160 Ugolnik, 1989, p. 52.
161 Calian, 1968, p. 140.
162 Clendenin, 1994, p. 73.
163 Ibid, p. 72.
164 Clendenin [John of Damascus, Divine Images 1.17], 1994, p. 75.
165 Clendenin, 1994, p. 77. see reformation examples of Zwingli and Luther.
166 Ibid, p. 75.
There is “…little empathy for social aesthetic, much less a pastoral aesthetic (the idea that aesthetics can instruct us and urge us toward the good).”167 Ouspensky goes on to suggest that in the east the church depicts Christ in icons “…not as an ordinary man, but as the God-Man in His glory…”. This is in contrast to Western art, which depicts Christ “…simply as a man who suffers physically.”168
In the Orthodox Church, intuition and reflection is of more value than rational discourse. “Eastern theology originates in the sanctuary, Western theology in the scholar’s study or university library. The one employs candles, frescoes, mosaics, bells, icons, and incense, the other a word processor…In short, in the West theology takes the form of scientific wisdom; in the East it is sacramental worship.”169 “In the west, the theologian has instructed and even limited the artist, whereas in the East, the iconographer is a charismatic who contemplates the liturgical mysteries and instructs the theologian.”170
The anti-aesthetic sentiment common to evangelicalism is obviously an inadequate approach for ministry in a post-modern culture. Giakalis suggests that: “This is the fundamental role of Christian education: to guide one towards saving truth. In contrast with a scientific and rationalistic education, which aims only at the increase of a person’s critical capacity and his application to research, the fundamental data of which must always be changing and advancing, the saving truth of Christian faith remains changeless…”171 Giakalis concludes that icons and teaching by sight is a more effective approach to Christian education.
In the 21st century, a climate of post-modernity, there are significant changes happening in the dialogue between the east and the west.
167 Clendenin, 1994, p. 75.
168 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 153.
169 Clendenin, 1994, p. 79.
170 Coniaris, 1982, p. 177.
171 Giakalis, 1994, p. 54.
The positive news is that: “We have come from an age of disputes to tone of dialogue, from divergence to convergence, from polemics to irenics.”172
Anti-image Sentiment in the Post Reformation Church
John Calvin contested the ecumenical legitimacy of the 7th Ecumenical council. He believed that it wasn’t actually ecumenical.173 Calvin also said “images cannot stand in the place of books”174 and that the revelation of God is verbal and oral – not image. Images had value for illustrating the word (words?) but no value beyond that. However, Kretschmar suggests that Calvin “… probably never saw an icon in his life.”175 This is somewhat ironic in that the term used in I Corinthians in one case for Christ and in another for man is “image” (eikon).176 Yet this anti-image sentiment has persisted through much of the protestant church since the time of Calvin.
Luther was also suspicious of images and saw a dichotomy between an image of Christ and Christ himself. He felt that it was “…intolerable that a Christian should set his heart on images and not on Christ.” He considered this to be superstition.177 But the “word” is essentially discussion of life – of image. It is not possible to think about the biblical narratives without thinking about some kind of image. It is possible that the protestant emphasis on Word (and arguably, words) was more a result of a combination of the invention of the printing press and a reaction against anything Roman than a truly biblical and historical doctrine.
