imagery in worship, pt. duh

'duh' refers to the moment the light bulb comes on inside my head. if you've had a part in flipping the switch, thanks! you may remember (if your memory is better than most) one of my recent post (not recent on a calendar, but recent in my blogging history) regarding the use of imagery in worship, which, prompted by packer, posed questions about the merit of using imagery in worship. after some time of ruminating in my head, i brought the subject to our worship team for a light-hearted debate. here are some of the comments that helped form an answer in my mind:

- don't defame the Name
the first is the same line of thinking i posted before:

in processing what packer is saying, here's my line of questioning. if painting the picture of God in human form, say, a stained-glass image of Jesus on a cross, limits our concept of God to a man; if visually representing God as a fortress, a strong tower, a warrior, does it stand to reason that the concept applies to other art forms as well? music, for instance? if we sing songs that say the Lord is a bulwark never failing, a mighty fortress, the air i breath, my daily bread; if i speak of Jesus as our whipping boy, our ram of sacrifice, am i placing limits on His glory?

the idea from packer, as i understand it, is that if an image i present causes someone to think of God in any certain way, that certain way is certainly short of His infinite glory, and thus, i've had a hand in defaming God. i'm leaning toward the idea that, since all things are a part of His infinite glory, however short of His infinite glory they may fall, He must have given us images as symbols of who He is; for surely we cannot comprehend the fullness of His glory, but He has allowed us symbols that we can understand to partially represent His glory, much the same way as Jesus used parables to illustrate in terms that are more likely to be grasped.

- what's worship?
the second counters the idea that worship occurs only during a church service. when we expand our definition of worship to anything we do that attributes worth to its object, worship becomes much less about what we do at church, and much more about the way we live our lives. a life of worship includes songs, sure, for there is constantly a new song on my heart; but it also includes the other spiritual disciplines: study, prayer, fasting, not as an end unto themselves, but toward the goal of community with our Creator. to reposition ourselves (or be repositioned, rather) toward His will, His grace and blessing.

if imagery is wrong in a worship service, then surely it is wrong anywhere. mankind, being made in the image of God, had better wear more strategic clothing to cover our self-contained imagery. anything that would point to God would have to be removed.

- American Idol
lastly and probably most compelling, was brough to light by a seminary student (gotta love them!), concerning the meaning of the Hebrew word "idol" in the second commandment, from which stems packer's views on the subject. here, our beloved student of the Word says, the term idol refers to graven images of pagan gods, and not so much images of deity. granted, we want to use images of deity with the utmost forethought so Christ does not become iconic or mundane, but so far as the second commandment is concerned, neither should churches rip out stained glass windows containing artists' renditions of God in the flesh.

my conclusion, so far as it applies to the way we do things at church, has become
1) that i like packer, and understand his intent in this chapter (very noble!), but i don't necessarily endorse this one point, that imagery should have no part in worship,
2) that we use images to illustrate Him Whom we worship, but
3) that we tread lightly.