THINKING ABOUT ICONS

This past Sunday was celebrated as The Sunday of Orthodoxy by Eastern Christians. The first Sunday of Lent has been set apart as the day on which the church offers thanks for the defeat of the Iconoclasts in the pronouncements of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. (For those interested in the historical details, you can find a helpful overview here.)

When I think of Eastern Orthodoxy, I think of Icons. The two have become so identified with each other that the commemoration of Iconography's vindication has been named the day of Orthodoxy. So this is obviously huge for our Orthodox siblings. But for Protestants (and even a few protesting Catholics, like myself) there has always been a great deal of ambivalence towards this- the last pronouncement of the unified church. My own Puritan background (and no, I don’t mean puritanical background) throws up all sorts of red flags. I’m just not sure.

The Patristic Anglican offers a helpful summary of the council’s decision:

Three main issues as follows:

I. There are two kinds of Worship or Veneration:

(a) The Reverence due to holy persons and things because they stand in somerelation to God. E.g. the Holy Scriptures, the Church, the Holy Table, the Cross, the Saints. We call this "Reverence"; the Greeks, timhtikh proskunhsiV.

(b) The Worship due to God alone. We call this, colloquially, "Adoration"; the Greeks, latreia. It is of the highest importance to emphasize the difference as strongly as possible, because there is always a danger of slipping from one kind of veneration into the other, and "the Lord our God is a jealous God." The definition is primarily a bulwark against idolatry, which it condemns in set terms.

2. All Veneration of Material Things is Relative:

The reverence for a picture passes to the person it represents. E.g. we place the photograph of our departed mother in a place of honour. But our honour or respect does not rest in the paper and the pigment, it passes through the portrait to the original. We reverence the Bible, but our worship is really addressed to the Holy Spirit Who inspired its pages; the Cross, but our worship is referred to Him Who died thereon. So with all material things. We are required by a canon of the Church of England to bow at the Holy Name of Jesus. But in so doing our worship passes through the icon of purely material sounds to the Saviour of mankind.

3. The Sanctification of Matter through the Incarnation:

Of old, God the uncircumscribed could not be portrayed. The Incarnation was a condescension to our nature. We are as God made us, with bodies and senses. Christ came that we might apprehend God through the material Image of His human nature: He Whom, as St. John says, we have seen and heard and handled. Thus it has come to pass that we can approach Him through the noblest of our senses; we can portray the God Whom we have seen.
------------------------------------------------------------

The Greek theologians present at the Conference were understood to accept this as covering the ground; there was nothing left to be said.

Working backwards, it seems to me that the third point is the most important in the debate. If we believe that God perfectly became man, then how can we have an issue with portraying him as such? In other words, the iconoclast controversy was (and is) about the Incarnation. God chose to be seen. Was it then improper to see him?

I can hear your mind working: “Ah, but an Icon isn’t a true image of him- not really.” Given the nature of an “image”, I’m not sure what that means. Does it mean that an icon is inaccurate in some ways, but aren’t all images inaccurate in some way? Is that not what Points One and Two are there to guard against: don’t confuse the image with the Archimage?

I think I’m settled on Point One. Even Free Church Evangelical’s show respect and honor to all sorts of people and symbols. Think of standing for the National Anthem or when a bride comes down the aisle, or better yet- think of not standing for the National Anthem or when a bride comes down the aisle.

I remember reading of a gentleman who explained the difference between Reverence and Adoration by saying, “If William Shakespeare came through that door, then I would stand out of respect for him. If Jesus Christ entered, however, I would fall to my knees.” Makes perfectly good sense to me.

Point Two might seem too vaguely metaphysical when it speaks of “honor passing onto something else”, but the examples given resonate with me. I can remember when my Granddaddy was hospitalized from a heart attack. I didn’t know it at the time, but he wouldn’t be coming home. I was in the fifth grade. I’d never been catechized in the mechanics of veneration passing on to the original, but I understood it in my eleven-year old Fundamental Baptist heart. I can remember wrapping a photograph of Granddaddy in a blanket and trying to sneak it into the bathroom with me. I was embarrassed with my weeping and felt a little too soft at wanting to hold the picture close. I sat on the bathroom floor, arms wrapped around the photo, and cried. It was my Granddaddy that I was reaching for. I believe my young heart found him through the image.

Again, even Evangelicals understand this. Consider an obvious political one- burning cloth isn’t significant, but burn a U.S flag and there will be hell to pay from the Religious Right. And rightly so, if you love America. Is this not true precisely for the reasons given in Point Two above?

Why is proper to honor our nation in this way, but not our God?

Perhaps it is the actual practice that turns me off. I’m not into a lot of kissing and bowing, but I guess that is the point- culturally I don’t express respect in this way. Might compliance to the teaching of the Council be satisfied- maybe even required- through more familiar Western practices?

Still chewing on it, but I suspect that The Pontificator’s First Law applies here: When Orthodoxy and Catholicism agree, Protestantism loses.