For years, Christian leaders have sounded the alarm over declining biblical literacy. In past eras, knowledge of biblical history, characters, and concepts was far more common, even among non-Christians. To make matters worse, the decline in biblical literacy is accompanied by a parallel decline in book literacy. The percentage of Americans who regularly read books of any kind (much less Scripture) is astoundingly small. But people today aren’t dumb. Many nonreaders can talk for hours about the history, characters, and metaphysics of fictional universes like the MCU. This is a form of literacy; it just isn’t grounded in books. It’s grounded in visual media. It’s not surprising, then, that visual adaptations of biblical stories like The Chosen have been so influential in recent years. Such works help nonreaders access biblical stories, characters, and ideas. They also prompt regular Bible readers to engage with well-known stories in fresh ways. Throughout history (especially in premodern times), visual representations of biblical stories have fostered biblical literacy. But there’s also a long history of opposition to biblical images. This opposition is largely rooted in the belief that the second commandment prohibits visual depictions of Jesus. Yet not all depictions of Jesus serve the same purpose. An icon, designed for veneration, doesn’t work the same way as an illustrated Bible storybook or a biblical show (like The Chosen). As we’ll see, images of Jesus can be used to retell biblical narratives or illuminate biblical ideas without violating the second commandment, as long as they don’t divert glory away from God, distort the new-covenant story, diminish God’s nature, or deform those who use them. Purpose of Second Commandment When applying a biblical command to a new context, we should understand its original rationale. We mustn’t be like the Pharisees who, forgetting the purpose of Sabbath regulations, applied them in an overly broad and restrictive manner (Matt. 12:1–14). Before we can discern how to apply the second commandment to depictions of the incarnate Son of God, we need to consider its purpose. Not all depictions of Jesus serve the same purpose. Fortunately, the second commandment explains itself. When God prohibits graven images, he says it’s because he’s “a jealous God” (Ex. 20:5). An idol diverts glory away from the One to whom it belongs—and toward a false object. God forbids idols because he refuses to share his glory with anyone or anything—even an image that ostensibly represents him (Isa. 42:8). Another reason God prohibits the use of graven images is because they distort the story of his relationship to Israel. When the Israelites entered into a covenant with Yahweh, they “heard the sound of words, but saw no form” (Deut. 4:12). Assigning God a form misrepresents the unique manner in which he revealed himself as King (vv. 15–18). God also prohibits graven images because they diminish his nature and consequently deform his image-bearers. The God of the Bible is living and active. He speaks, sees, and hears for himself. He’s not a product of human hands or a mouthpiece for human agendas. It’s demeaning to identify such a God with dead wood that’s mute, blind, and deaf (Jer. 10:1–10). Moreover, because humans naturally become like what they worship, those who worship such idols eventually become spiritually disabled (Ps. 135:16–19). Instead of guiding worshipers in the ways of the living God, idols lead us into impotence and death. But What About Images of Christ? To understand whether the creation or use of a visual representation of Jesus violates the second commandment, we must ask whether the work diverts glory away from God and toward a false object, distorts the story of God’s relationship with his people, or diminishes God’s nature and deforms those who use it. While icon veneration may divert glory away from God, narrative and exegetical depictions of Jesus perform a different function. Nobody watches Oppenheimer and praises (or blames) the film for the creation of the atomic bomb. Viewers distinguish Oppenheimer the film from Oppenheimer the man. Even if they were to picture Cillian Murphy’s face when thinking of Robert Oppenheimer, they could still easily distinguish the two individuals. In the same way, a show like The Chosen doesn’t encourage viewers to praise the show (or Jonathan Roumie, who plays Jesus) for the gift of salvation. Some Catholic viewers have treated Roumie as a mediator for their prayers, but this kind of idolatry has more to do with the Catholic doctrine of intercession than with the nature of visual media. Apart from such teaching, narrative depictions like The Chosen will point viewers to the Scriptures—and to Jesus himself. To evaluate whether depictions of Jesus distort the story of the divine-human relationship, we must distinguish how God revealed himself while establishing the old covenant from