The veneration of an icon is focused on the person of the icon as holy.50 This makes the icon itself holy, not because of the inherent holiness of the icon or the person but because of the kenosis of God represented in the person and the icon. Again, this reflects a sacred view of matter as created and infused by the incarnational presence of God. In Orthodoxy, there is no artificial distinction between the sacred and the secular. All reality, including the physical, has the potential to be sacred.
49 Giakalis, 1994, p. 121.
50 Giakalis, 1994, p. 120.
Iconoclastic Controversies and The Defense of Icons
Through the history of the Church, there have been various seasons of resistance to the use of icon. This resistance included most everything from caution on the behalf of church leaders to full fledged persecution of those who were even in the possession of icons. We will consider some of the controversy from the first millennium. Barasch suggests that some of the roots of opposition to images can be found in Tertullian.51 Tertullian opposed art and images. He considered them dangerous and sinful. While this was most likely linked with social and pagan customs, Tertullian taught that the artist was a rebel from God. Florovsky admits that “The origin, the meaning, and the nature of the Iconoclastic conflict are rather uncertain and obscure”.52 However, he traces one root of the iconoclastic controversy to Origen.
But… “Origen’s Christology was utterly inadequate and ambiguous. The whole set of his metaphysical presuppositions made it very difficult for him to integrate the Incarnation, as a unique historical event, into the general scheme of Revelation. Everything historical was but transitory and accidental.” “The whole system of symbols was something provisional, to be ultimately done away.”53 Florovsky also suggests that “… the conflict itself was merely a symptom of sterility of the Byzantine Church.”54 It found resonance with the upper class segments of society (the army and court) but never flourished in the lower classes.55 He does admit, however, that there were problems with images as early as the fourth century.56 This would coincide with the flowering of public religious art subsequent to the Edict of Milan.
51 Moshe Barasch. Icon: Studies in the History of an Idea. (New York, NY: New York University Press,
1992), p. 113ff.
52 Florovsky, 1974, p. 101.
53 Ibid, p. 110.
54 Ibid, p. 102.
55 Ibid, p. 106.
56 Ibid, p. 107.
Identification with a side of the iconoclastic controversy was often more related to social and political factors than theological ideology. During much of this time, monasteries were making money off of “miraculous” icons and the tourism business.57 This caused people to have strong opinions on either side of the dispute. This difficult time during Christian history, the age of iconoclasm, can be divided into three phases.58 These are:
1. Emergence and development under Leo III (717-740CE) and Constantine V (740-775, and the iconoclastic council of 754CE (Hieria)
2. The Seventh Ecumenical council in Nicea (787CE) – icons okay
3. Iconoclastic revival (815-842CE) and final extinction (up to 867CE)
Prior to the age of iconoclasm, as defined above, a key influence in the practices surrounding icons was the Quinisext Council of 692CE. This council declared that images of Christ should be human, rather than non-human (a lamb for example).59 This ruling was based, to some degree, on the understanding that non- human symbols were necessary during times of persecution when the practices of Christianity were done in secret. In 692CE, secrecy was not necessary. The council ordered that symbols from the Old Testament be changed to actual representations – actual people rather than symbols.60 In addition, it was decreed that no paintings “corrupted by shameful pleasures” be allowed in Christian worship.61 This was probably a reaction to some pagan practices of the time, for example, the bacchus feast.62 The Pope refused to sign the documents coming out of this council because he perceived error.
