Dar es Salaam -- Tanga -- Nairobi

(click photo to enlarge)

We're off to a one-week roadtrip tomorrow morning. The plan is to visit a few Youth Centers both in Tanzania and Kenya, so this is a worktrip. I'm a hired Nanny.

We leave Dar es Salaam at the break of dawn and drive north to the city of Tanga, just at the Kenyan border. There we'll spend to days and meet with some friends. On Saturday we'll continue north-west and make a pit-stop in the city of Moshi near Arusha, and continue across the border up to Nairobi on Sunday. Two days in Nairobi and then a two-day drive back to Dar with one pit-stop in Moshi.

No posting until next week, that is. But then my brother's in-laws arrive from Finland for a two-week holiday, so it'll be a happy reunion and I'll post some cool photos.

Closed Because It's Not Open

A few days ago I posted a note "Overheard in Africa". Of course it should've been titled "Overread in Africa", because it included two incredible notes I have seen here in Tanzania.

Anyway, in the aftermath of that post I dared my (ex-)collegue Pia from Länsi-Auto Areena -- since 2009 renamed as Barona Areena -- to tape a note with

"The Arena is closed at the moment because it is not open"

on the entrance door.


Lo and behold, I just received an email supported by empirical evidence that proves I should be more careful about what I wish for -- or dare people to do.

Pornography -- Nectarines or Stealing?

Inspired by my friend Jussi Ruokomäki's column on pornography, I am here republishing an article I wrote many years ago. It was published in a Christian forum and thus it includes Scriptural language that some non-Christians are perhaps unaccustomed to. But the central theme is universal, creed or no creed.

Pornography -- Nectarines or Stealing?

Someone once said, “God created time but man is the author of stress.” The same seems to apply to the distinction of sexual desire and lust.

Sexual desire, a beautiful and powerful gift from God, is one reason why lovers are joined and families established. Our perversion of it, lust, is one reason why lovers are separated and families destroyed.


Since you began reading this article it is probable that you either (a) belong to the vast majority of modern-day people who are infected with an attraction towards sex-words, or (b) you are battling the deceit of pornography yourself, or (c) know someone who is, or (d) any combination of the aforementioned.

It must be admitted at once that times today are highly unfavourable for those fighting sexual temptation.

Outdoors, “innocent” lingerie advertisements are on every street-corner, and indoors (after a few blocks’ walk), thanks to high-speed internet connections, any genre of pornography imaginable is just a few mouse clicks away.

Circumstances have also changed as regards the general outlook towards pornography. If you dare protest and challenge the status quo, you are often met with the murmur, like a monotonous broken record, of the beauty and legitimacy of “sex” and “art” and “freedom”.

One Christian author who was accused of harbouring “some Puritan prejudice against sex as something shameful” denied the charge. He wrote, “If I object to boys stealing my nectarines, must I be supposed to disapprove of nectarines in general? Or even of boys in general? It might, you know, be stealing that I disapprove of.”1

Nectarines, like sex and art and freedom, are all godly concepts. But that is obviously not the issue here.

The Effects of Pornography

Counsellors around the world speak in unison when they report the number of clients suffering from porn-addiction growing at an alarming speed. That is the first thing pornography does: it enslaves.

The symptoms of addiction are well known. With every gratification the satisfaction diminishes but the crave increases. The cycle leads to shame, helplessness, isolation, and eventually to despair.

The second thing pornography does is it distorts reality. By surgical and computer enhancement women are turned into something they are not, and by advertisement it is made sure that men develop a taste for the distortion. The sex industry – often also called, tragicomically, “adult entertainment” – is built on deception.2

The third thing pornography does is it destroys a woman's (often a wife's) self-esteem. This is not surprising considering the distorted model of a woman’s figure (and sexual appetite) that the pornography industry has conjured. But this only partly explains the wife’s anguish.

The other part is what one author calls “an affair of the mind.”3 The impact of pornography is similar to that of infidelity – and, as we will read later, according to Scripture, infidelity is its rightful definition. (And singles sometimes believe the fallacy that lust is left at the altar. It is not.)