how he revealed himself while establishing the new. Whereas Moses emphasized how God took no visible form at Sinai, the apostles insist the Word “became flesh” (John 1:14; see 1 Tim. 3:16) that they saw and touched (1 John 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:16–18). An invisible voice spoke the law of Sinai; a visible rabbi spoke the Sermon on the Mount. Depictions of Jesus highlight a key shift in how God relates to his people through Christ. Banning all images of Jesus minimizes this shift and may inadvertently convey a docetic Christology. An invisible voice spoke the law of Sinai; a visible rabbi spoke the Sermon on the Mount. While some depictions exalt Jesus and help conform viewers to his image, others diminish him and deform viewers. The former are faithful to the biblical worldview (even if they embellish narrative details); the latter turn Jesus into a mouthpiece for unbiblical teachings or behaviors. These latter works are indeed demeaning idols and may mislead unwary viewers. But depictions that faithfully convey Jesus’s countercultural voice and way of life can have the opposite effect. By upholding the biblical Jesus, they draw viewers away from death and toward true life. Opportunity for Discipleship Visual depictions of Jesus raise complex and challenging questions. Instead of imposing an absolute prohibition against all depictions of Jesus—or accepting all depictions without question—churches must teach members how to practice discernment. Christians must be warned about the dangers of false or idolatrous images. But we can also be encouraged to use proper depictions of Jesus for personal enrichment, discipleship, and outreach.

Writing against visual images of Christ is hindered without explaining some history. Many prominent Christians rejected such images for about eight centuries until the Second Council of Nicaea (AD 787) ruled in favor of images, including their “veneration.” Though Eastern and Western Christians argued against worshiping images (for obvious reasons), the fact that Eastern Christians bowed on their faces before paraded icons, and Western Christians wove images of the Father and Spirit into artwork, should give us pause: Maybe making images—even if we’re not worshiping them—hasn’t worked out too well. While the ultimate question is what Scripture says about the matter, the tendency to fall into errors like these has always been why the triune God prohibited making images of himself. Here are three key arguments against images of Christ. 1. The Second Commandment The second commandment (Ex. 20:4; Deut. 5:8–10) prohibits images of Christ. A simple syllogism illustrates the point: 1. God forbade making images of himself. 2. Christ is God. 3. Therefore, God forbade making images of Christ. Deuteronomy 4:15–24 is a commentary on the second commandment. Moses explains to Israel that even though God appeared to them, they must not make any kind of image of him (vv. 15–18) because their hearts were bent toward idolatry (v. 19) and because making such images violated his covenant with them (vv. 23–24). Unfortunately, Israel broke the command to the letter by making a golden calf representing Yahweh (Ex. 32:1–6). As the NKJV reads, “This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!” (v. 4), resulting in “a feast to the LORD” (v. 5) before it. Jeroboam later one-upped Aaron by making two calves to represent Yahweh (1 Kings 12:28–29), which “became a sin” (v. 30). In both cases, Israel broke covenant with God by imaging him. Since Jesus is God the Son, should we not hesitate before repeating the pattern? 2. Old Testament Theophanies Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, God often appeared to his people in human form. Again, the argument is simple: 1. God appeared to his people in human form. 2. God prohibited his people from making human images of him. 3. Therefore, God appearing in human form doesn’t permit us to make images of him. Deuteronomy 4 helps us again. Moses says Israel’s “eyes have seen” (v. 9) though they “saw no form” (vv. 12, 15). Israel “saw” God appear on Sinai, Isaiah “saw the Lord seated on his throne” (Isa. 6:1), Ezekiel “saw visions of God” (Ezek. 1:1), and Daniel “looked” on the “Ancient of Days” (Dan. 7:9). And yet Isaiah declares, “To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him?” (Isa. 40:18). God’s prohibition against images of himself stood alongside repeated divine appearances in human form. While Aaron rationalized making a divine image, Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel didn’t see the inference. Christ’s incarnation was new, but God appearing in human form wasn’t. Nobody saw God as he is, and no image can capture his glory without diminishing its brightness. Nobody saw God as he is, and no image can capture his glory without diminishing its brightness. 3. The Incarnation Here’s one final syllogism: 1. Jesus is God the Son who took on a human nature. 2. The second commandment forbids making images of anyone in the category of God. 3. Therefore, we cannot make images of God the Son. Making images of Christ creates thorny dilemmas. Either we depict the person of the Son and violate the second commandment, or we depict his humanity by divorcing it from his divine person. In the first case we violate God’s law, and in the second we (unintentionally) commit heresy. Why we want images of Christ comes into play here too. Do images of Christ stir up devotion to him? If so, then we’re worshiping God by means of images. And don’t we use such images devotionally? If not, then why have them? Would we want to say we’re training ourselves to think about Jesus without worshiping him? Thus images of Christ are either idolatrous or in vain. Images of Christ are either idolatrous or in vain. Ultimately, we should reject images of Christ because we shouldn’t seek to be wiser than God. Respecting Scripture’s authority and sufficiency, we could have no warrant to make images of God the Son unless Scripture required it. We can psychologize about the fact that the disciples saw Jesus and remembered what he looked like, but we didn’t. One day we’ll see the God-man as he is, and we’ll be like him (1 John 3:1–4). In heaven, we’ll walk by sight and not by faith, but now we walk by faith and not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7). Our rule is this: “Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory” (1 Pet. 1:8). We do see “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6)—but this light shines “in our hearts.” Seeing isn’t believing, but believing is seeing. Are we pushing our eschatology forward too much by trying to “see” Christ through means other than Word and sacrament? Images have always led to idolatry—both in Old Testament history with golden calves and in church history by making images of Christ (and the Father and the Spirit). They become either focal points or funnels for our devotion. But as Agur wisely wrote, “Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar” (Prov. 30:5–6). Though advocates of images of Christ may love Christ and mean well, we love him best by living according to his Word and looking to his return in glory.

President Biden’s executive action on the border was reported with great fanfare across the dial. With the order now in effect, only NBC has dared to report that the executive action has been largely ineffective in stopping the inflow of illegal migrants across our southern border. Watch as correspondent Julia Ainsley lays out the ways in which the border executive order has been largely ineffective: JULIA AINSLEY: Tonight, new evidence migrants who cross the border illegally are still being released into the U.S. by border agents, one week after President Biden signed an executive action suspending their entry. JOE BIDEN: If they choose to come without permission and against the law, they'll be restricted from receiving asylum and staying in the United States. AINSLEY: But NBC News has learned Border Patrol is still releasing many migrants into the U.S. who crossed illegally, to pursue asylum claims. A senior DHS official tells NBC News those releases have dropped by more than half but are still happening because agents don't have enough space to detain the large numbers of arriving migrants. An internal memo to Border Patrol agents in San Diego directs agents there to release migrants into the United States, unless they are from these eight countries. Interestingly, the report was framed with news that the ACLU is suing the Biden Administration over the executive order- which could have been its own brief, or added at the end of the report on the still-leaky border. But NBC didn’t want to lead with news of the apparent failure of Biden’s executive action. There are many instances of failure reported here, from the amount of encounters post-order to the lack of detention space, to what is likely the most damning portion of the report- the order to release migrants coming from all countries except those closest to the United States. Shocking, given recent news of the bust of the potential ISIS-K sleeper cell. Credit to NBC for documenting these failures, and doing something we used to call journalism- a word that means something increasingly different these days. Click "expand" to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on the NBC Nightly News on Wednesday, June 12th, 2024: NBC NIGHTLY NEWS 6/12/24 6:41:12 LESTER HOLT: Just in, the ACLU filing the first major legal challenge to President Biden's recent executive order -- executive action on the border and new reports that migrants crossing illegally are still being released into the U.S. Here's Julia Ainsley. JULIA AINSLEY: Tonight, new evidence migrants who cross the border illegally are still being released into the U.S. by border agents, one week after