« Two Sons | Main | Beyond Secular Reason »

September 27, 2005
An Icon and an Idol

Yesterday the student newspaper at PLNU, The Point, published a little essay that I wrote in response to a request from a student. The essay compares two statues on campus, including the new statue in the business building.

Behind the essay lies the work of John Milbank in Theology and Social Theory. In his "post-modern critical Augustinianism" (see ericisrad.com, direct link here) Milbank takes Augustine's two cities and reinterprets the contemporary world in light of an "ontology of violence" that lies behind capitalism and certain strands of post-modern thought, and Augustine's trinitarian 'ontology of peace'. Yet Milbank's thought is so esoteric and difficult that it is hard to wade through. Yet his categories are important, I believe, to understanding forces that would distort the faith given to the saints. The statues provide a concrete display of two fundamentally different ontologies that Milbank also discusses.

My whole argument depends on the relationship of the statue in the business building to a pagan Greek temple. If one wants to check out these architectural form, one can go to http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Arts/GreekTemple.htm to see the architectural form of the greek temples, compared to the idol of the bull and bear in the business building here.

It is interesting to note that this struggle, seen here on the PLNU campus, parallels very closely the struggle that Tracey Rowland has discussed in the distinction between two types of catholicism within Roman Catholicism today: "Whig catholicism" and "Augustinian catholicism". Broader perspectives throughout the church catholic help us see more clearly what is at stake for us.

Two Statues: An Icon and An Idol
By John W. Wright
Professor, School of Theology and Christian Ministry

Colleges and universities within the Church of the Nazarene are not known for their realistic statues. Shaped by Puritan fears, such statues have historically smacked of “popery”, and thus been assiduously avoided. It is of interest, therefore, that campus now presents two statues: the statue of Jesus calling Peter in between the Ryan Library and the Nicholson Commons and the new statue of the bull and the bear within the entryway of the Fermanian School of Business.

Of course, public statues are not merely aesthetic works for personal enjoyment. As Roland Barthes reminded us in his book Mythologies, such works appear as natural within our environment, and thus obscure the particular histories and interests embedded within them that they seek to naturalize. It is thus of more interest to note the vast differences between these two statues, and to ask what these difference suggest about PLNU.

The statue of Jesus calling Peter stands to the side of pedestrian thoroughfares. A concrete sidewalk invites those passing by to leave voluntarily their paths of business for repose around the feet of Jesus. No benches are present, but a wall behind Jesus closes off the statue from the open space behind it. Jesus stands on ground level, one arm on Peter’s shoulder; one stretched out in invitation to embrace those around Him. Peter, shoulders slightly hunched and bent at the waist from his toil, still has both hands on his fishing nets. He looks plaintively into the compassionate face of Jesus. Jesus beckons Peter -- and the onlooker -- from the struggles of labor into His open arms.

In contrast, the statue of the bull and bear stands high on a pedestal within the main entryway into the Fermanian School of Business. Outside columns and an overhang direct one into the building. The glass doorways are smoky, slightly obscuring the view into the entry. The statue blocks direct access into the center of the building; one is forced to walk around it to enter the building completely. Benches allow a passerby to sit and gaze up at the statue. Restrooms and a custodial closet fill the other wall. Coming out of these rooms, one must gaze at the statue unless one intentionally looks away. A recessed ceiling with indirect lighting centers the statue from above; colored tiles provide the same focus from below. The statue dominates the room, forcing one to gaze upward onto it. The whole architecture of the entryway closely resembles an ancient Greek temple, with its god at the center of the naos, the temple’s inner court.

The statue itself has a bull and a bear, forces of nature, entwined in battle. The bear’s snarl reveals his teeth looking upward to consume the bull; the bull raises his hooves in a charge, neck tilted to ready its horns in defense or attack of the bear. In the midst of the struggle between these irrational forces, one finds a stock market ticker ribbon with stock prices encoded upon it. Out of the conflict between the bull and the bear, wealth emerges.

The two statues thus present two radically different ontologies as ‘natural’: an icon of peace where God calls humans voluntarily from the toils of life to God’s own Self through Christ; an idol of conflict in which human beings involuntarily participate in the blind conflict of nature in order to produce wealth. One wonders which statue more deeply presents the fundamental convictions of the university.

Posted by johnwright at September 27, 2005 7:46 AM


Comments

Great article John.

Posted by: Charlie Pardue at September 27, 2005 12:19 PM

Agreed. It's worthy of a John Wright Point Weekly blurb if I ever saw one. On, controversy!

Posted by: Jon Manning at September 27, 2005 8:21 PM

Second.

Posted by: Scott Savage at September 28, 2005 4:13 AM

i presented your article in our school and they liked it..i'm a philosophy major from the Philippines..thank you..and it's really great.

Posted by: eman yhen at October 4, 2005 12:59 AM

The answer to the question, "One wonders which statue more deeply presents the fundamental convictions of the university?" is yes. And so it is with most of us in this consumeristic culture. Why else would one pay over $80,000.00 to get a "Christian" education in an environment that is obviously not Christian? Why does a pastor in training have to pay an exhorbant amount of money to get an education that does little to help him or her really minister to his/her congregation if real life changing ministry comes through the Spirit of God and not merely the human mind? Even in the School of Christian Ministry the focus is on mental learning and not ministry by the Spirit of God. How can a person, paying money to attend an institution that is obviously spending millions of dollars in elaborate buildings and facilities to educate its students in an obviously worldly fashion, even be concerned about or even wonder about such an obvious answer. In fact, one could even say that teaching at such a University is an endorsement of its worldly policies.

Posted by: Andrew Palm at November 12, 2006 4:14 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)




September 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            


Archives
Recent Entries
Books:

Telling God's Story

Conflicting Allegiances: The Church-based University In A Liberal Democratic Society

Reading Assignments:


Recommended Reading:

Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity





Powered by
Movable Type 3.31