Fourthly, pornography devalues sex. This is how a former porn-addict sees it: “Pornography provides a one-sided relationship [that consumes the] God-given energy that’s planted in us to move us towards … our spouse. Sexual release through pornography separates us from our spouse.”4

Relationships require more time, more energy, more commitment, more vulnerability, more trust.

Fifthly, pornography is expensive. According to statistics, pornography purchased by Christian men is most often destroyed within 24 hours after it has been viewed.5 (But in addition to great contentment, Christian men bring great fear into the heart of the pornography industry: they know that by pulling out our money we could severely cripple it.)

The list of pornography’s perils is endless. Pornography kills careers; pornography feeds organised crime; pornography destroys women in the sex industry; pornography may lead to other forms of sexual immorality; pornography addiction can be passed (fathers awake!) to the next generation.

Most importantly, pornography grieves the heart of God -- and kills a testimony. This we need to examine more closely.

A Biblical Perspective

I once read somewhere that the definition of “man” is “to be tempted”. We can cautiously laugh at this. It is important to understand that temptation is not sin.

Men are visual beings. Samson’s first recorded words in Scripture are, “I saw a woman … [and] she look[ed] good to me” (Judg 14:2-3). This may have been legitimate admiration of beauty. But when later we read that Samson went to Gaza and “saw a harlot there, and went in to her” (Judg 16:1.2) we know that “saw” meant “was tempted” and “went in” meant “lusted and fell”.

As regards pornography, sin begins the moment we wilfully decide to give in to temptation. We may be consoled by the fact that Samson, who “lusted and fell” several times, was eventually greatly used by God. Even David, who had a man murdered to cover up his sexual sin (Sam 11:22-24), was “a man after God’s own heart”.6

One man who – since the Apostles – has influenced Christianity more than any other, remembers his prayer of younger years: “Lord, give me chastity and continence, but not yet.”7

As we can see, “no temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man” (1 Cor 10:13a).

But let's not belittle Scripture’s warnings. Some of the strongest passages deal with sexual immorality. Here is one: “But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when the lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when the sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.” (Jam 1:14-16.)

“Death?” I hear someone ask incredulously. On the question of whether or not salvation can be lost, we Christians are of different opinions. But as regards the particular sin being discussed, many deaths have been mentioned already. The death of freedom, the death of reality, the death of wives’ self-esteem, of marriages, of families, the death of finances, the death of careers, the death of individuals’ personhoods, the (ever increasing) death of Christian testimonies.

When we study this list it is perhaps not difficult to understand how pornography grieves the heart of God.

The most loving words in history were uttered by Jesus. But he could be equally frightening: “Whoever looks at a woman lustfully has committed adultery with her in his heart” ( Mt 5:28). We now understand the connection between pornography and infidelity.

But there is never justified reason for discouragement. There is forgiveness out there; and there is hope of victory. Before considering practical steps we need to acknowledge that temptation won’t go away. Our nature is corrupt and Satan won’t give up. After tempting Jesus, Satan left only to return at “an opportune time” (Lk 4:13).

Battling pornography – and battling sin in general – involves losses. Battles may be lost, but with Jesus the war campaign as a whole is glorious in victory. Though apart from God’s grace our efforts are futile, God’s will is that, by our will, we may participate in the campaign.

Virtue – say, fortitude against sexual sin – is not developed instantly. Virtue develops habitually. After each fall, get up, repent, and try again. And again. And again. Forever. Never give up.

Breaking the Cycle

Scripture is full of practical advice on how to decrease the number of falls. Job made “a covenant with [his] eyes never to look lustfully at a woman” (Job 31:1.2). If you sense that lust is near, look away. With pornography, lust is the starting point, so do not look at all.

Timothy was told to “flee from youthful lusts, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart” (Tim 2:22).This is a double-advice: it tells us what not to do and what to do instead.

We may ask, “What glory is there in fleeing?” Fleeing is standing firm. In fact, fleeing is often the most difficult – and thus most respectable – response to temptation. One priest put it this say: “Don't be such a coward as to be brave!”

If your stumbling block is late night television and your virtue (habit) of self-control is not strong enough, get rid of your television. Most likely a great source of distress is the internet. If you truly “need” it, if it is vital for your work and correspondence, have a powerful filter installed (by someone else).

We are bombarded from every direction, but there is much that we can do to defend ourselves. A key element is to understand what pattern of temptation-and-fall we go through, and then to take the necessary precautions.

