Today, everybody seems to love icons, often more for fashion than theological principle. It was therefore refreshing to read Christopher Benson’s post below, which returned some theology to the discussion. The author disagrees with an ecumenical – which is to say – worldwide Christian endorsement of icons. Hoping this won’t cause church division, he attempts to downgrade the matter of icons to a peripheral concern in order to promote harmony in the Body of Christ. Benson’s intentions are good, but his lack of engagement with the primary sources in the controversy at hand has lead to a very regrettable slip. Fortunately, however, his post contains the seed of its own correction.
Faced with a beautiful and persuasive defense of icons from Holly Ordway (comment #3), Benson bolsters his post with arguments from an online article on the subject. This argument against icons is as follows: To depict Christ is to succumb to the heresy of Monophysitism or Nestorianism. Benson does not seem to realize it (perhaps he does), but this argument is a direct regurgitation of the Iconoclastic argument used by Emperor Constantine V in the Iconoclastic Controversy. This argument, furthermore, was itself deemed heretical by the universal church, which (unless Protestantism sprung from the sixteenth century ex nihilo) includes Protestantism. The church, East and West, deemed the very argument that accused Iconophiles of Monophysitism or Nestorianism to be itself Monophysite and Nestorian. “The painted face does not ‘circumscribe’ divine nature or even human nature,” explains Alain Besançon. “It circumscribes the composite hypostasis of the incarnate Word. But it took time, tears, and blood for that error to be discerned and the truth confessed.” Those unfamiliar with these terms might benefit from a simplification: An essential property of being human is that a human can be depicted. Therefore, to suggest one cannot make an image of Christ is tantamount to suggesting that Christ was not fully human. It is like suggesting Christ did not have fingerprints, or that when one held a mirror up to his mouth, the mirror did not fog up.
Let us put aside the concerns as to whether the images we have of Christ are accurate (it’s hard to say), or whether or not all Christian must use icons in worship (they need not), or whether or not this position is consistent with John Calvin (I think it is). These are important, but secondary matters. What is primary is this: All Christians should be able to affirm that one could have, in principle, made a painting of or (anachronistically speaking) taken a photograph of Jesus. The advent of photography has only made this ancient argument more understandable, not less. Was Christ really there or wasn’t he? The Seventh Ecumenical Council of 787 was not merely about aesthetics; it was Christological. Its relation to the first Coucil of Nicea, which gave us the Nicene Creed, is more than coincidental. When seen in this perspective, Benson’s proposal would be like regurgitating the arguments of Arius against the divinity of Christ, and then suggesting, for harmony’s sake, that the Trinity is not that big of a deal.
Am I accusing Benson of heresy? Actually, no. Though he is, “skeptical regarding the Orthodox belief that the Incarnation repeals the Decalogue’s commandment against graven images,” Benson takes an incredible risk. 
In his post, with a few clicks of a button, Benson has shown us an icon of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. The medium, Marshall McLuhan understood, is the message. Benson may regard the issue of icons as peripheral, but the many martyrs and saints who suffered greatly on behalf of this crucial implication of the gospel are lined up on the bottom of that icon to remind us that it is not. If we look even closer at this image, we see that Benson is more Christologically informed than he lets on. By publishing this icon in a blog post, Benson has depicted a sacred icon of Mary, and not just Mary mind you, but the one she is pointing to, Christ. Benson the blogger has dared to depict the second person of the Trinity, but he was not wrong to do this. He is not idolatrously confining God to colorated pixels, but he is pointing us to the God who – wonder of wonders – depicted himself in the Incarnation, enabling us to, in turn, depict him.
February 21st, 2010 | 7:36 pm | #1
Matthew, in my conversations with confessional Calvinists over the years, there is little doubt in their mind that Calvin was entirely opposed to images, period. I believe the Calvin quotes cited here confirm that.
I have pressed some PCA pastors to see how consistent they are on these issues, and they have told me that were there to have been photography in Christ’s day, we would be wrong even to have photos of Christ. They even have questioned the use of any form of photography of their own loved ones.
As for icons: I find the vast majority of them to be ugly, as a rule. But I’ll defend the right of Christians to paint pictures of Christ and scenes from the Scriptures.
The Orthodox practice of kissing them and reverencing them is clearly beyond appropriate, no question there. It is simply an example of where “Orthodoxy” is not so orthodox.
February 21st, 2010 | 8:20 pm | #2
“This argument, furthermore, was itself deemed heretical by the universal church, which (unless Protestantism sprung from the sixteenth century ex nihilo) includes Protestantism.”
Isn’t that objection reversible? If the universal church includes Protestantism, and if Protestantism (or a subset thereof) is iconoclastic, then iconoclasm can’t be deemed heretical by the universal church.
February 21st, 2010 | 8:25 pm | #3
“The Orthodox practice of kissing them and reverencing them is clearly beyond appropriate, no question there. It is simply an example of where “Orthodoxy” is not so orthodox.”
Not necessarily.
Imagine a parent getting a letter or photograph from a son on deployment in Iraq — and holding that letter to his heart or kissing it. Have you ever done something like that? Have you ever come across something that belonged to someone you loved, say a toy that reminded you of your child when he was an infant, and pressed it to your lips?
If so — and I would venture to say that such a response is entirely human, affectionate, and quite appropriate — it was not that the letter or toy is somehow being worshiped, or that it is being viewed as the same as the person. Quite the opposite. The letter from the beloved, the toy of the now-grown child, is significant only to the extent that it points toward the real, flesh and blood person who is loved. Were that not so, the letter would be no different from junk mail, the toy donated or discarded long ago.
So too with icons.
It is certainly possible for icons to be mis-used, but of what human thing is that not the case? It is even possible to blasphemously worship the Bible itself, rather than the God who reveals Himself in it and who inspired it with His Spirit.
At the heart of the Christian faith is divine mystery, and I think it is good for us to be reminded of that. Christ is fully human and also fully God. We human beings are ensouled bodies – not meat machines, nor only spirit. Icons sit at the boundary between flesh and spirit. Painted, physical, yet pointing beyond themselves. Of course they are unsettling. How could they not be?
We will not need them in the Kingdom, but until then, they do serve as windows into Heaven, unsettling us, disturbing us, reminding us of the reality of that heavenly Kingdom and our Incarnate Lord.
February 21st, 2010 | 8:34 pm | #4
“To deny that one cannot, in principle, paint a portrait of Christ is to deny that Christ was fully human.”
This oversimplifies the issue. There are at least three potential objections to iconophilism:
i) It is generally illicit to depict God qua God.
ii) It is generally illicit to depict God qua God Incarnate.
iii) Even if it were not illicit to do either (i) or (ii), the specific function assigned to icons in Orthodoxy is erroneous.
At the moment I’m not taking a position one way or the other. I’m merely blocking out the potential lines of argument.
February 21st, 2010 | 9:43 pm | #5
@Hays: Let’s be clear that it is Zwinglianism/Calvinist that is iconoclastic, not all of Protestantism.
February 21st, 2010 | 9:59 pm | #6
Rev. Paul T. McCain
“Let’s be clear that it is Zwinglianism/Calvinist that is iconoclastic, not all of Protestantism.”
i) That reiterates the equivocation I already noted.
ii) And it’s irrelevant to the reversible structure of the argument.
February 21st, 2010 | 10:11 pm | #7
Thanks for this defense of icons.
There has always been an iconoclastic strain within European Christianity, at least from the days when Charlemagne’s theologians, especially the Goth Theodulf of Orleans, penned the Carolingian response to the 7th ecumenical council. The Cistercians were iconoclastic to a large degree (just read the debate between Bernard of Clairvaux and Suger of St. Denis).
However, it seems to me that icons are appropriate vehicles of the divine. As John of Damascus says, as images they remind us vividly of the redemption of the created order. It is also appropriate to venerate them (with a kiss or whatever) as part of one’s worship rather than the object of worship, which must remain God. An icon, in its proper context, moves the heart to worship God in a manner analogous to a hymn, a great symphony, or a sermon. Icons enhance worship, to my mind. Indeed all good theologians are simply iconographers who paint more accurate pictures of God and his plan. In this sense, the great Rublev icon of the Trinity is a constant reminder of the need to convey the divine in words and images and also the dramatic limitation of all media. The apophatic continuously urges all of us to move beyond the cataphatic.
The charismatic movement has led to a broader acceptance of a kind of iconography with its use of banners and flags with various Christian symbols depicted on them.
So, I don’t see anything erroneous about icons per se. As Holly points out, they can be abused just like anything involved in worship. How many evangelicals turn preachers into idols?
February 21st, 2010 | 10:13 pm | #8
@Hays: To the contrary, your sweeping assertion is untrue on its face. Only Zwinglianism/Calvinism, and the most rigid forms of that movement, is iconoclastic. Your operating definition of “Protestantism” is wrong and the rest of your assertion, premised on that definition, is false.
February 21st, 2010 | 10:24 pm | #9
The idea that only God has the right to make himself known seems to privilege a view of revelation that would narrowly construe it. As far as I can tell, virtually all Christians think revelation is ongoing even early Reformed thinkers who saw the act of preaching as revelatory. There is a reason why Zwingli referred to the academy at Zurich as a school of prophesying, and the Puritans in England talked about preaching as prophesying.
So, God is always making himself known in revelatory ways. Prayer is an intricate part of painting an icon because the iconographer is attempting to hear God speak and thus communicate that revelatory image to others. God is always speaking.