President Biden signed an executive action suspending their entry. JOE BIDEN: If they choose to come without permission and against the law, they'll be restricted from receiving asylum and staying in the United States. AINSLEY: But NBC News has learned Border Patrol is still releasing many migrants into the U.S. who crossed illegally, to pursue asylum claims. A senior DHS official tells NBC News those releases have dropped by more than half but are still happening because agents don't have enough space to detain the large numbers of arriving migrants. An internal memo to Border Patrol agents in San Diego directs agents there to release migrants into the United States, unless they are from these eight countries. Overall, illegal border crossings under the new policy are still high, but have dropped from 4,000 to 3,000 per day, DHS sources tell us. President Biden signed the executive action after fierce criticism of his handling of the border, with a record nearly 10 million migrants entering the U.S. since he took office. But the Border Patrol Union says the president's new action is not tough enough.  HECTOR GARZA: It's status quo. Things have not changed. This executive order has not made any significant impact as it relates to illegal border crossings. AINSLEY: "We suffer a lot just to get here" says this Guatemalan woman waiting in Mexico to cross. And late today, immigration advocates suing, saying the asylum restrictions go too far. LEE GELERNT: This ban is patently illegal. The Trump administration enacted a nearly identical asylum ban, we sued over that. We won, we hope to win again. AINSLEYr: A senior DHS official tells us it's too soon to judge the new policy's effectiveness. They say they need more help from Congress to increase immigrant detention, and do more deportation flights. Lester. HOLT: All right, Julia. Thank you.  

A rare intact lead doll from the 16th or 17th century has been discovered by a mudlarking metal detectorist in Long Whatton, in Leicestershire. Sarah Brackstone found the small piece in a brook near her home this February. She reported her discovery to finds liaison officer for Leicestershire and Rutland where the modest little toy caused something of a sensation because it is the only complete 16th century doll to be recorded in the database of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS).   It is a lead sheet alloy child’s toy two inches long in the shape of a woman wearing a gown with a triangular narrow bodice and a full skirt. A semi-circular headdress or hairstyle outlines her round face. The moulded features — circular eyes, triangular nose, mouth upturned — are raised from the flat surface of the face. The back of the head is decorated with raised pellets and the initials “T T” which experts believe may be a makers mark. Two circular loops project out from the shoulders; in the center of both is a flattened loop. Experts think the loops may indicate the doll was used as a puppet on strings to entertain children. The gown is intricately decorated front and back. In the front, the bodice has transverse lines that look like lacing. The skirt has a central triangular panel made of moulded lines. On either side of the triangle panel are three pairs of raised round pellets of different sizes. Two rectangular panels with intersecting lines that create six triangular sections go from the lower part of the triangle panel to the edge of the skirt. The hem is decorated with a zig-zag pattern. The back of the dress has two swagged rows of pellets on the shoulders and moulded lines forming a downward-pointing triangle to the waist. The gown has a curved row of pellets over a rectangle with vertical lines. The bottom features a zig-zag pattern with a pellet in each triangle. Figures like these are rare because lead is so malleable that it is easy to manipulate and reshape. That also makes it easy to break. The shape of the doll, a slender waist and an even more slender neck, makes it susceptible to breakage. There are several disembodied torsos in the PAS database, and one example that is in three pieces — broken at neck and waist — and missing an arm. It is also heavily corroded, unlike Ms. Brackstone’s find. Because the doll is made out of a base metal and does not qualify as official treasure, it has been returned to the finder. Apparently she has been fielding offers from collectors in the US, but for now at least, Sarah Brackstone plans to loan her little lead treasure to the British Museum.

Merrick Garland, as attorney general the nation’s chief law enforcer, is demanding a halt to the opposition to, and criticism of, the political investigations that his department has launched, including…

Another piece of the epic explorer's legacy found.

"It sounds sexy but it's really fucking sick”. The post Something dirty: The Happy Mondays anthem made “for the ladies” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.