“If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell” (Mt 5:29). “God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it” (1 Cor 10:13).

Counter-offensive is equally powerful. The truth is that we are not immune to outside influence. But we can decide what we are influenced by.

Our mind, which is the origin of all actions, continuously entertains a number of thoughts. When it is full of thoughts, say, G, O, and D, thoughts S, I, and N will find it difficult to enter.

Paul told Timothy, “Pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.” This is exactly the point Paul is talking about when he, in his (confident and joyful) letter to the Philippians, concludes, “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is right, whatever is good, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things” (Philip. 4:8).

Bringing sin into the “light” is also vital for healing. Secrecy empowers sin. The “light” is God, yes, but it must also include Christian friends and family; perhaps even a counsellor. Knowing that one is not alone is consoling as well.8 Shame is a small price for freedom.


The anguish people who battle against porn-addition cause their loved-ones is great. But the anguish of the addict is immense. Family members and friends may want to remember that they can offer much-needed support by love and forgiveness.

Pornography users are both victims and culprits. Because they are victims they need support and love. Because they are culprits they need forgiveness. Forgiving is not condoning.

I hope that reading so far has fuelled the reader’s urge to fight relentlessly against pornography – firstly, in their own life, and secondly, everywhere else.


References
1. C. S. Lewis, We Have No ‘Right to Happiness’, paragraph 21. Lewis was, in fact, referring to adultery. He felt that “[e]very unkindness and breach of faith seems to be condoned provided that the object aimed at is ‘four bare legs in a bed’. It is like having a morality in which stealing fruit is considered wrong – unless you steal nectarines.”
2. Pornography is also often called “adult entertainment”. The actual etymology of the word ‘pornography’ is perhaps more revealing. Pornos, a Greek word, means “a prostitute and the sexual activity with such a person”, and graphe, also Greek, means “writing” and includes images. Another tragicomic new word is ‘gentleman’s club’. According to my Webster’s Encyclopaedic Unabridged Dictionary, a ‘gentleman’ is a “civilized, educated, sensitive, and well-mannered man.” Replacing strip joints with gentleman’s clubs is using an oxymoron.
3. Laurie Hall, An Affair of the Mind.
4. Henry J. Rogers, The Silent War, book 13, chapter 2, paragraph 3.
5. Henry J. Rogers, The Silent War, book 13, chapter 1, paragraph 17.
6. It is a horror to know that David nevertheless paid for his sin with the death of his child (2 Samuel 12:14).
7. Augustine, Confessions, book 8, chapter 7, paragraph 2. Augustine continues, “For I was afraid that you would answer my prayer at once and cure me from the disease of lust, which I wanted satisfied, not quelled.” Confessions is one of the first Christian spiritual autobiographies, and Augustine’s moment of conversion is one of the most well-known.
8. Actually, “not alone” is an understatement, as pornography addiction is already an epidemic.

Overheard in Africa

Everyone knows that the English language, in the hands of Chinese, is eternally flexible and entertaining. But English à la Tanzanians comes very close. Here's two examples that I've seen. There are many more.

A note at the airport of Zanzibar:

Our air station is under rehabilitation exercizes. We apologize for inconvenienting you.
--Management

A note on a bank door:

The bank is closed at the moment because it is not open.
--Manager

School Massacre Prayer

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule.
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.
If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a federal matter now.
Our hair can be purple or orange or green,
That's no offense, it's the freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise,
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the State.
We're allowed to cuss & dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues & cheeks.
They've outlawed guns; but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the unwed daddy, our Senior King.
It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong.
We can get our condoms, & birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires & totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No Word of God must reach this crowd.
It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot, My soul please take.

[Written by a student from Columbine High]

Linda and Henrik: Engaged!

My lovely friends Linda and Henrik ("Henkka") have got engaged. Our circle of friends rejoice! I've known Henkka for a millenium, Linda for a decade or so, and Henkka and Linda have dated for a century. Apparently the idea is to have "a small wedding on a beach somewhere". I wonder if they're trip to Australia and the Far East a few years ago influenced this decision. The photo above is from Finland and the photo below (I think) is from Australia.

Holy Communion---Wine or Juice?