February 21st, 2010 | 10:26 pm | #10
McCain,
Since you seem to have difficulty following the argument, I guess I’ll have to walk you through it. In my first comment I was responding to Milliner on his own grounds in terms of how he chose to frame the issue. Hence, the quote.
I simply noted that his logic was reversible. Is there some particular reason you’re unable to follow parallel structure of the counterargument?
This doesn’t commit me to his framework. Indeed, in my second comment I said I wasn’t taking a position one way or the other at this stage of the argument.
Try to go back and respond to what I actually said rather than push the replay button on your prerecorded objections to Calvinism.
February 21st, 2010 | 10:46 pm | #11
I do not quite follow the idea of making the commandment temporal that Christopher Benson puts forward. And, I am not quite sure that the Orthodox think they are calling for the repeal of the prohibition against graven images any more than just war theorists think they are calling for the repeal of the prohibition against murder. It’s a question of definition. What does and does not count as a graven image?
Given all of the images associated with the tabernacle in the wilderness, including the ark of the covenant as the image of God’s presence, it would seem that there are some images that do not fit the definition of a graven image.
As I recall (and here I am a little hazy so I may be wrong), John of Damascus does not think created icons actually image the being of God since nothing can, not even words can express deity accurately. They image the humanity of Christ or the saints or use theophanic encounters as images. Hence the Rublev icon uses the three angelic visitors to Abraham as an icon of the Trinity.
For John of Damascus, the central question is whether creatures can serve as vehicles of revelation. The incarnation suggests that they can since the humanity reveals the divine Word. The ongoing nature of revelation in its various forms reinforces this fundamental principle. The same letter that declares “what we have seen” also says that “we have received an anointing” that teaches. Revelation continues to unfold in myriad ways extending from Christ as the source and center (as Bonaventure says). There is nothing about re-incarnating here as though an icon enter into hypostatic union. But hypostatic union is not the only kind of union there is, as Christians know all too well. Even Calvin in his Eucharistic theology says the Spirit unites things separated by space.
February 21st, 2010 | 11:09 pm | #12
OK, I need to make a correction to my statement about icons imaging the humanity of Christ. For John of Damacus, they image the whole Christ because they image the humanity, and humanity is joined to divinity in hypostatic union.
Whew! Glad I got that off my chest.
February 22nd, 2010 | 8:58 am | #13
“This argument, furthermore, was itself deemed heretical by the universal church, which (unless Protestantism sprung from the sixteenth century ex nihilo) includes Protestantism.”
Hays has already demonstrated one of the holes in this argument, but there’s at least five others.
1) The Iconoclastic Council of 754 with 338 bishops in attendance unanimously condemned the use of images of Christ.
2) The later council of 787 to which you are appealing was convened to try to overthrow the earlier council. Like the council of 754 it called itself an ecumenical council, but it wasn’t universally received.
3) In fact it was rejected in the west by, for example, the council of Frankfurt (called by Charlemagne) of 794.
4) It was also rejected by various bishops in the East including, most famously, Patriarch John Grammatikos (also known as John VII of Constantinople) (patriarchate from 837-43).
5) We might also add that the entire argument that something was “deemed heretical by the universal church” is the sort of polemic claim that has been popular since the 4th century, but which always begs the question of the definition of the bounds of the church.
- TurretinFan
February 22nd, 2010 | 8:58 am | #14
What am I missing?
A tour through any Roman Catholic church will display the crucifix, statues, wall murals, and Stations of the Cross graphics that look very much like icons to me.
Is art good only for Roman Catholics or should the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel be spray painted solid white or black? Should Raphael, Michelangelo, and da Vinci be locked away in the cellar?
Art is an expression of the human spirit. When done well a painting can convey a thought or an insight beyond the reach of the spoken and written word.
Leave it alone and tend to the log in your own eye.
February 22nd, 2010 | 9:46 am | #15
One historical correction for TurrentinFan. You cannot claim that a council is not ecumenical because Charlemagne’s court rejected it. Charlemagne was not a bishop, and certainly was not the bishop of Rome, who was the only bishop in the west from the ancient pentarchy of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Rome signed off on the council much to Charlemagne’s chagrin. The so-called “Carolingian Books,” composed mostly by Theodulf of Orleans as a reaction to the 7th ecumenical council were rejected by Rome.
The 7th ecumenical council was ecumenical in the context of the 8th century, that is, it was endorsed by the ancient pentarchy, which symbolized the unity of the bishops.
February 22nd, 2010 | 10:05 am | #16
I think Ms. Ordway provides a far more articulate response to several responses about icons on this post than I ever could. I want to emphasize that the whole point of icons is not to be completely realistic. Icons have a quality of spiritual solemnity and are meant to point to the greater reality of heaven. They are not meant to be viewed in the same fashion as the more fleshy depictions of Christ and saints that are part of the Catholic worship experience.
February 22nd, 2010 | 11:20 am | #17
Dave Coulter wrote: “One historical correction for TurrentinFan.”
Oh?
DC wrote: “You cannot claim that a council is not ecumenical because Charlemagne’s court rejected it.”
I didn’t make such a claim.
DC wrote: “Charlemagne was not a bishop, and certainly was not the bishop of Rome, who was the only bishop in the west from the ancient pentarchy of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria.”
No one is suggesting that Charlemagne as any more a bishop than Constantine was.
DC wrote: “Rome signed off on the council much to Charlemagne’s chagrin.”
Rome has made lots of serious mistakes over the years. That’s just one of them.
DC wrote: “The so-called “Carolingian Books,” composed mostly by Theodulf of Orleans as a reaction to the 7th ecumenical council were rejected by Rome.”
Again … not sure why you raised this, but thanks for your comments.
Please note that while Charlemagne called the council of Frankfurt of 794, it was bishops (western bishops) that attended and decided the matters before them, which also included a number of other things, such as addressing the Adoptionist heresy.
-TurretinFan
February 22nd, 2010 | 11:50 am | #18
TurretinFan, if you think the use of pictoral religious artwork is so wrong, what would you say to Protestants who accept it as O.K. (i.e. the majority of Protestants)?
February 22nd, 2010 | 11:51 am | #19
TurrentinFan,
I see I was not as precise as I needed to be. Yes, yes, there is the council, but behind the scenes the official document sent to Rome against the icons was the Libri Carolini or “Books of the Carolines.” It was largely composed by Theodulf of Orleans and endorsed by others at this council. This official document was then sent to Rome as the decisions of the Franks, and it was promptly rejected. So, I interpret the Frankish council as a local synod essentially called and commanded by Charlemagne, and especially given that theologians associated with the court were the primary composers.
This in itself is not problematic except to say that Rome had already endorsed Constantinople’s decision.
I’m sorry about misreading your remarks, but I thought you were attempting to refute the idea that the argument was deemed heretical by the universal church. I interpreted universal as meaning ecumenical, so I now see that you did not intend it that way. Is that right?
In any case, my only point was to say that the council was considered universal if by universal is meant ecumenical in the way that term was understood in the 8th century. And that finding a few examples of persons or local synods who rejected it does not negate its being an ecumenical council. Otherwise, I guess we need to negate all of them with the exception of Nicaea and Constantinople I. From Ephesus on you can find prominent bishops and even entire wings of the church rejecting conciliar decisions.
Sorry about the misunderstanding.
February 22nd, 2010 | 12:16 pm | #20
Alphonsus:
You wrote: “TurretinFan, if you think the use of pictoral religious artwork is so wrong, what would you say to Protestants who accept it as O.K. (i.e. the majority of Protestants)?”
That’s easy. I would say to them, in the words of the beloved disciple: “Little children, keep yourselves from idols.” (1 John 5:21)
Mr. Coulter:
You wrote: “I interpret the Frankish council as a local synod …”
Yes, of course. I hope no one thought I meant that Frankfurt council was ecumenical.
You also wrote: “I thought you were attempting to refute the idea that the argument was deemed heretical by the universal church.”
Yes. If part of the church rejects [x], ipso facto, the universal church hasn’t deemed [x] acceptable. It’s not necessary that the polar opposite be true and the universal church reject [x] – although that would also refute the idea that the universal church deemed [x] acceptable.
You also wrote: “In any case, my only point was to say that the council was considered universal if by universal is meant ecumenical in the way that term was understood in the 8th century.”
The term was variously understood in the 8th and into the 9th centuries, as I’ve tried to highlight above. That said, I understand your point. I agree that the Icocondules’ council claimed to be ecumenical and did eventually get Rome’s assent (though obviously the Roman bishop didn’t either call or personally attend the council).
The point of my comments weren’t directed to whether an 8th or 9th century person might call the Iconodules’ council “Ecumenical” but rather to the fact that the universal church didn’t (in fact) accept its teachings.
- TurretinFan
February 22nd, 2010 | 12:30 pm | #21
All I wanted to say was that there’s a massive difference between paining a picture of Christ (see my latest post here at Evangel about atheism for a keen example) and venerating that image.
I know many of my friends among the hard reformed and the presbyterians would call down fire from the command against graven images, but it seems to me that what’s at stake is whether one is replacing God with the image — via worship or reasoning or allegiance or affection.
You know: dulia and latria, as they say — a special act of honoring a dead person who has been identified as singular in the traditions of the religion.
February 22nd, 2010 | 12:31 pm | #22
TF,
1st) Christians who accept pictoral religious art don’t consider them idols any more than family photos are idols. You do accept photography, right?
2nd) Do you think Christians who accept pictoral religious artwork are heretics? Sinful?
3rd) So you basically think there’s no such thing as an ecumenical council (i.e. a council accepted by the “universal church,” as you define it)?
