In spite of the questions raised in this section, there is substantial merit to the ideas surrounding the use of icons in worship. Emphases on the mysterious as well as the reality of the spiritual, as opposed to only the physical, are essential to an incarnational relationship with God. At the close of the era of modernity, it seems culture is ripe for an encounter with a theology that emphasizes both the incarnation and transcendence from the material. Post-modernity will continue to hunger for this potentially holistic approach to relationship with the divine.
156 Quenot, 1991, p. 48.
Symbol In Contemporary Evangelical Churches
While there are significant differences between Evangelical Churches and the Orthodox regarding the basic theological assumptions of the use of symbol and art in worship, there are also significant areas of potential overlap and application. These areas of overlap might be more practical than theological but some kind of appropriate use of symbol and sacred art is essential for any church to be effective in postmodernity. Consideration of the theological principles of the Orthodox use of icon is helpful to development of an appropriate use of symbol in evangelicalism at the dawn of the 21st century.
Differences Between Western and Eastern Theological Perspectives
Western Christianity is marked by a cerebral quality. Orthodoxy is marked more by intuition.157 In the Western Church, the focus is on getting meaning from words – from a book. Western educators fear that meaning will be lost if the text is lost. The text is central to meaning.158 For the Orthodox the word is communally celebrated rather than individually encountered. “The Book is the repository of meaning, yet the Book is regarded and treated as if it were itself an image begetting images.” It is image producing – “…transforms dead matter into the reflected image of Jesus Christ.”159
“The American Protestant mind is culturally and literarily disposed to envision the Word in terms of a book, the “text” of creation. The Russian Orthodox mind, through the veil of its own culture, interprets that Word in light of the images that reflect it.
157 Baggley, 1988, p. 2.
158 Ugolnik, 1989, p. 49.
159 Ibid, p. 50.
American Christians obey the Augustinian injunction “Take up and read!” Their Russian counterparts are apt to concentrate upon the insight that follows the imperative “Look up and see!”.”160
This has radically affected the understanding of the role of the artist in the church. “In the West, the theologian has instructed the artist. In the east…the iconographer instructs the theologian.”161 In this sense, the Orthodox Church fuses the aesthetic with the theological.162 This is in sharp contrast with an Evangelical context “…a church with four whitewashed walls, a slightly out-of-tune piano, and a leader whose expressed intent is ‘to share a few thoughts from the Word.’”163 In the Orthodox Church, seeing is valued above hearing.164
In the Orthodox tradition, aesthetics are valued as central to worship. This creates a climate of potential influence that is significantly different than that in the evangelical church. In the east, word exists in images. In the west, word is spoken. In the east, the central figures are priest and painter. In the west, the central figure is pastor as scholar. Protestant Christianity in this way is professorial.165 Aesthetics are often perceived as unimportant in evangelical contexts. “In some instances Western Christians even view beauty in a negative light, as something evil, soft, vulnerable, feminine, and fragile, rather than as something tough, disciplined, and rational. Beauty is sometimes considered a distraction…”.166 “In the West Christians typically regard aesthetics as having no importance for their Christian identity; aesthetics is, rather, a matter of private preference or peripheral concern.”