It is a well known (and laudatory) fact that Christ's first miracle was turning water into wine. It also a well known (and lamentable) fact that throughout history some Christians have been trying to un-do this miracle by turning wine back into water.

One expression of this “undoing the miracle” is the rejection -- against the 2000 year Christian tradition -- of using wine for the commemoration of the Last Supper which we call the Holy Communion, the Lord's Supper, or the Eucharist.

(The greatest of Christian heresies, Islam, went even further: it forbid wine altogether. I am using the word “heresy” in the technical sense: Mohammed, in his conversion from heathenism to Islam, learned his knowledge of “Christianity” from heretical monks and incorporated Jewish elements into his faith.)

The driving force behind an attempt to “undo Christ's miracle” is, unsurprisingly, not altogether Christ-ian. In some instances it echoes an anti-Christian prejudice. Although Scripture speaks univocally against misuses of wine, it is as unanimous in its approval of wine itself. Christ himself, our Lord and God incarnate, both made and drank wine; Paul adviced Timothy to mix wine with his drinking water to help him recover from some stomach problems; and so on.

I hope there's not too many unfriendly critics who think that I and other Christians who object to using juice instead of wine are “upset just because they can't have alcohol”.

The “paradox of puritanism” is that by denying something that is actually justified, the negative consquences outweigh the positive.

One negative consequence of adopting juice instead of wine is -- and this is pretty hard to explain but I'll try -- the making of the Holy Communion even less meaningful and profound than it already is in some churches.

It sends the message: We can change our customs, especially our customs that deal with bodily functions and outward signs, however we want to -- because after all, the Christian life is “spiritual”, not material. The Holy Communion is “only spiritual”, baptism is “only spiritual”, and so on.

This is not Christian at all. According to Christianity, a man has -- no, he is -- a soul and a body. You can distinguish between them conceptually, but in reality they are inseparable, man is a composite being, not a dualistic being. The soul is not the “good” part and the body the “bad” part, as Hinduism, Buddhism and early Christian heresies (Gnosticism and Manicheanism) teach. Man was made “good”, body and soul.

The “flesh” (as opposite of “spirit”) has never in authentic Christian understanding referred to the body -- “flesh” refers to fallen man in his totality, body and soul, insofar as he is opposed to God.

Similarly, the “world” (as opposite to “the kingdom of God”) has never in authentic Christian understanding referred to the creation -- “world” refers to the structures in creation and our societies insofar as they are against the will of God.

Of course, if a church does the other extreme -- replaces wine not with juice but with vodka -- the results would be as catastrophic. But in a different way: instead of Muslim puritanism we'd have alcoholism to deal with. Forced absolutism and alcoholism both spring from a certain “abuse” of alcohol.

So, as with everything, better just to follow Christ and avoid both extremes.

Thankful For Housework

I used to gripe about the job of doing household chores
But thanks to television news I don't gripe anymore

In every land and country there are people in despair
So now all of my household chores I do with loving care

The dishes and the pots and pans I do on aching feet
I gladly do because it means we have enough to eat

The sheets I change the beds I make no longer do I dread
Because of this it means that we sleep in a nice warm bed

Vacuuming and dusting scrubbing dirty floors and walls
Means there's a roof above my head so I don't mind at all

And then there's dirty laundry endless baskets to attack
But that just means my family has enough clothes on their back

That's why I'm thankful for housework, I'm blessed abunduntly
Compared to others in the world I see on my TV

Home Alone

My host family left to Uganda today. They will return on Sunday. That means that "baba mkubwa" (big daddy) has the house to himself and can party all he wants! Instead of getting up at seven and studying till five in the evening, I can get up at seven and study for as long as I want - even to nine in the evening if I want to. Later, I might treat myself with a glass of whisky and a game of darts with my friend Jani (on the left).

ECLD goes Wikipedia

An update on our "Virtuous Leadership" project:

The Wikipedia articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Havard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuous_Leadership

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Center_for_Leadership_Development

have been created.

Several translations (e.g. French, Finnish) are already complete, but we intend to wait before publishing them. We need to work further on the English files first.

What is Worship?

I thought that a Sunday would be a proper day to ask a basic question that pertains to all Christians, whether layman or theologian. The question is:

What is worship?

As I read volume two, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom, of Jaroslav Pelikan's five-part history of the development of Christian doctrine, there were two questions that loomed large in my mind. The other one which I won't discuss here was “What is the point of dogma?” Both this and “What is worship?” are theological questions that seem simple. Almost too simple to entertain seriously, but when further reflected on, they prove to be absolutely fundamental for every Christian. I was hoping to find, if not proper answers to them, at least a satisfactory articulation of the questions themselves.

Indeed, what is worship? What exactly do we mean when we say we “worship” God?

We Christians believe that worship is the proper response of creature towards Creator. We believe that worship is the primary calling of man in relation to God. One could say that love is this primary calling. Yes, worship and love may be treated as one. Both overlap each other, and both are prerequisites for happiness in the truest sense (“human flourishing”). And happiness includes (but is not limited to) eternal happiness.

We also believe that the object of worship must be the “true God”, not our construction of him, otherwise we worship and idol (in other words we are “idolizers”). Also, not only the object of worship but worship itself must be “true” or “right”, otherwise it is imperfect at best and meaningless at worst (making us unjust towards our Creator to whom, and only to whom, true worship is due).

Now, what constitutes worship? Here’s a sub-question: how does worship towards God differ from a proper disposition towards other things, like people?

Some distinctions

Catholics make a distinction between “worship” and “veneration”. The first, when applied to God is proper, and when applied to people (mainly to saints, “our forefathers in faith”) is not only improper but also a mortal sin. The second, when applied to saints is proper, and when applied to God is either proper or, when not accompanied by worship, meaningless.

Thus far the distinction, however, is only of terminology. Where lies the “real” difference, the difference in terms of “substance”, the difference that counts, the difference that can be experienced and observed in reality? What, exactly, is reserved for God only that is constituent of worship and not of veneration? In other words, what is the heart of worship?

Is the difference between worship and veneration a difference of type or a difference of quality? To use an analogy, is veneration a mild electric current which, as it grows stronger, approaches worship (difference of “quality”), or is veneration a mild electric current and worship something quite different, like fire (difference of “type”)?

If the difference is that of quality, “proper worship” would be a “proper order of worship” – God merits our highest worship, and lesser things merit lower worship. In traditional theology, such an “order of loves” (ordo amoris) is very common. But if the difference is that of type, we need to clarify more precisely what these two types – worship and veneration – are. I will not discuss the type option here.

An “order” of loves and worship

What, then, if the difference is that of quality?

We have treated worship and love as nearly synonymous. What follows is an order of love. Loving objects in the proper order is the (or a) key of right worship.

Is this backed by Scripture? It would seem so. The disciples asked Jesus of the “proper order of commandments”. “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:29-31.)

Implicit in Jesus’ answer is an order of loves: the most important thing is to love God, and secondly, you must love your neighbor as yourself. The right order is the “measure” and difference of proper worship and veneration: if the order is wrong, worship and veneration become corrupted in some sense.

We must remember that the type of love we are here discussing is charity or agape, divine self-sacrificing love, the word John used when he said that “God is love [agape]”. When we love (agape) our neighbor, we love them through God (who is the source of love) and we love God through them (who are images of God) provided the order of our loves is proper. In this way these two commandments form one “great commandment”. They are two sides of the same coin.

Faithfulness and sacrifice

So, we’ve established an order of things. What else can be said? By connecting love to worship and by establishing an order of love/worship we’ve found part of the answer to our question. But, the core of the question still remains: What, exactly, is love (or worship)?

Jesus provides another key when he says that: “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15) and: “The person who has my commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me” (John 14:21). This is helpful. Love (or worship) is doing the will of God. (Here I am not going to ask if obeying, “works”, is merely the fruit of love, “faith”. I take it that they are organically connected.)

Continuing with the quality paradigm, we can add sacrifice as one constituent of love/worship. It is remembered that agape is self-sacrificial. Now, what is sacrifice? This is a difficult question, and I will not attempt an answer here. But one thing can be confidently stated. Our presuppositions imply that sacrifice belongs to the quality category (not to “type”), because sacrifice is a constituent of love/worship.

From this it follows that, if the “order” is right, sacrifice can be directed and offered both to the Creator and to the creature. This makes sense: humans often “make sacrifices” for each other, especially for spouses and children, and we commend them for that.

Summa summarum

We left many important questions unanswered. But, if the difference between worship and veneration is that of quality, at least we’ve established a few things.

We know that worship, veneration, and love are all intimately connected. Their legitimacy or illegitimacy depends on the proper order of their objects. Love/worship of God implies doing God’s will. Lastly, love/worship is sacrifice (whatever that is).

So, when we say that we “worship God”, if our words are backed by our whole being, we are saying at least the following: that we love him, that we love him above all else, that we love our neighbors as ourselves, that we live by his will, and that our love is sacrificial.

We understand that we haven’t said what “sacrifice” is, and we understand that loving God requires knowing him (we cannot love that what we don’t know – worship/love requires the right object).

Any extra light from Pelikan?

Now, I must say that The Spirit of Eastern Christendom offered no new insights to the question of worship. Well, it didn’t have to as it was a book on the development of dogma, not a book on basic theological questions. The author must have presumed that the readers know the answers to elementary theological questions, like what is worship. I didn’t. I don’t.

In the chapter on icons, “Images of the Invisible”, Pelikan uses “worship” and “veneration” interchangeably (see e.g. pp. 96-99, 106). That is very odd. Why would he do that? I doubt that a theologian of his caliber would not distinguish between them in his private thinking, so it must be presumed that he is trying to faithfully follow the belief of his sources as it chronologically developed.

For early on in the chapter we have the only (yet still minimalist) definition of worship: it is “paying honor” (p. 103). The definition, though welcome, remains a mere verbal one and begs the question: What, then, is “paying honor”? But later, a need for clarification and distinction becomes clearer. Eastern theologians made it clear that “it was one thing to pay proper respect [τιμή] to the saints, quite another to address worship [προσκύνησις] to them, and yet another to portray them in worshipful images” (p. 112). But this distinction too, though welcomed, remains one of mere terminology.

Attempted articulation

Eventually the question that bothers me is raised in a straightforward manner. The italics are mine.

The orthodox “were obliged to set forth a theory of worship that would protect the uniqueness of the worship of the true God and yet permit other acts of reverence”. When iconoclasts argued that “there is only one kind of worship, not many kinds,” the orthodox replied that “this is true of the worship of adoration [λατρευτική]” but that the worship of mortals “was nevertheless permissible by analogy and derivation from the single worship of God”. There was a “worship of adoration, which we pay only to the God who is by nature adorable”, but there was also a worship paid to “the friends and worshipers of God” for his (God’s) sake, because of “their derivative divine nature; this included both angels and saints”. “Adoration pertained only to God, but either by love or by reverence or by law one was also bound to other to whom one paid worshipful respect. This distinction was grounded in biblical evidence about worship paid to creatures by men whose adoration of the one true God was beyond reproach.” (p. 126.)

Yet the exact difference between “worshipful adoration of God” and “worshipful respect of saints” remains unclear. All we can take away from these clarifications is that “worshipful adoration” of God means worshiping him for his own sake; whereas “worshipful respect” of saints means worshiping not for their own sake but for God’s sake.

In light of the type/quality distinctions above, these really amount to neither. They’re not, strictly speaking, different types of worship, nor are they worship of different quality. Rather, there’s a difference in one’s basic attitude and understanding of why one worships. Does one worship the object for its own sake or for the sake of something beyond the object?

Question left unanswered

If this is really what we are looking at, it is no wonder that the “accusation of idolatry and the response to it struck at a deep and sensitive point in Christian belief” (p. 127).

Cyril of Alexandria rejected any “adoration or worship of them [images of saints]” (p. 284) but from this we cannot make out whether Cyril took adoration and worship to mean different things or the same thing (in either case, he rejected it). And since no explanation has been offered as to how the different kinds of worships differ concretely (mere use of different words does not count), even these potentially helpful passages shed no new light on the problem:

“The worship paid to them [images] was an act of ‘honor [τιμή],’ not one of ‘adoration [λατρεια]’” (p. 291). “[W]hile the worship paid to the icons was one of honor rather than of adoration, the worship paid to the Eucharist was one of adoration rather than merely of honor, because the presence in the Eucharist was that of the Lord himself” (p. 291).