February 22nd, 2010 | 12:37 pm | #23
“An essential property of being human is that a human can be depicted. Therefore, to suggest one cannot make an image of Christ is tantamount to suggesting that Christ was not fully human….
“Let us put aside the concerns as to whether the images we have of Christ are accurate…. All Christians should be able to affirm that one could have, in principle, made a painting of or (anachronistically speaking) taken a photograph of Jesus.”
This might sound a little simplistic, but isn’t the issue the OP brushes aside here actually the one that matters most? The fact is that there are no photographs of Christ, no paintings, not even a description of Him in the Gospels. God in fact chose not to preserve his “image” anywhere, except in His actual incarnate body.
Therefore, any iconic representation of Christ is not really of Christ, but a figure of our imagination and what we suppose he would look like. So we are back to Deut. 4:15-16.
February 22nd, 2010 | 1:03 pm | #24
Alphonsus:
You wrote: “1st) Christians who accept pictoral religious art don’t consider them idols any more than family photos are idols. You do accept photography, right?”
Truth is objective, not subjective.
If you seriously wonder whether we “accept photography” there are a number of works I could suggest you to read to get a background on what we believe.
“2nd) Do you think Christians who accept pictoral religious artwork are heretics? Sinful?”
Not all pictoral religious artwork is sinful. Images purporting to be of Christ are different in an important way from other religious artwork.
“3rd) So you basically think there’s no such thing as an ecumenical council (i.e. a council accepted by the “universal church,” as you define it)?”
I’m pointing out the logical and rational problems with trying to use the term “ecumenical council” polemically.
- TurretinFan
February 22nd, 2010 | 1:35 pm | #25
So, religious artwork that excludes any visual depiction of Christ is ok. And what would that religious artwork be? Could you point us to some examples.
February 22nd, 2010 | 1:36 pm | #26
Everyone, make sure you are sitting down: Mr. Turk and I agree entirely on this point.
February 22nd, 2010 | 1:45 pm | #27
“So, religious artwork that excludes any visual depiction of Christ is ok. And what would that religious artwork be? Could you point us to some examples.”
I’d more carefully qualify it as purported representational likenesses. After all, our lives show Christ to our neighbors – and the elements of the Lord’s supper represent the body and blood of Christ (that’s the one divinely sanctioned way to illustrate the body and blood of Christ).
But as for other religious likenesses, Sunday school materials, maps of the holy lands in the back of your Bible, and the ark of the covenant come to mind.
February 22nd, 2010 | 2:03 pm | #28
I’m ok with icons.
But “Jesus Laughing” in downright sinful.
February 22nd, 2010 | 2:26 pm | #29
“Truth is objective, not subjective.”
I agree with you, but when it comes to what constitutes an idol, intent seems rather important. I may want museums to collect statues of Zeus and Athena (I might even keep replicas in my house as art objects), but that does not mean I am worshipping them as idols. Likewise, just because a town erects a statue to George Washington doesn’t mean they want people to worship the statue.
“If you seriously wonder whether we “accept photography” there are a number of works I could suggest you to read to get a background on what we believe.”
My question was asked with tongue in cheek but I would be interested in your personal take on reverence for images of loved ones.
“Images purporting to be of Christ are different in an important way from other religious artwork.”
A clarification: When you write “purporting to be of Christ” do you mean to imply that the artist actually believes that his painting/statue/icon is a realistic portrayal of the historical Jesus? If so, it seems doubtful that anyone (artist or viewer) with a scintilla of sense would actually believe that the art in their church portrays Jesus in that way. If a person can’t tell that Raphael or Rembrandt are imagining an image of Jesus, he probably shouldn’t be sought out for his opinion on religious artwork.
Do you mean no one should paint an “image” of Jesus in the same way that, in Islam, no one should depict Mohammed? In a painting of, say, the Sermon on the Mount, should the face of Jesus be left blank/covered? What should we do with the huge amount of art, ancient, medieval and modern, which does “depict” Christ?
February 22nd, 2010 | 3:22 pm | #30
Regarding the Gospels’ absence of description of Jesus, that’s a bit of a red herring. For the most part, the Gospels don’t give physical descriptions of anybody. Probably the most vivid description I can think of is John the Baptist, and that’s just what he wore.
Also, the earliest Christians were not exactly in a position to settle down and make art… yet as soon as they begin to do so, we have representations of Jesus. There is an image of Jesus painted in the Roman catacombs.
Icons don’t show us Jesus’ actual image, what He really looked like. To the extent that they do (He was male and adult) it’s secondary anyway, since that’s not what they’re for. (Though considering some of the really bad liberal theology out there, it’s probably healthy for people to be reminded that Jesus really was a human being and male…)
icons are written to look through, not at: to remind us that He is Incarnate and therefore CAN be seen (touched, heard), that He really DID walk the earth and physically interact with people, and that we WILL see Him face to face, Incarnate.
February 22nd, 2010 | 3:25 pm | #31
“Represent”?
; )
February 22nd, 2010 | 4:13 pm | #32
Holly,
There is a difference between Christ and everyone else in scripture who lacks a description — namely that Christ is Lord, and there is a specific commandment on this subject.
The argument was that we can make pictures of Christ because he was in fact in human form. But the human forms we make are not actually of Christ. So that argument falls short, in my opinion.
Then we heard comparisons to family pictures. But would you hang a picture of Brittany Spears on your wall and call it your mother, just because they are both human and female? Does one substitute for the other?
Now if the idea is that you look through this misrepresentation, rather than at it, to call some spiritual or heavenly image to your mind, then to me that just suggests the very thing the commandment warns against.
February 22nd, 2010 | 4:20 pm | #33
The OT forbids the eating of blood, but in the Eucharist that’s exactly what we get. The Commandment was to help us see the uniqueness of Christ.
February 22nd, 2010 | 4:38 pm | #34
“There is a difference between Christ and everyone else in scripture who lacks a description — namely that Christ is Lord, and there is a specific commandment on this subject.”
Louis, you and TurretinFan aren’t being clear as to whether you are rejecting pictures of Christ in religious contexts alone (e.g. in churches) or across the board. Do you object to a museum showing artwork with Jesus?
“But the human forms we make are not actually of Christ.”
No thinking person believes they are, so what’s the problem? Did Rembrandt think his paintings were dead to rights representations of Jesus as he actually looked during his life? I doubt it.
February 22nd, 2010 | 5:04 pm | #35
“No thinking person believes they are, so what’s the problem?”
Everyone agrees that they were not to make images of God under the OT. One reason given was that they “saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you.” (Deut. 4:15). I am taking that to mean, at the very least, that we are not to make representations of the Lord according to our imaginations.
The argument was made that this command no longer applies, because now God has in fact taken form in Christ, and so we can depict Him.
My point is that, since you don’t know what Christ actually looked like, you still have to use your imagination to represent him. The fact that Christ was a human male does not, I am suggesting, give you enough of a license to start trying to make images of him.
February 22nd, 2010 | 5:21 pm | #36
@Orthodoxdj: Amen.
February 22nd, 2010 | 5:55 pm | #37
This makes perfect sense until you hear someone pray, “Hail Mary, full of Grace,” or see them prone before a statue of St. Parishgod.
At that point, eating blood looks somewhat esoteric.
February 22nd, 2010 | 6:13 pm | #38
Every good thing can easily be spoiled. In fact, the greater something is, the worse it can be when twisted: Lucifer, for example.
As far as praying to saints goes, I see no problem with it as long as it’s prayer and not worship. Nothing in the Scriptures ever tells us that prayer and worship are the same thing, or that prayer by its nature is a subset of worship. I ask saints to pray for me all the time, living and Living (I refuse to say they’re dead…they’re more alive than we are).
Not that this matters to me, but Luther and Calvin prayed to saints, too. I say this for the benefit of those who find it problematic. Augustine did it, and so did Aquinas. It’s the mind of the Church so to do, and I want to think with the mind of the Church.
All that said, I can agree that some people greatly misunderstand what it means to have saints intercede for us. People have made saints out to be gods. I love Mary. I ask Mary to pray for me. I concede that she is full of grace and blessed amongst women. She is not God. She points to God and says to us as she said to those at the wedding: “Do whatever He (Christ) tells you”.
February 22nd, 2010 | 6:25 pm | #39
I’ve thought for a while now that reading the old books is a Protestant version of praying to the saints.
I don’t know how far I’d take it, but it really exposes the same kinds of concerns.
February 22nd, 2010 | 8:39 pm | #40
This is truly a bizarre comment. Care to elaborate?
February 22nd, 2010 | 8:51 pm | #41
Yeah, I know. When a Catholic friend explained prayers to the saints for me, he said that it’s like relying on the faithfulness and wisdom that particular saint had through his story and applying it to your situation. See, each saint had particular ways that they dealt faithfully with God, and you pray to the saint (whose story you’re remembering) whose life spoke to your situation.
Which, in a culture that is not universally literate, is a way of getting the theology out there through story.
When we read the books of our spiritual forebears, we are in some way connecting with their wisdom and faithfulness. Hopefully, we’re pointed Godward as we read.
It’s just a thought. Take it or leave it. I’m not going to try to defend it or anything.
February 23rd, 2010 | 8:37 am | #42
Alphonsus:
I had noted: “Truth is objective, not subjective.”
You wote: “I agree with you, but when it comes to what constitutes an idol, intent seems rather important.”
Intent is one thing, self-labeling is another thing. Just because someone doesn’t call their prostration in religious veneration before an image “idolatry” and doesn’t call that religious image an “idol” does not settle the matter.
I had written: “If you seriously wonder whether we “accept photography” there are a number of works I could suggest you to read to get a background on what we believe.”
You responded: “My question was asked with tongue in cheek but I would be interested in your personal take on reverence for images of loved ones.”
If it is religious in nature, like Japanese ancestor worship, it is definitely ungodly. Drawing the precise line between appropriate sentimental attachment and religious devotion may sometimes be challenging. That difficulty in line-drawing should not be taken to suggest that there is no line.
I had written: “Images purporting to be of Christ are different in an important way from other religious artwork.”
You respond: “A clarification: When you write “purporting to be of Christ” do you mean to imply that the artist actually believes that his painting/statue/icon is a realistic portrayal of the historical Jesus?”
I mean that the artist is trying to say, “Here is Christ.” I recognize that all the icons and statues are inaccurate representations even of Christ’s humanity.
Alphonsus: “If so, it seems doubtful that anyone (artist or viewer) with a scintilla of sense would actually believe that the art in their church portrays Jesus in that way.”
You might think so, but the Shroud of Turin has its followers and so do various Eastern icons that are copies of supposedly heaven-sent icons or copies of some similar “made without hands” miraculous icon. But yes, it’s not my point that it is necessary for the artist to be engaged in that kind of superstitious nonsense.
You wrote: “Do you mean no one should paint an “image” of Jesus in the same way that, in Islam, no one should depict Mohammed?”
I doubt there is any significant connection, although the Muslim prohibition on religious images is obviously borrowed from a Judeo-Christian source, rather than from any pagan source (like so many other elements of Islam).
The reason not to paint Jesus is that Jesus is God. That’s not the reason (certainly not the stated reason) that Muslims don’t paint their false prophet.
You wrote: “In a painting of, say, the Sermon on the Mount, should the face of Jesus be left blank/covered? What should we do with the huge amount of art, ancient, medieval and modern, which does “depict” Christ?”
a) Why does one need to paint scenes from Christ’s life in the first place? But yes, not portraying Jesus in the drawing is one technique that artists who have felt compelled to show the scene have used to avoid creating an idol.
b) The fact that something is “art” seems mostly connected with the skill involved in its construction. There are plenty of pieces of art that don’t violate the second commandment that can amuse future generations without preserving those that dishonor Christ.
-TurretinFan
February 23rd, 2010 | 9:46 am | #43
Thanks for explaining what you meant.
February 23rd, 2010 | 9:57 am | #44
“There are plenty of pieces of art that don’t violate the second commandment that can amuse future generations without preserving those that dishonor Christ.”
Do you mean we should we destroy artwork that depicts Christ?
February 23rd, 2010 | 12:43 pm | #45
“Do you mean we should we destroy artwork that depicts Christ?”
It is unclear to me whether you are having trouble grasping the nature of iconoclasm or whether you are asking for an argument as to why one would put away items that dishonor Christ.
Iconoclasts (from Gideon, to the Apostle John, to Epiphanias of Salamis, to John Knox) advocate removal of all images that dishonor God. I don’t think anyone thinks that specifically destroying (as opposed to burying or obliterating) is absolutely mandated.
- TurretinFan
February 23rd, 2010 | 1:07 pm | #46
“I don’t think anyone thinks that specifically destroying (as opposed to burying or obliterating) is absolutely mandated.”
So we should bury or obliterate Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Bernini, Duhrer and Roualt?
Should museums hide away their works where no one can see them?
Should we print pictures of these works in art history texts?
February 23rd, 2010 | 1:12 pm | #47
Apparently the fan of Turretin is not a fan of being candid.
February 23rd, 2010 | 4:06 pm | #48
I’d like somebody to pray to Rev. McCain and tell me whether or not it was worship. Plainly: a man of serious historic faith.
Why not pray to him if prayer is not itself worship?
February 23rd, 2010 | 4:21 pm | #49
I prefer cash to worship.
February 23rd, 2010 | 5:12 pm | #50
Obviously, a word of congratulations must be in order here.
I feel I would be remiss in failing to acknowledge that if Frank Turk is recommending that folks pray to a person, then that person knows he has truly arrived. ;)
February 23rd, 2010 | 5:13 pm | #51
Yes, I was honored, in a weird, creepy kind of way.
: )
February 23rd, 2010 | 7:49 pm | #52
PTM wrote: “Apparently the fan of Turretin is not a fan of being candid.”
Clearly you don’t know me.
Alphonsus wrote: “So we should bury or obliterate Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Bernini, Duhrer and Roualt? Should museums hide away their works where no one can see them? Should we print pictures of these works in art history texts?”
Of course we shouldn’t destroy them all – but those that dishonor Christ, why on earth would we keep them around?
Is this a tough concept for you, or are you just in shock that honoring Christ might mean destroying the works of men’s hands?
-TurretinFan
February 23rd, 2010 | 11:25 pm | #53
Christopher Benson,
As to Badlwin’s argument I’d like to take some space to engage it. Baldwin’s Christological objection can only be made on the assumption of a non-Chalcedonian Christology. His objection is that to make an image of Christ entails either Monophysitism or Nestorianism. On the one hand if the image portrays Christ and he is God and man, then one conflates the natures. If one pictures only the humanity, one separates the natures into two persons, hence Nestorianism. But this supposes either a Nestorian or Monophysite Christology and here is why.
If the person of Christ is a product of the union, then to portray either would entail the consequences he claims since the person is a composite production of the act of unifying the two natures into one appearance or “person.” This means that Jesus is both a divine and human person (Que WCF 8.2). He is the “person of the union” or the “person of the mediator” as stated in the Reformed tradition. But this is not Chalcedonian Christology which holds that Christ is *in* two natures, not *of* two natures as both the Monophysites and Nestorians thought. Christ is therefore always and only a divine person into which human nature is assumed. Christ’s hypostasis then becomes composite in the sense that humanity is now included in it, but the hypostasis/person is always that of the divine and eternal Son. Reformed use of traditional language of a composite hypostasis mask the error. Does it mean humanity is assumed into the divine hypostasis of the Son or that the person of the incarnate Son is a product of the union?
The Reformed reading was a mistake in part due to corrupt Latin texts of John of Damascus, along with other factors. The history is sketched here (http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/a-deformed-christ/ -see McCormack’s remarks towards the bottom.) The dissent from Chalcedon among the Reformed is also portrayed in Muller’s, Christ and the Decree, among other works. Please note that these are Reformed writers describing their own tradition.
The position the Reformed put forward is that of Nestorius who took two substances, two concrete instances of two essences (divine and human) to produce two prosopas, a kind of image or appearance that were combined into one single prospon or appearance. The natures themselves remained metaphysically unrelated except by an act of will of the divine using the human and so Nestorius thought Christ had one will. (Nestorius’ Christology is sketched here- http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/some-notes-on-the-christology-of-nestorius/ )
Consequently, to make an image of the person in the nature doesn’t entail either mixing the natures or separating them since the person is not a product of the union of the natures. Rather the objection presupposes a Nestorian Christology. Note therefore Ballwin’s language “But to make of that body an image that is not united to the uncreated divine leads right back to a Nestorian division of the natures.” Now, not united to the divine what? Person or nature? Well the human nature is not united to the divine nature per se, only in the divine person. Here Ballwin’s Nestorian confusion of person with nature is clear since he is supposing that the person is a result of the union of the two natures. Therefore, icons of Christ do not attempt to depict the divine essence. And this is why there are no legitimate icons of the Trinity. Rubalev’s icon is an icon of the Hospitality of Abraham, the three angels of which are a type of the Trinity and nothing more. A little reflection helps to push the issue back into the NT. When Thomas falls before Christ after the resurrection, does he render worship to the divine person of Christ by means of Christ’s body or does he render it only to his human body? If the former, then it is possible for created things to pass on the veneration and worship from the physical bearer to the reality. In other words, matter can be God-bearing.
As for Ballwin’s other arguments. The 2nd Commandment prohibits not the making of images per se, since not only did the Temple have them, but Jews had them in their synagogues at least by the time of the second century A.D. It forbids the making of images of the deity, whom no man has seen nor can see. Icons do not fall under that prohibition since they are limited to historical manifestations.
2. Icons do not attempt to depict the invisible God qua essence, but only in economic manifestations. Also, we have a possible allusion to images in the early church in Paul who speaks to the Galatians before whose *eyes* Christ was portrayed as crucified, along with the earliest Christian images with devotions inscribed below them going back to the second century.
As for Baldwin’s claim that to make an image and to unite to the divinity would be to reincarnate Christ turns on a false idea of icons as the realities which they portray. The confusion between type and reality was an early confusion of the iconoclasts that they eventually dropped. Notice also Baldwin’s claim of uniting the Son to corruptible matter once again. Is matter intrinsically corruptible and if so, does he think Christ has a material body now? This was the original problem with the iconoclasts who accepted the Platonic view that matter was base, worthless and not capable of bearing the divine and so they adhered to the “resurrection of the body” but not necessarily the flesh. Moreover, much of the issue turns on the doctrine of creation, is God the formal cause of creation or not? Does God have a direct access to creation or a mediated one? Is matter and creation more widely defined in reference to God in contrary or opposing properties or is God’s creation good and therefore not opposed to him, even though it is different? That is, does difference entail contrariety or opposition or no? For the Orthodox, God is the formal cause of creatures, but the forms or divine logos of every creature is divine, but not the divine essence. Creatures are then made ex nihilo according to each divine image or logos, hence there is no panentheism. God’s access to creation is direct and unmediated and God can be present in matter without replacing or obliterating the nature of it. Nature is intrinsically theophanic.
February 24th, 2010 | 12:10 am | #54
“There is a difference between Christ and everyone else in scripture who lacks a description — namely that Christ is Lord, and there is a specific commandment on this subject.The argument was that we can make pictures of Christ because he was in fact in human form. But the human forms we make are not actually of Christ. So that argument falls short, in my opinion.”
I may be reading this counter-argument incorrectly, but what this sounds like to me is “although Christ was human in form, he wasn’t really human in the same way that other humans are. Therefore, we can’t make images of him the way we can make images of other humans.”
To me, that sounds like a denial of the full humanity of Christ… and a reason why the Incarnational theology inherent in the use of icons is essential, to remind us that Christ is both fully God and absolutely, completely, fully man as well.
February 24th, 2010 | 6:12 am | #55
@TurretinFan: In my opinion, the fact that you do not post under your real name does little to help you in your effort to present yourself here as a credible contributor.
February 24th, 2010 | 9:01 am | #56
Rev. McCain,
So would Lutherans bowing down and kissing a wooden construction of Christ’s corpus form the cross on Good Friday be a case of Lutherans being non-Lutheran?
February 24th, 2010 | 9:05 am | #57
“Is this a tough concept for you, or are you just in shock that honoring Christ might mean destroying the works of men’s hands?”
No it’s not a tough concept, but I don’t believe I have every heard anyone in this day and age suggest that we should hide away great works of art simply becuase they present scenes with Christ. I have never heard a Protestant seriously take issue with the preservation of religious artwork featuring Christ. This goes pretty far beyond the question of icons or statues in worship and church architecture. Since you have been cagey about what particular works should be hidden/destroyed, I will provide a few examples. Which of the following works be removed from view as “dishonoring Christ”?
http://www.depadro.net/Italy2003/IMG_0876_2.jpg
http://inillotempore.com/blog/images/Christ_before_Pilate_Durer.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Christus_austreibt.JPG
http://www.chrysler.org/images/replacements/Eur_pntg%20_sculp/italianren/bernini/bernini.jpg
http://cruciality.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/rembrandt-portrait-of-christ-c1657-61.jpg
http://www.pcusa.org/arts/images/hires/rouault.jpg
Should the Louvre look like this?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Altaarretabel_Domkerk.JPG
If you think that every work of artist “depicting” Christ should be hidden away, effaced, or destroyed, why don’t you just come out and say so? Worried about not being taken seriously here or something?
February 24th, 2010 | 9:07 am | #58
“Why not pray to him if prayer is not itself worship?”
Because you can just ask him to pray for you. That’s why Catholics pray to the saints: to ask them to pray for us. Of course, they’re deceased so we can’t exactly ring them up on the phone.
February 24th, 2010 | 9:09 am | #59
There’s something I don’t understand in this discussion: Saying that an image of Christ’s physical body is a portrayal of his “nature”–whether human, divine, or the hypostatic union of the two.
It wouldn’t occur to me to say that a photograph of my body is a portrayal of my human nature. It’s a portrayal of my human body, but my “nature”? It doesn’t portray my soul, does it? It doesn’t even portray my entire body–it portrays one side of the exterior of my body.
February 24th, 2010 | 10:10 am | #60
Hi Perry — nice to see you dropping by.
You said this:
It’s odd to like a comment like this as much as I do and still take exception with it. It seems to me that, if we understand the 2nd commandment as the basis for the admonitions against idolatry through the whole OT and then the concerns reflected in the NT (specifically Rom 1), it’s not merely “making of images of the deity” that’s forbidden: it’s making images of created things for the purpose of worshipping either the image of the created thing, or the created things in and of themselves.
So, to follow what I think is your thought here, decorating the exterior of a cathedral with the litany of saints wrapped around the roofline doesn’t violate the 2nd commandment but instead uses in some sense the “great cloud of witnesses” to cause the Christian to reflect on the history of the faith; but erecting a statue of St. Swithins whose toe will be kissed until it is worn away is probably a violation of the 2nd commandment — but that has nothing to do with Chalcedon.
yes? No?
February 24th, 2010 | 10:11 am | #61
Juggy –
Some Reformed people are crazy, but you knew that already.
February 24th, 2010 | 10:49 am | #62
Oh, they’re all crazy. As is pretty much everyone else. I regard the world is a rainbow display of idiosyncratic insanity. A cornucopia of crazy. A quiverful of quixoticity.
February 24th, 2010 | 10:59 am | #63
Alphonsus,
So you take “prayer” in this case to be solely: The only method of communication available between us and dead saints, enabled by God, where we solicit their prayer on our behalf–just like we ask for prayer from a living brother or sister.
Consider all the practices of prayer & veneration to saints that you’ve witnessed or read about. Are there any that you would object to, if we swapped out the icon of a Saint with a videoconference screen–speaking to a living saint, soliciting their prayer?
February 24th, 2010 | 11:20 am | #64
This is not a Lutheran practice and where this is done, it is outside the mainstream of historic, confessional Lutheranism. The veneration of the Cross on Good Friday was done away with nearly universally after the Reformation. Where it has been reintroduced, it has been brought back in via High Church Anglican and/or Roman sources. At each point where I’ve seen this happening, I’ve investigated and those are the sources, not Lutheran ones. For what it is worth.
February 24th, 2010 | 11:24 am | #65
“Are there any that you would object to, if we swapped out the icon of a Saint with a videoconference screen–speaking to a living saint, soliciting their prayer?”
I would be extremely cautious about it because teleconferences and other kinds of media attention tend to increase the risk of religious practice degenerating into personality cults. I think most living saints would decline having that sort of attention focused on them. Also, the process of canonization is meant to weed out charlatans. Fr. Maciel is a good, recent example of a man who during life was venerated by many but had built his saintly reputation on falsehoods.
As regards the veneration of saints who have passed from this world, I certainly think abuses can and do take place and that, in order to prevent this, better catechisis is required. I think St. Louis de Montfort held that true Marian devotion, for instance, will lead a person closer to Jesus. Also, we should remember that saints owe their holiness to the grace of God, not to their own efforts. Such principles should be kept in mind by Catholics and would probably do much to rein in certain forms of unhealthy or distracting piety.
This article from the Catholic Encyclopedia is about 100 years old (and as a result may not reflect current canonization procedures) but does provide some helpful background on Catholic veliefs regarding the veneration of saints:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm
Also, here is the article on the veneration of images from that same encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm
February 24th, 2010 | 11:40 am | #66
PTM wrote: “@TurretinFan: In my opinion, the fact that you do not post under your real name does little to help you in your effort to present yourself here as a credible contributor.”
Your frequent resort to ad hominem is based on what exactly?
Alphonsus: I respectfully decline the chance to pass judgment on the various pieces you’ve picked out. I haven’t even bothered to click through. I would guess that my answer would be to destroy, obscure, or otherwise put away all of the images you’ve selected.
I’d like to make a point that is even a little stronger than the points I’ve raised above.
Whatever may be said in favor of well-intentioned attempted likenesses of Christ, images of the Father as a human being or of the Holy Spirit as a human being are especially heinous. The Incarnational argument for representing Christ’s humanity (which is quite an old argument) does not and cannot justify the images purporting to be of God the Father.
- TurretinFan
February 24th, 2010 | 11:43 am | #67
It is of concern to me that we have more and more people commenting anonymously on blog posts. I do not think that anonymous participation in conversations concerning matters of the Christian Faith is helpful, or appropriate. We are all tempted to do this, and no doubt, have all succumbed to the temptation from time to time, but it is not a good way to proceed.
For example, when Mr. Turk and I mix it up here, neither one of us are hiding behind fake names.
An unwillingness to blog, Facebook and whatever else one does on the Internet without using a real name diminishes one’s credibility and puts a question mark over anything a person contributes. I think it bespeaks a fundamental lack of integrity.
February 24th, 2010 | 11:43 am | #68
P.R.: “The 2nd Commandment prohibits not the making of images per se, since not only did the Temple have them, but Jews had them in their synagogues at least by the time of the second century A.D.”
I’m guessing that the entire justification for “synagogues” in that sentence is the unique instance of Dura Europos.
February 24th, 2010 | 12:36 pm | #69
TF,
Do you mean to imply that it is inadequate as an example in such way? If so, you need to make an argument that it is so.
I suppose the single instance of say the John Rylands frangment by similar reasoning would imply that it is insufficient to count as evidence for NT textual realiability. Or how about the limited experience of a single world in attempting to draw an analogy between this world and other worlds, some of which are designed and some not? Examples of single pieces of evidence could be multiplied.
February 24th, 2010 | 12:41 pm | #70
Hullo Frank,
To view the 2nd Commandment as coherent with Temple artwork and in some cases statues, especially in cases where such art work was post facto approved by God but not commanded by him, we need it seems to me to distinguish between making images and making images of deity for worship. Rom 1 seems to be a case of people making images for the worship of deities or conflating the divine being with created animals and such. Icons are generally restricted to biblical images and even then restricted and to actual historical manifestations or events, particularly biblical ones. In cases of post biblical figures, its not a free for all either. Again there are strict limitations tying the image protraryed to historical persons.
As for your remarks that the 2nd Commandment prohibits the making of images of created things for the purpose of worshipping the image of the created thing or the created things in and of themselves, I can’t see how it applies to icons since we don’t worship created things in and of themselves or its image. Perhaps you can reformulate and clarify this for me, but as it stands, it seems to leave icons untouched and to be in line with what I wrote before.
Generally, Orthodox do not have statues. There are a few exceptions and these are limited to cases of express biblical example, such as the angels on top of the kuvuklion where the epitahion is placed on Good Friday. The imagery is obvious, the ark of the Covenant entombs contains the eternal Word. So using examples from Catholic art is a bit out of place with respect to the Orthodox position. That said, to be fair, at my own church, some icons have been worn down due to use in certain places, but I am not sure what that implies other than that icons aren’t immortal deities. The use in terms of wearing away doesn’t seem to be the problem or at least not the one you seem to be aiming at. Does repeated use and wearing away of a bibles pages and covers strike you as problematic as well?
February 24th, 2010 | 12:47 pm | #71
Rev. McCain,
Then you need to call the ecclesiastical LCMS dogs over here (http://weedon.blogspot.com/2009/04/on-kissing-cross.html) since some Lutherans don’t seem to agree with you. Besides, making an image is a form of paying honor in any case.
Added on to this, I am wondering, is it acceptable to pledge allegiance to the flag, but its ok to step on it or burn it?
February 24th, 2010 | 12:57 pm | #72
A spontaneous act of piety can hardly be considered a church doctrine or a practice flowing from said doctrine. And I would hope most folks would be able to separate a personal act of piety from the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of icon veneration and what all is entailed in that theologically.
I believe you are grasping at straws and failing to make proper distinctions.
February 24th, 2010 | 1:12 pm | #73
Rev McCain,
Your remarks might be germane if this wasn’t in fact endorsed as acceptable Lutheran practice by those who did it and continue to advocate for it.
Second, I am not clear on how we get from a spontaneous act of piety to the conclusion that it is not an act of idolatry. Would you care to clarify? Is it idolatry or not?
Third, in that thread, you asked if this was done in Germany, indicating that you did not know if this had precedent in Lutheranism or not. I can’t see how I am grasping at straws when you confessed ignorance as to what the facts of the matter were.
February 24th, 2010 | 1:19 pm | #74
To repeat:
(1) Spontaneous acts of personal piety are not the same as a Church commanding veneration of icons.
(2) You failed to recognize a rhetorical device in those posts. I know full well that the veneration of the cross was specifically eliminated throughout German Lutheranism and elsewhere.
Further elaboration: In those rare Lutheran congregations where there is a formal “veneration of the cross” ceremony, it has been introduced by pastors who have borrowed it from High Church Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism. I have dialogued with the few I know doing this and they all finally concede that this practice was eliminated by the Lutheran Reformation. And I do underscore “rare” . . . the overwhelmingly vast majority of Lutheran congregations do not practice veneration of the Cross. I would hope you might consider that it is unfair to try to ascribe a doctrinal position to an entire church body based on the isolated practice/customs at individual congregations. My brothers in Christ in the Church in Latvia, for instance, have been deeply influenced by High Church Anglicanism and derives liturgical practices as often from those contacts, as from a historic grounding in the Reformation.
As for your other questions, you seem to have missed the fact that I have been defending the use of icons and such. As for whether or not veneration is “idolatry” – much depends on the local circumstances. Many converts to EO believe that somehow it is not, when in fact throughout Orthodoxy as it is actually practiced it is clearly superstitious, at best, and idolatry at worse. You are confusing me with your earnest Calvinist opponents on this issue.
February 24th, 2010 | 2:26 pm | #75
“I would guess that my answer would be to destroy, obscure, or otherwise put away all of the images you’ve selected.”
TF, it’s nice to know where you stand.
I’m interested to know: does anyone else think the artworks I selected (in comment #58) should be destroyed, hidden, or obscured?
February 24th, 2010 | 3:07 pm | #76
Why did the Ark of the Covenant have images of Heavenly things?
February 24th, 2010 | 4:08 pm | #77
PR: “Do you mean to imply that it is inadequate as an example in such way? If so, you need to make an argument that it is so.”
No. Pointing out the difference between your claims and the evidence supporting it is enough of an argument for most of the readers.
“I suppose the single instance of say the John Rylands frangment by similar reasoning would imply that it is insufficient to count as evidence for NT textual realiability.”
Anyone who thinks that the transmission reliability of the NT depends on a single fragment is simply unfamiliar with the evidence.
-TurretinFan
February 24th, 2010 | 4:17 pm | #78
P.R. wrote: “Generally, Orthodox do not have statues.”
Also, worth noting, they generally do not use any “likeness” images of the persons of the Father and the Spirit.
February 24th, 2010 | 11:44 pm | #79
Tha’s true about statues, there were statues in th earlier periods of the Byzantine empire of Christ and saints. Also, what is interesting is hearing about some visitation of saints by Orthodox. One of the visitations I heard was that the saint appeared twice and didn’t speak. Both the orthodox person believe there presented met that God was going to help them. No worshipping of the saint in that experiance.
February 25th, 2010 | 10:04 am | #80
Perry –
Thanks for the response. I was a little vague about why the toe of St. Swithins was worn out — my implication was to say that it had been kissed out. Over-venerated, if you will. In that, that’s probably a different reason than why Bible pages get worn out.
See: I think we’re on the same side here. I was trying to toss you a softball.
So to follow what I thought your thought was here, decorating the exterior of a cathedral with the litany of saints wrapped around the roofline doesn’t violate the 2nd commandment but instead uses in some sense the “great cloud of witnesses” to cause the Christian to reflect on the history of the faith; but erecting a statue of St. Swithins whose toe will be kissed until it is worn away is probably a violation of the 2nd commandment — but that has nothing to do with Chalcedon.
February 25th, 2010 | 10:08 am | #81
TF,
When you point out the difference between my claim regarding images in Jewish synagogues and the physical evidence, I will feel free to interact with that argument.
Anyone who thinks that the case for icons rests on Duros Europas alone is simply unfamiliar with the evidence. Second, that was not my argument regarding the JRF. I didn’t argue that the whole case for the reliability of the NT textual transmission depended on it. Rather it was whether one could dismiss it since from that period of early Christianity (33-125 A.D.) it is the only extant manuscript fragment we have. The point was whether as a unique instance it was sufficient to stand as evidence or not, the same issue you brought up with Duros Europas. So the only textual evidence we have of NT manuscripts as existing in that period is the single “unique” instance of the JRF. If we could dismiss it by such reasoning, then this opens up the possibility that the NT documents weren’t completed until later, in the second century.
Your point might in fact have purchase if you could point to a few other Jewish synagogues from that period or previous that didn’t have any images. In this way the uniqueness of Duros Europas would be diminished with respect to its argumentative value in favor of image making in Judaism. Can you point to any such cases? If not, then there is no good reason qua evidence to take that case as non-evidence for the inclusion of images in Jewish worship contexts at that time and perhaps sometime previous.
February 25th, 2010 | 10:59 am | #82
Frank Turk,
I am not clear on how we get form worn out due to veneration to the idea of over veneration and therefore a violation? Is veneration ok as long as it doesn’t wear out the physical material from which the image is made? I am not being argumentative, I am trying to map the reasoning here.
thanks for the congenial exchange.
February 25th, 2010 | 12:12 pm | #83
Perry –
It’s not the wearing out that concerns me so much as the kissing. It seems to me that placing objects in a place of honor (e.g. — the angels you referenced above) is one thing — a use of icons for the sake of expressing a theological truth or even a connection to a matter of historical weight given our belief in a God who is creator and sustainer of history; in some sense, an icon can exactly be a dimissal of gnostic tendancies and disconnection of our faith from the real world where there have been (and as God permits, will be) real people who have lived the faith in a way we should see and honor and learn something from.
Placing an object into a place of honor for the sake of transferring affections to the object, raising prayers or supplication to the object, or to in some way give to the object or whatever it represents what is due to God is another thing altogether. Wearing out the toes of St. Swithins with kisses seems to me to be giving affections that belong to God to person — or to the statue of a person.
That’s all I’m saying: there’s a place at which one moves from valid iconography to something which subverts the value of iconography into idolatry.
February 25th, 2010 | 12:21 pm | #84
Frank,
Wouldn’t a venerator use the phrase “through the object”, not “to the object”?
You addressed that when you said it’s another matter to give to “the object or whatever it represents what is due to God”.
Isn’t the key question in the last phrase? “What is due to God, and ought not be rendered to others?”
In which case, the venerator will say, “We’re allowed to kiss people to honor them, aren’t we?”
February 25th, 2010 | 1:39 pm | #85
Frank,
Ah, I understand better. There are a few things I’d suggest to keep in mind. First, Paul and Peter indicate that members of the church did and ought to have greeted each other with a kiss. (Rom 16:16, 1 Cor 16:20, 2 Cor 13:12, 1 Thess 5:26, 1Pet 5:14-This is also evidenced to have some pre-Christian Jewish purchase as indicated by Luke 7:45) This hasn’t been the case in American or English culture for some time, but it is widely found in other cultures. American sensibilities are different and so those bodies that have retained the apostolic injunction in any form have usually transferred it to a handshake. That’s fine. I am born and raised an American. I get it. But by the same token, other cultures, including the context of the early church didn’t have the same sensibilities. Moreover, the kiss was a sign of love, by which Christians were to distinguish themselves. Granted, it’s a token, but it isn’t a necessarily vacuous one. What we do with our bodies matters. Sometimes I do not kiss my wife because I love her, I do it so that I will love her. The body follows the soul, but this also works in the other direction to some degree.
When for example I enter the narthex to prepare for worship and I venerate an icon of Christ, the Theotokos with Christ and the patron saint, in which case is St. Nicholas, I make the sign of the cross, slightly bow and kiss the image. It is an expression of affection towards those persons who are depicted and not to the object on which they are depicted. The same principle is at work when the US military treats the flag with respect. Honor, respect and affection are passed from the representation to the thing represented. Kissing by itself doesn’t entail or imply idolatry any more than when a family member of a deceased person kiss their picture at the funeral. Affection is due, per biblical commands to others than God so that of itself can’t be idolatry. There is a point where one does move from veneration to idolatry, but it isn’t in the expression of affection per se. It would have to do with worship per se, but in my own personal experience, every church tour I’ve been on or done myself, it has always been stressed that we do not worship the image or worship the saints, lest some uninformed guest get the wrong impression. I also teach Sunday school and this is common knowledge among our students down into the lower grades.
February 25th, 2010 | 6:06 pm | #86
Perry –
I really like you when you’re reasonable. :-)
I almost agree with you. Here’s where I trip up:
Fair enough. Kissing the hand or face plainly translates this way. My father is a European transplant, and I never realized how deeply this was ingrained into me until the first time my son kissed me on the face — and I realized how long it had been since I had done the same to my own father.
Given that your view of the actions are that you are kissing the person in fact seems a little bizarre to me — even by non-anglo standards — I see why you say what you say. But can you really say that kissing the feet of a statue is not untoward veneration?
Really? I find that implausible. It’s not about whether that’s logical or not: it’s about whether that’s even circumstancially-tenable. If you saw someone kissing the feet of, say, anyone — a soldier returning from war, a bus driver, an athlete — wouldn’t you say they were, at least, overcome by emotion?
And then we take this to an icon and have to ask, “are we really that attached to the person whom this statue represents?”
I think about the woman who washed Christ’s feet with her tears and dried them with her hair — Christ said it’s warranted for her to feel this way about him. Is that how we should relate to all our family in Christ?
Honestly: I think the Reformed tradition against images/icons is an over-reaction to some really bad practices in fact (if not against actual doctrines). It’s how the phrase “dour Calvinists” makes experiential sense to people. But there’s another wing in that theological building full of people who love the images more than they love God Himself. Those are the ones I worry about.
I hope you do, too.
February 25th, 2010 | 6:29 pm | #87
Juggy –
I like the way Perry answers those questions — I just don’t buy it. No offense meant toward him, of course.
I think that explanation of what’s happening in veneration misses the point that the Bible says the idea of “venerating through” some object is a massive error. Off the top of my head, it seems to me that Paul warns the Corinthians about this in his discourses to them about idols and food in 1 Cor; Rom 1 does a very clear job of summarizing plainly that there are things that belong to God which do not belong to the created things He made — and certainly not to the things we make which look like His creations; in some sense, when Jesus condemns those who swear by the temple but forget there is something greater than the temple says that there’s a kind of Jewish idolatry in-play in Isreal toward (of all things) the temple itself.
As I scroll through the various arguments about what has been done historically with idols, I get this vague feeling that these arguments are missing the point that not everything faithful people have done in the past has been faithful action. A visitor from 2510 coming back to our day who saw CBN or a Pentecostal, um, service would not be justified in saying, “because these things were done by Christians, they are legitimately done by Christians in my day,” and we’d be horrified to hear them say such a thing.
I think perry would agree with that; he just doesn’t think it applies to him and his church.
February 25th, 2010 | 6:44 pm | #88
“When you point out the difference between my claim regarding images in Jewish synagogues and the physical evidence, I will feel free to interact with that argument.”
I’ve already pointed it out, but let me make it more clear.
Your claim was “Jews had them in their synagogues at least by the time of the second century A.D.”
1) Yet the evidence you are basing this on is evidently the single instance of Dura Europos. One synagogue is not “synagogues.”
2) You can’t identify what sect of Jews were supposedly worshiping in this synagogue to help us determine whether they were traditional or (as seems possible) syncretic.
3) The synagogue in question (in Dura Europos) is from the third century (dated to 244 by an inscription) not the second century.
So, your claim about “second century” “synagogues” is a claim that is apparently hung on the extraordinarily slender reed of a single synagogue of (at best) unknown affiliation from the following century.
February 27th, 2010 | 3:39 pm | #89
TF,
You are quite right about the date of DR. That said, the date at which it was buried is not the date at which it was constructed. It was actually constructed in stages. That said, there are other cases, some later and some arguably earlier of pictorial artwork in synagogues. Duros Europas is just one case. There is also evidence of Jewish art work in religious contexts that is pictorial that is not in the synagogues that predates and continues through that period as well
You are right that I mentioned only one case, but it doesn’t follow that I mentioned once case, that there is only one. There are a number of synagogues spread out ranging in time from the second to sixth centuries A.D.
As I noted previously, if we are not licensed to think that there were probably other cases from the unique cases that we know of, then we are not licensed to do the same with the JRF.
When you write that I can’t identify which sect of Jews were “supposedly” worshipping at this synagogue, you imply that we have no good reason to think Jews worshipped there, which runs counter to all of the scholarship (and physical evidence), regardless of which explanatory model individual scholars advance. Second, what do you take to be the possible sect of Jews that could have used it and how exactly would that be germane if they were Jews? Most of the major sects of Judaism were wiped out at 70 A.D. This is not to say that Rabbinic Judaism was monolithic, but neither is or was Calvinism. In any case, it wouldn’t make them any less Jews.
If you think that the Jews at Duros Europas were syncretistic, then we’d need some reason to think that they were. Do you offer any evidence to think that they were? How about the other cases?
February 27th, 2010 | 10:04 pm | #90
Frank,
No offense taken. I still need to see what you think constitutes untoward veneration in the case of the statue. Putting aside that it’s a statue, some icons wear out over time too. So in that case, I am not clear on what you take to be untoward? The case of kissing the feet of a person, well that depends, doesn’t it, on quite a few factors. It is surely no more weird than say Ex 4:25 or 1 Sam 25:41 for example. What is the cultural context? What is intended in doing so? I would grant that in such cases they would in person be overcome by emotion, but would it constitute idolatry per se to be overcome by emotion and express it that way? It might be, then again, it might not since it depends on various conditions. So here I’d say that I still need to know what constitutes in your view the untowardness of such actions?
As for the icon, perhaps the question is as you ask it, but I’d suggest perhaps it might be another question. Ought we to be that attached to the person whom the icon represents? Take James, Peter or Paul or the Theotokos or other figures like Athanasius or Maximus. Is kissing their image an expression of attachment that we ought not to have?
To be honest and not that this is an argument, but in my experience some the reaction to icon veneration in America has more to do with sensibilities than with perceived biblical teaching. Much the same thing happens for example when one brings up or introduces the practice of common cup. People prefer their “Just Jesus and Me” shot glasses and will come up with all kinds of excuses not to adopt the practice of common cup.
I am not advocating that we feel or express ourselves towards icons of the saints the same way we do with respect to Christ. Such in my experience is not the case. Some outward gestures are reserved for icons of Christ or icons in which Christ is present, say with the Theotokos.
We agree in part about the Reformed reaction to icons due to abuses and such, but not all traditions of the Reformation acted uniformly. The Reformed reaction is in part due to a whole host of factors, not the least of which was the fact that the East has manuals for specifying and limiting iconic representation that the Franks generally did not have. Te West never really grasped the significance and theology of 2nd Nicea and took the justification for icons to be just for didactic purposes. (Much the same is true with respect to the 6th council as well respecting the two wills and energies in Christ.) The Reformers had a trump card to the didactic purpose-just teach people to read. Added to this was the fuller picture of image making in the early church and Judaism. Calvin for example thinks that images weren’t permitted until after Chalcedon, but we know that this is mistaken.
As for the people who love images more than God himself, perhaps there are such people, but I don’t know how one would know that there are a host of them or how one would identify them since such intention is internal.
I am not convinced that the Bible precludes the principle of honor or worship paid to the created thing passes on to the uncreated thing (or deified person). As I noted previously, people bowed and prostrated themselves before Christ’s body. The worship paid to the created is passed on to the divine person. If this isn’t so, then the biblical cases are cases of man worship.
Rom 1 is clear that there are things that belong to God that do not belong to creatures, but that is worship. Second, it is premised on confusing the divine glory with the glory of created objects, which means that the divine glory is known by created objects, but not circumbscribed to them in such a way that implies that the divine glory isn’t all there is to God. I don’t see how a Reformed (let alone Catholic) doctrine of God can support such a robust distinction between God’s powers and the divine essence. As for the temple and Jesus remarks, it should not be missed that it is the one who is greater than sanctifies the temple so that it is the temple that makes the gold holy and not the other way around. The Jews here had done what Paul accuses the pagans of doing in Romans 1, exchanging the glory of God for created things. Gold and such things are fine on the temple and do not take away from the holiness of the temple, but one should not confuse the divine glory with that of shinny objects. So in sum, I can’t see how what you write is really applicable here.
As for your analogy with pentacostals and the past, it isn’t sufficiently strong for it to be an apt analogy. I am not arguing from mere description to prescription. Nor does my ecclesiology hold that simply because it is old it is better. Nor do pentacostals think that the faith as been delivered with an apostolic ministry in the episcopate equipped with divine power such that judgments of the past are normative. If anything they adhere to the view, or so it seems to me, that theology is a reconstructive project rather than a received tradition. Second, the analogy depends on having access to the future state which we do not have and so is an unpaid promissory note. It is akin to Atheists who claim that eventually physicalism will be able to explain everything.
Thanks for typifying an amicable exchange.
Pax vobiscum
February 28th, 2010 | 2:26 am | #91
Thanks Perry. You said:
That’s the crux of the issue right there. I would say that “attached” is a word which is too indeterminate to rightly frame the question, though I think what you mean by it is about right.
Should we rightly think of any of these you list as heroic in the history of the faith? My answer is an unequivocal “yes”. We should see them as people from whom we benefit richly. Should we see the contributions of Athanasius as equal to those of Paul or James? Eh. I’d be willing for the sake of argument to give a qualified “yes” as long as we don’t start equivocating the writing of Scripture with the writing of edifying letters or books.
So we should be “attached” to these people in the sense that our faith and their faith are the same faith, and that their example and/or rich experience has benefited us.
Before we go on, let’s abandon for a minute my image of a statue’s toe which is worn out from kissing. You are getting sort of diverted from my point by the fact of “wearing out”.
My contention would be this: the assumption that a statue represents a particular person sufficiently for one to transfer all the affections one has for the person to the statue from a theological perspective is dismantled by Scripture. I think you could give hundreds of examples of people giving high other to other actual people — kisses, hugs, bowing, prostration, etc. But I think we find in scripture when this activity/affection is transferred to an inanimate object, scripture is plain to denounce it.
For example, consider Deu 4:15-19 –
Plainly: Moses is telling Israel that images made in the likeness of men and women are forbidden to them for the sake of … what?
See — if we use your definition, this passage of scripture become indecipherable. One may have only made the image, as you might say, to express whole-hearted love for Thomas Aquinas — how can that be harmful? God says it is inherently harmful — making images to admire inherently detracts from the unique place God ought to have in our view of the world.
Further consider Isaiah 44:
The fascinating part here is the way Isaiah tells us that it’s an image of a man which the maker of the idol has adopted — that someone it’s a man-shape which captivates him.
Lastly, consider Dan 3 and the story of Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image. There is little doubt that the image is actually Nebuchadnezzar’s image, raised by him around 575 BC to create a monument to himself. Yet it is plainly idolatry to bow to the statue — even though it’s not idolatry to bow to the man himself in power. If your assumptions are true, the Israelites could merely honor the man by bowing to the statue — but there is no such provision in the commitments of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
So in all of that, there has to be some accounting for the fact that no statue of a man is actually that man. It can commemorate him without replacing him; it can represent our admiration for him without requiring us to treat the statue as if the man is standing there. You know — think about this: the emotionally-reasonable path to follow using the logic you are presenting here is (for example) to let a statue of Paul the Apostle provide us with teaching and instruction. Why would we say otherwise if we are somehow trying to avoid Nestorian or Monophysite error? If the statue represents his person and soul, why would we not expect it to therefore edify us the way the actual man could edify us?
The answer is transparently obvious: it is not at all the person in question. It is a static memorial to the person — as a tombstone might be, or an obituary. To in some way imbue the essence of the person into the inanimate object is in fact to make it an idol in every meaningful way.
Thanks again for your engagement.
February 28th, 2010 | 8:10 am | #92
I’m glad we Western Christians don’t bow down and prostrate ourselves before any idols.
;D
February 28th, 2010 | 9:52 pm | #93
Frank,
I agree about “attached.”
As for heroes of the faith I have a few worries to start. First I wonder what happens to the act of honoring those apart form bodily actions? I often hear about how Protestants revere Mary and such, but in actual practice, that means conjuring up an idea now and then and not much more. Thinking of such and so in a nice way is a quite anemic sense of honor and veneration. Such honor and love isn’t much more than a phantasme. For my part, I owe these people through whom and with whom the Trinity worked a great deal and I love them for it. Not to wax Hellenic, but Aristotle has a point in the Metaphysics when he writes that humans like the sense of sight more than all the others because it makes us know more than all the others. A picture is worth a thousand words.
I also think that people make an unconscious rift between bowing and kissing and making an image and placing it in a high place (above the fire place or a Christmass Crèche) and/or placing flowers around it. Both are forms of veneration. If we take the 2nd commandment as Calvinists have historically done, I don’t see much difference between honoring statues of John Calvin in Geneva and icons.
I’d also point for discussion the memorial acts done this year by the family and countrymen of the Georgian state for their fallen Olympic athlete. Take a look and see if you think that crosses the line.
I think more directly, the question of “attachment” has something to do with ecclesiology, namely where there is one church on earth and another one divided by death in heaven or not. And that will bring us right back to Christology again.
I also think that some of the material you marshal from Scripture won’t support the application you put it towards and is in part misdirected. I don’t think my view entails that an image represents a particular person for the transfer of all of the affections in a kind of exhaustive way. After all, we see through a glass darkly.
I think there are scriptural examples of honoring inanimate objects, not the least of which was the temple and all of its accouterments. The same goes for the bones of Elijah and Joseph, as well as personal objects of the Apostles. Hence Scripture does not unqualifiedly denounce the idea of transferring honor to and through inanimate objects. God likes matter-he made lots of it.
What Scripture is concerned about in Deut 4 is identifying deity with created objects, most particularly arstral deities of the middle east. Do not confuse Yhwh with any of the gods of the nations for they all have an expressed form and Yhwh gave you none. Many of the rival deities were depicted as male and female humanoids or mixtures of the human form with animals, a Satanic pre-Advent slam on the Incarnation if ever there was one. On the other hand, the cherubs that God commanded to be carved and fashioned mixed animal and human elements. Now, do you mean to suggest that an image of Basil or Athanasius or Augustine amount to an image of Astarte? Really? I don’t think so.
Now, you mention an image of Aquinas (of course he’s not a Saint for the Orthodox but no matter) but I consequently don’t think Deut 4 is applicable, because Deut 4 says its not. It is with respect to the divine form qua deity, which is what Deut 4 is concerned about. Hence the passage doesn’t say that such an image of a saint is inherently harmful. It says an image of a saint to portray divinity qua divinity is harmful. But no icons, at least in my church are permitted or intended to do so. This is why I have said that we have no icons of the Trinity. The Father is not an old man with a beard that just so happens to be whiter than Jesus’.
The prohibition is quite easily decipherable in its context and makes better sense out of reverence shown for things like bones of prophets and constructed angels carved out of wood and gold than otherwise.
The same goes for Isaiah 44. If we take this to be applicable in the way you deploy it, then all of the carved images of lions or birds or angels in the temple were idols, even ones that had no divine command but were approved by God. On the contrary, all idols are images, but not all images are idols and this was a point that even the iconoclasts came to concede before 2nd Nicea in their polemical literature. In short, Is 44 is concerned about making images out of created things and identifying them with deity qua deity just as the Israelites did with the golden calf-“This is the god that bought you out of Egypt!” But there are a few reasons why this isn’t the case for the Orthodox. First because all our manuals prohibit it quite strictly. Icons aren’t just what any old person decides to draw. There are strict rules and the person is under the direct supervision of their bishop. (There’s even church law against making sexually suggestive icons!) Second, our theology affirms, more strongly than any other 1 Tim 6:16, that God is not capable of being seen qua divine essence. This is why we unlike Rome and the Reformers deny the doctrine of the Beatific Vision. On the other hand, Paul in reprimanding the Galatians refers to a protraryal of Christ crucified before their very *eyes* (not ears).
Also of note is the fact that both the ancient paganism and the later iconoclasm thought that the essence of the prototype was “mixed” or captured by the matter out of which the image was constructed. This renders Isaiah’s critique far more effective. But I don’t think this is true of icons.
I don’t see how Daniel 3 poses problems. Let me give you a parallel case. Josephus records Jewish opposition to Roman standards in Jerusalem (Antiquities 18.3..1) What they opposed was not the Roman standards per se or even the images of human figures, but that the human figures were intended to be gods, and hence idols. So What Nebuchadnezzar intended is the same for his Jewish subjects, worship of his idol as a god. To test your claim, we’d need a case where a king carved an image but demanded only a suitable expression of honor but not worship. But Scripture doesn’t give us that case in Daniel 3 and so noting that Scripture doesn’t give us a provision for honor paid to an image that isn’t worship in Daniel 3 is an argument from silence since Daniel 3 is an instance of the application of another principle. Of course Scripture does give us a case of worship/honor given to God and to a king by bowing in a religious context. (1 Chronicles 29:20).It also gives us examples of honor paid to deified/sanctified inanimate objects such as the Ark of the Covenant.
As for the logic of what I presented and teaching and instruction, I do not think that is the primary purpose of icons and iconic veneration. This leaves us with moralism. The primary usage is not didactic, but liturgical and devotional. And I have denied and all the major theological defenses in fact deny that the essence of the person is communicated to the matter of the icon. This is quite clearly stated over and over again in John of Damascus and even better in Theodore the Studite. Consequently, to make an image is not necessarily to make an idol.
February 28th, 2010 | 10:25 pm | #94
David –
Hey now. You leave my DVD collections and my comic books out of this.
February 28th, 2010 | 10:30 pm | #95
Perry said:
And therein lies all the disagreements. I don’t think it’s an unconscious rift, and I think to make all “venerations” of equal function is the same as using the word “attached” as you did above: that is, it euphemizes in order to obscure useful and critical distinctions.
I admire your view, but I don’t agree with it at all. I’m grateful we did find some things to agree about in this thread, and I hope we have a chance to dust it up again soon in a similarly-civil fashion.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact