizes that all the changes that have taken place have not necessarily been for the good. . . . . A healthy doctrine of Holy Tradition makes a place for changes, and even corruption and restoration, throughout history while still affirming an essential continuity and purity. This concept is otherwise known as indefectibility: the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. This theoretical framework, indefectibility, takes change and evolution into account but denies that there has been or can be a rupture or corruption of Holy Tradition itself (p. 15).

This description of Tradition as dynamic and organic with an element of continuity and fidelity is helpful for both Orthodox and Reformed Christians. It recognizes Orthodoxy being situated in the messiness of human history. It allows for Orthodox Christology existing alongside early heresies like Docetism, Arianism, and Apollinarianism without undermining the notion of theological orthodoxy. The presence of early Christological heresies does not mean the early Church did not believe in Christ’s divinity or in the Trinity. The Church had always held to these beliefs, but was forced by these heresies to articulate her beliefs with precision using “invented” terms like: Trinity, homoousions (consubstantial), and creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). The Reformed tradition’s understanding of the Trinity and Christology imply an acceptance of historical development in early Christianity. A rigid and static approach to Christian tradition would require the jettisoning of important theological terms like: Trinity, hypostasis (person), ousia (being), and homoousios (of the same Essence). No serious Protestant would dare take this position!

Most Protestant and Reformed approaches to this messy historic traditioning process all too often default to ahistoric propositional reductionism. The propositional reductionisms in their confessions fail miserably to deal rigorously with how the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit applied the implications of Christological dogmas. Thus, Protestant ecclesiology and its understanding of history seem void of any consideration of the Holy Spirit’s presence in the early Church and in lives of the church fathers. This tendency can be seen not only in the icon debate, but also with respect to the formation of the biblical canon. The Holy Scripture so revered by Protestants and Reformed Christians is the result of several centuries’ long process in which the Church guided by the Holy Spirit determined which writings can be deemed divinely inspired and authoritative. But when we read Reformed confessional documents we find only ahistoric assertions about the nature and makeup of the Bible. It is as if the Bible miraculously appeared out heaven and landed in the early Church in leather bound version with all 66 books neatly listed with little or no human involvement in the making and shaping of the biblical canon.

The Orthodox affirmation of the historical development of Tradition is based on Christ’s promise that he would send the Holy Spirit who would guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13). The historical development of Tradition is like a tiny young sapling that grows over time into a big mature tree (Matthew 13:31-32). Bigham writes about the growth and development of the role of art in Christian Tradition:

Nevertheless, once adopted, Christian art became such an important support to the proclamation of the Gospel that its conscious rejection had very serious repercussions. With time, the Church invested so much energy in its sacred art that a simple custom became an essential witness to the preaching of the Gospel. Once again, images are not necessary as are baptism, the eucharist, the doctrines of the Trinity or the divinity of Christ, etc. without which we cannot even conceive of Christianity as we know it now. Images became essential, in item and through the blood of the martyrs, because their rejection implied a weakening or even a denial of the Incarnation itself (p. 18).

Bigham here presents Tradition as concentric circles. There is the essential core consisting of the Gospel, the Trinity, and the Eucharist, and an outer layer of practices like the use of incense, holy images, and church buildings. While the outer layer is ‘less’ important, the organic nature of Orthodox Tradition is such that it is practically impossible to separate the various constituent elements. Over time as the liturgical life of the Church flourished and as the early controversies led to a deeper appreciation of the Incarnation the role of images in Christian worship underwent a profound change.

It is important that any Protestant critique of Orthodoxy have an appreciation of Orthodoxy’s complex and nuanced approach to Tradition. Failure to do so will result in the projecting of popular stereotypes on a venerable theological tradition. In short, a Protestant apologist presuming that for Orthodoxy Tradition is static will end up setting up a straw man argument. This is shoddy apologetics and hinders Reformed-Orthodox dialogue.

Icons and Apostolicity

Both those favor icons and those who oppose them argue from apostolic continuity. Those who oppose icons argue that they represent a lost apostolic Tradition, that the early Christians did not use images in worship, and that the introduction of images into Christian worship represent a rupture that require a return to the original apostolic Tradition. Those favoring icons likewise argue from Tradition asserting there was no break in apostolic Tradition, that there exists a fundamental continuity between the early Christians and Orthodox veneration of icons. For theologically conservative Christians, both Protestant and Orthodox, apostolicity is essential to authentic Christianity. This gives them common ground as opposed to modernism. For theological liberals fidelity to apostolic tradition is less crucial than evolutionary adaptation to society. If Reformed theology rests on a flawed historiography then Reformed Christians need to seriously reconsider the implications of icons for apostolicity and authentic Christianity.

Conclusion

The work done by Father Steven Bigham in Chapter 1 will make a valuable contribution to Reformed-Orthodox dialogue. The care and attention which he gives to the issues underlying the recent icon controversy will assist both sides. The Reformed-Orthodox dialogue on icons is far from over and has only just begun. This book is recommended for both Reformed and Orthodox Christians.

Robert Arakaki

Book Review: Saints and Scoundrels by Robin Phillips

October 29, 2012 / Robert Arakaki / 4 Comments

[Revised 7 November 2012]

Order Book from Canon Press

It is a distressing fact that many Protestants nowadays are ignorant or indifferent about church history. This mindset is dangerous on several levels. One, it in effect denies God’s role as the Creator and Sustainer of his creation. Two, it denies that there is a moral dimension to history. Three, it implicitly denies that God is at work redemptively giving human history purpose and meaning. And four, it assumes a spirit/matter dualism that closely resembles the ancient heresy of Gnosticism.

Order Book from Canon Press

It has been a pleasure interacting with Robin Phillips through this blog. I especially appreciate his articles on Protestantism’s vulnerability to the Gnostic heresy. He recently published Saints and Scoundrels: From King Herod to Solzhenitsyn through Canon Press. The book seems to be written to remedy Protestantism’s historical amnesia.

A Young Boy and the Flow of History

The seed for Saints and Scoundrels was planted when as a eleven year old boy, Robin Phillips, visited the Berlin Wall. He wrote in the Preface:

Robin Phillips then

When I was eleven years old, I traveled to West Germany with my family. I will never forget the afternoon my dad drove us to the wall separating West and East Germany. The electric fence dividing the free world from the “evil empire” looked ominous.

As we emerged from the car, we were met by a chill, drizzling rain. On the other side of the fence a lone guard stared gloomily at us. The rest of my family had their picture taken in front of the fence but I was too afraid to venture near. A few minutes later I plucked up the courage and asked my dad to photograph me next to the terrible barrier, or as close to it as I dared approach.

A few years later, he saw the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of communism. This had a profound impact on Robin Phillips. He wrote further in the Preface:

Robin Phillips

In toppling His enemies, God does not work alone but uses the faithfulness of His people throughout the ages to accomplish His purposes. From my perspective as a young boy, it seemed as though the collapse of communism had come out of the blue. Since then, I have had the opportunity to study the men and women of faith who played a part in the accomplishment of God’s plans.

We are all part of the flow of history. Some people think history is boring and irrelevant to faith in Christ, but reading Saints and Scoundrels will make us come away with an appreciation of how the moral choices people make affect the flow of history and how God exercises his sovereignty and redemptive grace in history.

Overview of Saints and Scoundrels

This book is not conventional church history. Major historical figures like Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin are passed over. It is, rather, a collection of biographical sketches arranged in chronological order. As the title implies the book covers both the high and low points of Western history.

Robin Phillips is attempting to present something similar to Hebrews 11, the biblical chapter that recalls the heroes of the faith. The book aims to present a Christian worldview through positive and negative moral examples. It also presents the Christian worldview exemplified through a wide range of vocations: theology, politics, charity, literature, drama, and cross-cultural missions. In his Preface Phillips states: “What is just as important as defeating or converting God’s enemies is the positive work of building up the culture of Christendom (p. 13).” To further reinforce the book’s pedagogical function at the end of each chapter is a list of discussion questions and a personal challenge question. The book assumes that one already has a grasp of basic Christian doctrine and values.

My Evaluation

Robin Phillips’ prose is clear and accessible to a general audience, but I was confused at times about whom his intended audience was. The occasional bolded terms for the glossary seem to be aimed a high schoolers or first year college students. But there are parts where Phillips presents complex ideas like cultural Marxism which is more appropriate to college students.

I wished Robin Phillips had provided an introduction and an epilogue to provide an overarching thematic unity for the book. George Grant’s “Introduction” seems to me more of a foreword. It would have been good if Phillips took some time to discuss the method behind his selections. There is an implicit agenda conducted through his selections. Nearly half of the chapters (eight out of twenty) deal with characters from England and another two from Scotland. This is not necessarily a flaw or a weakness but it does need to be addressed openly in either the introduction or epilogue. A parent or instructor perusing the book needs to know these things at the outset.

The selections seem to be guided by a concern for the cultivation of a Christian worldview. The selections are at times surprising and illuminating. As a product of modern American culture I especially benefitted from the chapters on Alfred the Great, King John, William of Orange, and J.S. Bach. I was pleasantly surprised to find the inclusion of the Frankfurt School of critical theory. As a product of modern liberal education I am well acquainted with this school of thought. This is an influential school of thought that young Christians need to be prepared to deal with. It seems to this reviewer that in selecting extremes like Jean Jacques Rousseau and Antonio Gramsci, Phillips quietly passed over moderate liberals like Thomas Jefferson and John Locke. This gives the selections an antinomic black versus white quality that can give an unbalanced view of history.

Theologically, the book assumes an irenic “mere Christian” stance. While Robin Phillips often took an overtly didactic tone in his biographical sketches, theological issues were handled with a light touch. One example of the book’s didactic tone can be found in the introduction to the life of George MacDonald: “One important lesson we learn from MacDonald is that beauty was never meant to be an end in itself, but something that points us beyond the universe to God and His goodness” (p. 246). Phillips describes Dietrich Bonhoeffer as a “highly complex thinker” and “heterodox” (p. 263). This is very mild language that fails to alert the young reader to the liberal elements in Bonhoeffer’s theology that has upset conservative Protestants. See Michael Hoffman’s review on Amazon.

From an ecumenical standpoint the book is biased towards Protestantism but is balanced by the inclusion other Christian traditions, e.g., Eastern Orthodox Christians like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. It would have been good if someone from the Roman Catholic tradition were included in Saints and Scoundrels. The late Pope John Paul II, who helped bring about the downfall of Communism, could have served as a complement to the Orthodox Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Father Damien De Veuster is an example of a life of sacrificial service to those rejected by society. In the 1800s the Hawaiian kingdom was predominantly Protestant (Calvinist Congregationalist), but it was a Roman Catholic missionary priest from Belgium who is remembered more than a century later for his ministry of compassion to the Hawaiians under medical quarantine due to Hansen’s disease. He known today as Saint Damien of Molokai, a “martyr of charity.”

As an Orthodox Christian I was especially interested in what Robin Phillips had to say about Irenaeus of Lyons and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. He did a good job describing how Irenaeus defended the Christian Faith against the Gnostic heresy. He drew attention to the fact that Christian truth is public truth safeguarded by means of apostolic succession. But more attention could have been given to the fact that Irenaeus stressed the visibility and universality of Christian truth — that no matter where one went throughout the Roman Empire one would hear the same confession of faith. Irenaeus’ emphasis on visible church unity is a necessary corrective to the widespread belief among Protestants that the true church is the invisible church and that the plurality of doctrines among Protestant denominations is tolerable.

Orthodox Eucharist

Robin Phillips noted that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was deeply influenced by the rhythms and rituals of Orthodox worship (p. 318). But such a cursory description does a disservice to most Western readers who are unaware of the rich and profound nature of the Orthodox Liturgy. Many first time visitors have commented on the deep spirituality of Orthodox worship. There is a well known story how the pagan ruler Vladimir of the Kievan Rus sent envoys to investigate the religion of the neighboring countries. Of the Orthodox worship at Constantinople the envoys reported: “We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth, nor such beauty, and we know not how to tell of it.” Unless the reader has a glimmer of the deep spirituality of the Orthodox Liturgy, they will not be able to understand what religion means for an Orthodox Christian like Solzhenitsyn.

With respect to the discussion questions I believe that Robin Phillips ought to have raised the question about the US now having the largest prison population and the highest prison population rate in the world. If the United States has now become the new gulag archipelago what does it say about the moral health of our country and about the moral influence of Christianity?

The Glossary seems to be a vocabulary builder for high schoolers. The inclusion of basic vocabulary items like “deft,” “ecclesiastical,” “ecumenical,” and “egalitarian” struck me as unnecessary as they can be easily looked up with a pocket dictionary or Googled by those with wifi connections. Also, there were some missed opportunities. For example, Phillips did not include important terms like: “heterodox,” “materialism,” “modernism,” “romanticism,” and “secularism.” It is important that young Christians have a good understanding of these ideas when they enter into the intellectual marketplace of academia.

The “Bibliography and Sources” section will be useful for those who wish to do further reading. The entries are eclectic ranging from ancient primary sources like Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities and the Jewish War, nineteenth century works like Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, to modern scholarly works by major publishing houses like Cambridge University Press. Also included are URLs to blog postings written by Phillips and others. However, this section is not comprehensive. A quick glance showed some major omissions, e.g., Robert M. Grant’s Irenaeus of Lyons (1997) and Eric Metaxas’ Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (2011). Despite these limitations the entries are suitable for the intended audience.

Recommendation

A widespread problem among many Christians today is the ignorance of church history and their Christian cultural heritage. Saints and Scoundrels is recommended for Christians who wish to learn about the Western Christian heritage and those who want to strengthen their Christian worldview. This book works best as: (1) a supplementary reading for a Christian secondary school or (2) Christian parents who want to acquaint their teenage children with a Christian approach to history, culture, and morality.

Robert Arakaki

Additional Links

Category: Book Review (Page 3 of 6)

Early Jewish Attitudes Toward Images

Clearing the Way for Reformed-Orthodox Dialogue on Icons

Book Review: Saints and Scoundrels by Robin Phillips

[Revised 7 November 2012]

Order Saints and Scoundrels from Canon Press

Posting: Response to Robin Phillips — “Are Calvinists Among the Gnostics?”

Posting: Response to Robing Phillips “Questions About St. Irenaeus and Apostolic Succession.”

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives