A Brief Critique of The Orthodox Theology of Icons<\/em><\/a><\/p>\nThe Implications of A Theology of Equality Between Image And Word, Contradictions in the Theology of Icons, Orthodoxy And The Other Arts, The Dangers of Veneration as Idolatry, Problems In The Idea of Beauty, Eliminating the Personality of the Icon Painter, Problems Related to the Iconostasis, Symbol In Contemporary Evangelical Churches, Differences Between Western and Eastern Theological Perspectives, Anti-image Sentiment in the Post Reformation Church, A Healthy Understanding of Symbol, The Possibility of Veneration In The Evangelical Church, The Proper Introduction of Icon, Practical Applications For The Use Of Symbol In Evangelical Churches, Teaching on Images, Images on PowerPoint, Icons for the Home, Seriousness of The Arts As They Relate To Faith, Conclusion<\/p>\n
Glossary and Bibliography <\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
This project begins with a brief overview of the theology and use of icon in the Orthodox Church. Aspects of the icon that will be considered include: the understanding of Tradition in the Orthodox Church; origins of the use of icons; the development of the theology of icons; the iconoclastic controversies and the defense of icons; an understanding of veneration; image as authoritatively equal to Word; and some themes, examples and practical use of icons. Following this overview will be a brief critique of Orthodox doctrine and use of the icon. This critique will be primarily helpful toward the third section of the project, which will be to draw potential applications for the use of symbol in the evangelical church today. In fact, the evangelical church already uses symbol, but often without a great deal of thought. This study is significant in that the thoughtful use of symbol, and potentially, some kind of use of icon, is essential for effective ministry during the postmodern era. This project will seek to develop a healthy theology of the use of image in worship that can be applied to an evangelical context.<\/p>\n
The final section of this project will be a compilation of the previous study into a presentation suitable for the seminary classroom. It is intended that this material will become part of a course in worship and the arts. This material will relate specifically to the historical use of symbol in the Orthodox Church and potential applications for today\u2019s evangelical church leaders.<\/p>\n
Through the process of this work, there has been fairly close consultation with a number of people. This contact has been for the purpose of evaluation of both the content and the possibilities of presentation in a classroom context. The individuals consulted are listed in the bibliography of this paper. Their input is reflected often in the project, however, in light of the informal nature of many of the discussions, much of their input has settled to the subconscious level and is not referenced. It would be ideal to have students evaluate this material after this course was actually taught, but this will not happen during the time allotted for the project.<\/p>\n
In the Orthodox Church, tradition is highly valued as the work of God over long periods of time to guide and direct the church. In this sense, tradition is the continuity of the experience of the community and the leading of the Holy Spirit in that continuity. Ouspensky suggests that: \u201cTradition is the power of the historical community to understand and know the truth. It is the work of the Holy Spirit in time.\u201d1 In Orthodox tradition, this experience is intrinsically woven with the content of the Scriptures and the painting or writing of icons. This sense of community is profoundly different from western individualism. In the west, Tradition used to mean a rich heritage of community practice. Now, however, it often means simply an old way of doing things. In fact, our understanding of the idea of tradition has lost much of its identity. \u201cTradition is one of those terms which, through being too rich in meanings, runs the risk of finally having none.\u201d2<\/p>\n
Tradition, in the Orthodox Church, in many senses has equal authority to the scripture. This understanding is important in an overview of the use of Icon. Icon painters were required to adhere to tradition, both of icon painting itself as well as of the church in general.3 This is consistent with the idea that Scripture itself was written according to Tradition.<\/p>\n
1 Leonid Ouspensky. Theology of the Icon: Volumes 1 & 2. (Crestwood: St. Vladimir\u2019s Seminary Press, 1992), p. 136.
\n2 Leonid Ouspensky & Vladimir Lossky. The Meaning of Icons. (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir\u2019s
\nSeminary Press, 1983), p. 11.
\n3 Ouspensky, p. 296<\/p>\n
There are many references in Scripture to things that were passed on verbally but not written down. (II Thess 2:15 \u2013 things passed on by mouth and letter, I Cor 11:2 \u2013 urged to maintain traditions passed on to them).4 This understanding of the idea of tradition permeates the content and technique of the making of icons as well as the ways they are to be treated. In the Orthodox Church, remaining the same is valued over change. While there has been change during the 2000 years of the church, it has come over long periods of time and has been validated widely by consensus of church leadership and adherence to the content of previously established tradition.<\/p>\n
Origins of the Use of Icons<\/p>\n
Most scholars admit that the concept of the icon pre-dates Christianity and probably originated with an ancient Egyptian funeral portrait.5 This is an example of the relatively common occurrence of the church borrowing from culture. \u201cTo develop its language, the Church used, as we have seen, form, symbols and even myths of antiquity, i.e., pagan forms of expression. But it did not use these forms without purifying them and adapting them to its own goals. Christianity absorbs everything that can serve as a form of expression from the world around it.\u201d6<\/p>\n
The first evidence of Christian art is found in the Catacombs. During the times of persecution, various symbols such as fish and loaves were painted on the walls of these secret places.7 These were places where early Christians gathered and where the church leaders (clergy) were buried.8 The primary purpose of these pictures was to convey the stories of the gospels and to portray their inner meaning.9<\/p>\n
4 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 137
\n5 Mahmoud Zibawi. The Icon: Its Meaning and History. (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1993), p. 79
\n6 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 86.
\n7 Zibawi, 1993, p. 79.
\n8 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 38.
\n9 Ibid. p. 27.<\/p>\n
While the origins of Christian art may be traced, in a general way, to the pictures of the Catacombs, principles of Icon painting are not seen here. The first instance of a Christian icon is traced to the story of the image created by Christ Himself. The story is told of an ancient King Abgar of Osroene, who was dying of leprosy and sent a message begging Jesus to visit him. According to the story, Christ created an image of himself by pressing his face on a cloth. Apparently, this image remained in Edessa until the tenth century, when it was taken to Constantinople. After the destruction of the city in 1204CE, it disappeared.10 This is called the image \u201cmade without human hands\u201d or the \u201choly face\u201d or the Acheiropoietos.11 While there is virtually no physical evidence to support this event, it is considered a reliable story of the origin of the icon of Christ.<\/p>\n
In the History of the Church by Eusebius, the author says that he has seen many portraits of the Savior, Peter and Paul. This indicates that images of the Lord were present during the first centuries of the church.12 This is somewhat significant in that, by many accounts, Eusebius was antagonistic to icons. For example, there is a record of a request of Eusebius for an icon. This came from Constantia, sister of Constantine the great. His decidedly negative response was surprise. He claimed he did not understand what she could possibly have meant.13 Many iconoclasts appeal to Eusebius\u2019s response as evidence against the use of icons.<\/p>\n
10 Jeremy Begbey, Ed. Beholding the Glory: Incarnation Through The Arts. [Jim Forest. Through Icons: Word And Image Together] (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), p. 84.
\n11 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 51.
\n12 Ouspensky and Lossky, 1983, p. 25.
\n13 This discussion is preserved in \u201c\u2026a fragment from the Testament of Epiphanius of Cyprus.\u201d Ambrosios Giakalis. Images of the Divine: The Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council. (New York, NY: E. J. Brill, 1994), p. 25. also Georges Florovsky, Christianity And Culture. (Belmont, MA: Nordland Pub. Co., 1974), p. 108.<\/p>\n
In any case; \u201cBy the time of Justinian it was accepted that iconography was to be used as a servant of the Christian faith.\u201d14<\/p>\n
Another legendary origin of the icon is the account of St. Luke painting icons of Mary and the Christ child.15 Orthodox tradition holds that Luke painted three of these icons.16 Again, we have no evidence of such occurrences. There is very little evidence that paintings or icons were used in the church prior to 250CE.17<\/p>\n
14 John Baggley. Doors of Perception: Icons And Their Spiritual Significance. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir\u2019s Seminary Press, 1988), p. 17.
\n15 Zibawi, 1993, p. 29.
\n16 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 60.
\n17 Baggley, 1988, p. 8.<\/p>\n
The Development Of The Theology of Icons<\/p>\n
It may be fair to say that the theology of the icon developed more in the context of reaction than independent of other circumstances. This may be said of much of the theology of the church. In other words, concise theology regarding practices appeared only when these practices were questioned. This seems to be true of the theology of the icon. Much of the doctrinal clarity regarding icons came out of the response to various iconoclasms designed to repudiate and remove icons from the church. This will be discussed in more detail in a later section, but it is important to point out that the use of icon was a natural development of the church in a primarily illiterate culture. Pictures and oral presentation of the gospel were normative. These were not primarily theological things but outworkings of faith. As the use of icon and images came into question, concise theological defenses were developed.<\/p>\n
The \u201cart\u201d of the icon was (and remains) distinct from the art of the world. It \u201c\u2026does not resemble the art of the world. It expresses different kinds of truths and has other goals. If it mingles with secular art, it no longer corresponds to the goal which it must serve.\u201d18 Rather, the icon serves as \u201c\u2026a link between the eternal and the temporal, serving as an image of the divine world even to the extent that it partakes in the spiritual energy of what it portrays, thereby aiding the worshiper as a bridge or signpost for his own pilgrimage through this earthly life.\u201d19 It functions as a channel of grace rather than mere decorative artwork. In this way: \u201cThe beauty of the church is different from the beauty of the world because it reflects the harmony of the age to come.\u201d20 \u201cAn icon is thus the servant of the Holy Tradition of the Church, a servant of the Gospel, not a mere artistic device.\u201d21<\/p>\n
The Edict of Milan<\/p>\n
The Edict of Milan (313CE) had a profound impact on virtually every aspect of the Christian church. After this edict, Byzantine art emerged as the first Christian style. Its purpose was didactic, to teach the people through pictures. Pope Gregory the Great is credited with saying: \u201cPainting can do for the illiterate what writing does for those who can read\u201d.22 This edict also had an impact on the icon. Prior to Constantine, the art of the church was hidden. After 313CE, it was possible that the art of the church could become public.<\/p>\n
18 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 30.
\n19 Carnegie S. Calian. Icon And Pulpit: The Protestant-Orthodox Encounter. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1968), p. 129.
\n20 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 31.
\n21 Baggley, 1988, p. 7.
\n22 E. H. Gombrich. The Story of Art. (London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1995), p. 135.<\/p>\n
Prior to Constantine, religious art was meaningful to those who understood the faith but not to the new convert. After Constantine, there were many converts. The art of the church had to change to be more accessible to the new, unknowledgeable believers.23 The role of image in both communication of truth and in expression of worship became increasingly significant. Many of the theologians of the time concluded that painted images had even greater power than words.24 As a result, the use of image in the church was encouraged and flourished.<\/p>\n
Image as Equal to Word<\/p>\n
The Orthodox understanding of icon confers a basic authoritative equality of image and word. \u201cThe word is an image, therefore the image is the word. Images are on the same level as the word.\u201d25 Zibawi suggests that \u201c\u2026the icon is the expression of the good news, on a par with the written Gospels.\u201d26 The technical aspects of the icon were under the control of the iconographer but not the content. This reemphasizes the idea that content is the Gospel. Structure and style, which are at the discretion of men, are technical.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the eyes of the Church, therefore, the icon is not art illustrating Holy Scripture; it is a language that corresponds to it and is equivalent to it, corresponding not to the letter of Scripture or the book itself as an object, but the evangelical kerygma, that is, to the content of the Scripture itself\u2026\u201d27<\/p>\n
23 (Ouspensky\/ Lossky, 1983, p. 29)
\n24 for example, John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Cyril of Alexandria (Ouspensky, 1992, p. 81ff)
\n25 (Ouspensky\/ Lossky, 1983, p. 30)
\n26 (Zibawi, 1993, p. 11)
\n27 (Ouspensky, 1992, p. 139)<\/p>\n
This creates the possibility of the role of icons as preacher. In fact, Limouris suggests that icons play a role as important as the preaching of the word.28 They allow humans to partake in the divine reality of God. They function as windows to the eternal. This is consistent with the Orthodox understanding that the bible is a verbal icon of Christ and should be venerated in the same way.29<\/p>\n
28 (Limouris, 1990, p. ix)
\n29 Timothy Ware. The Orthodox Church. (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1964), p. 209.<\/p>\n
The Kenosis of God<\/p>\n
The basic idea of the kenosis of God is that God participated in the created world through Christ so that human beings have the potential to participate in the divine. A scriptural example of this is found in II Peter 1:4. Essentially, \u201cGod became man so that man might become God.\u201d; \u201cThe Word became flesh so that the flesh could become word\u201d30 The Orthodox discuss this in relationship to Philippians 2 as the emptying of God. Man is to become like God and participate the nature of God. This is \u201c\u2026a dynamic task to accomplish.\u201d31 Essentially, man, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, \u201c\u2026becomes God by grace\u201d.32 While this sounds suspect to an evangelical in that it appears that the doctrine implies that men may become gods, this is not precisely the case. Rather, men may participate in the nature of God. While biblical evidence for this is not overwhelming, it is present. In essence, it reflects the desire of man to be like Christ. This is a possible thing. It is significant in light of the veneration of icons. It is not really the picture that is venerated, but the \u201cGod likeness\u201d of the person represented in the picture.<\/p>\n
30 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 152.
\n31 Ibid, p. 156.
\n32 Ibid, p. 158.<\/p>\n
While this appears to be the veneration, or even worship of an image, it is actually understood as the veneration of God (in man) through the image.<\/p>\n
In the context of the kenosis of God, the Orthodox understand all of creation in a very sacramental way. All of matter was sanctified through the incarnation of Christ. The crucial argument is that when God became matter in Christ, \u201c\u2026an eternal change took place in the relationship between God and material creation.\u201d33 \u201cOur brothers of the East consider the concrete things that are all around us much less in themselves and for themselves, according to the value of their own components, than as a reflection or image of a transcendent reality which they exist to express.\u201d34<\/p>\n
While this allows the possibility of an increased sense of the holistic, it also reflects a desire for the elimination of the sensual. \u201cThe icon therefore shows Christian life aiming at absolute inward peace and freedom from all passion and emotion.\u201d35 This does appear to be in some contradiction with the teaching of John of Damascus that \u201c\u2026matter is the creation of God and a good thing.\u201d36<\/p>\n
33 St. John of Damascus. On The Divine Images: Three Apologies Against Those Who Attack Divine Images. Trans. By David Anderson. (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir\u2019s Seminary Press, 1980), p. 8.
\n34 M. J. Le Guillou, O.P., Trans. By Donald Attwater, The Spirit of Eastern Orthodoxy. (New York, NY: Hawthorn Books, 1965), p. 53.
\n35 Ibid, p. 55)
\n36 St. John of Damascus, 1980, p. 62.<\/p>\n
Icons Represent the \u201cPerson\u201d Of The Subject<\/p>\n
In western art, images are generally representative of the nature of the subject. In other words, a painting illuminates certain physical features of a subject that allow a viewer to make certain, primarily subjective judgments about that subject. This is because most art focuses on the physical or the nature of the subject. Art that focuses on the nature of the subject only has the options of humanity or divinity. An Orthodox understanding of icon is significantly different from either of these perspectives. According to Ouspensky, it is very dangerous to try to represent either of these in art.37 Rather, the icon portrays the person of the subject.38 The icon is linked to the prototype not because it attempts to be an identical representation of the prototype. \u201cThe icon is joined to its prototype because it portrays the person and caries his name. This is precisely what makes communion with the represented person possible, what makes him known.\u201d39 When one renders honor to the image, one is rendering honor to the prototype. Because of this, exact physical representation of the subject is not crucial. So the icon is not essentially an image, but an anti-image. In a sense, for example, this is the opposite of the shroud of Turin, which is said to be an exact replica. \u201cBecause it (the icon) is less than an image, it is infinitely more.\u201d40 Icons of Christ portray the person of Christ, not just the physical image which might result in either the lessening of his humanity or divinity. This does seem in sharp contrast to the Orthodox understanding of the origination of the icon by Christ himself through the Acheiropoietos, which is more like the shroud of Turin. While the possibility exists that the image made without hands was not a precise physical replication, it remains somewhat inconsistent.<\/p>\n
37 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 125.
\n38 Ibid, p. 125)
\n39 Ibid, p. 127)
\n40 Gennadios Limouris, [Blancy]. Icons, Windows on Eternity: Theology and Spirituality in Colour. (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1990), p. 41)<\/p>\n
Latreia vs Proskynesis<\/p>\n
There is a significant distinction, in Orthodox theology, between the act of veneration (proskynesis) and worship (latreia). Alan Blancy suggests that there was a fatal translation error between the Greek and the Latin in the translating of the Greek word proskynesis as adoratio (adoration).41 This caused many of the problems with the idea of veneration. Adoration is reserved for God alone yet proskynesis is a commonly used word to describe acts between people. This resulted in a misunderstanding of the idea of veneration. Of course, through the history of the icon, there was widespread abuse and actual inappropriate worship.42<\/p>\n
St. John of Damascus distinguishes between veneration and adoration using the terms absolute worship (adoration) and relative worship (veneration).43 He identifies five kinds of absolute worship:44<\/p>\n
1. Adoration \u2013 we give this to God alone
\na. All will eventually worship, willingly or unwillingly (Phil 2)
\n2. The awe and yearning we have for God
\na. He is perfect and good
\nb. He is admired, worshipped, glorified and desired
\n3. Thanksgiving for all good things
\n4. Beseeching God to listen to our needs and desires
\n5. Repentance and confession<\/p>\n
In addition, he identifies seven kinds of relative worship.45 This kind of worship may be offered to created things.<\/p>\n
1. Places where God has rested \u2013 Holy Places
\na. Includes people \u2013 Theotokos and the Saints
\nb. God dwells in them<\/p>\n
41 Ibid, p. 35.
\n42 Ibid, p. 35.
\n43 St. John of Damascus, 1980, p. 9.
\n44 Ibid, p. 82-84.
\n45 Ibid, p. 84-88.<\/p>\n
c. \u201c\u2026they are truly gods, not by nature but because they partake of the divine nature\u2026\u201d
\n2. Places where God has accomplished our salvation
\na. Mt. Sinai, Nazareth, the cave and manger of Bethlehem, \u2026
\n3. Objects dedicated to God
\na. E.g. the holy Gospel and other books
\nb. Patens, chalices, censers, candlesticks, altars
\nc. Dan 5:2 \u2013 Belshazzar made people serve wine in sacred vessels and God brought his kingdom to an end \u2013 signifying the sacredness of stuff
\n4. Images that were seen by prophets
\na. Aaron\u2019s rod (prefigured the mystery of the virgin)
\nb. The cross
\n5. Each other
\na. We are God\u2019s inheritance and were made according to His image
\n6. Those who have been given authority to rule over us
\na. Pharoah – Gen 50:18 \u2013 Joseph and his brothers prostrated themselves (Proskynesis) before Pharoah
\n7. Masters by their servants<\/p>\n
Conairis agrees with this distinction between veneration and worship. He suggests that: \u201cThe icon becomes a meeting place, an existential encounter, a window through which we look on the Saints not as shadowy figures from a remote past but as contemporary brothers and sisters in Christ, members of the same household of God. We feel free to call on them through prayer for family support as they intercede to God in our behalf.\u201d46<\/p>\n
Chrysostomos of Myra teaches that \u201cveneration of honour\u201d which is rendered to the persons of the saints through their icons, is appropriate.47 Ouspensky agrees in that while icons must be the object of veneration, it is inappropriate to give them adoration, which only belongs to God.48 It remains difficult, however, to identify the difference.<\/p>\n
46 Anthony M. Coniaris. Introducing the Orthodox Church: Its Faith and Life. (Minneapolis, MN: Light and Life Pub., 1982), p. 101.
\n47 Gennadios Limouris, [Chrysostomos of Myra]. Icons, Windows on Eternity: Theology and Spirituality in Colour. (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1990), p. 2.
\n48 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 138.<\/p>\n
When the icon is properly venerated, it becomes a door to the holy. In this sense, it is holy itself. \u201cHoliness, as the Orthodox understand it, is not a static and incommunicable state. Quite the contrary, uncreated energy suffuses and penetrates every created \u201cenvironment\u201d, transforming visible reality, for the sake of believers, when that reality does not voluntarily oppose the will of God.\u201d49<\/p>\n
This seems similar to the experience of marriage. When a spouse is absent, one may find memory and even some degree of presence in objects that bring reminders of that person (for example, smell on a pillow). It is not the object that is being enjoyed but the spouse through the object. Veneration is similar to this. It becomes a problem when the object is substituted for the original. In the marriage example, the pillow is actually substituted for the person. This appears to be a common trap that has accompanied the veneration of icons.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
49 Giakalis, 1994, p. 121.
\n50 Giakalis, 1994, p. 120.<\/p>\n
Iconoclastic Controversies and The Defense of Icons<\/p>\n
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 \u201cThe origin, the meaning, and the nature of the Iconoclastic conflict are rather uncertain and obscure\u201d.52 However, he traces one root of the iconoclastic controversy to Origen.<\/p>\n
But\u2026 \u201cOrigen\u2019s 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.\u201d \u201cThe whole system of symbols was something provisional, to be ultimately done away.\u201d53 Florovsky also suggests that \u201c\u2026 the conflict itself was merely a symptom of sterility of the Byzantine Church.\u201d54 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.<\/p>\n
51 Moshe Barasch. Icon: Studies in the History of an Idea. (New York, NY: New York University Press,
\n1992), p. 113ff.
\n52 Florovsky, 1974, p. 101.
\n53 Ibid, p. 110.
\n54 Ibid, p. 102.
\n55 Ibid, p. 106.
\n56 Ibid, p. 107.<\/p>\n
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 \u201cmiraculous\u201d 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:<\/p>\n
1. Emergence and development under Leo III (717-740CE) and Constantine V (740-775, and the iconoclastic council of 754CE (Hieria)
\n2. The Seventh Ecumenical council in Nicea (787CE) \u2013 icons okay
\n3. Iconoclastic revival (815-842CE) and final extinction (up to 867CE)<\/p>\n
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 \u2013 actual people rather than symbols.60 In addition, it was decreed that no paintings \u201ccorrupted by shameful pleasures\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
57 Gennadios Limouris, [Sabev]. Icons, Windows on Eternity: Theology and Spirituality in Colour. (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1990), p. 49.
\n58 Ibid, p. 46.
\n59 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 92.
\n60 Ibid, p. 92.
\n61 Zibawi, 1993, p. 91.
\n62 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 98.<\/p>\n
This represented continuing conflict between the Eastern churches and Rome. The West has never accepted the decisions of the Quinisext council, however, they are central to the Orthodox tradition.63<\/p>\n
In 726CE, Leo III provoked the iconoclastic controversy with an edict that prohibited icons.64 Emperor Constantine V (741-75CE) son of Leo III, a theologian, persecuted those who venerated icons, convened Iconoclastic Hieria Council of 754CE.65 This council condemned even the possession of icons.66 A great deal of persecution followed this ruling but the environment also encouraged the development of the theology and defense of icons. This lead to the Seventh Ecumenical Council.<\/p>\n
The Seventh Ecumenical Council<\/p>\n
The Seventh Ecumenical Council was convened in 787CE under the Empress Irene.67 Church leaders were brought together for the purpose of establishing the validity of the existence and veneration of icons. A key document dealing with this council is \u201cSacrorum Conciliorum noca et amplissima collectio\u201d (The Acta Of The Council) edited by D. Mansi.68 Giakalis quotes Mansi in defense of the support of icon:<\/p>\n
63 Ibid, p. 99-100.
\n64 Daniel B. Clendenin. Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994), p. 84.
\n65 Ibid.
\n66 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 111.
\n67 Clendenin, 1994, p. 85.
\n68 This pivotal twelve volume set published in Florence and Venice from 1759-1798 is often referred to by writings on the Seventh Council. Although I found many references to this work, I did not find the work itself.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe iconophiles, then, \u201crepresent those things which are seen and contemplated\u201d primarily \u201cas light\u201d \u2013 that is to say, the bodies of Christ and of the saints, which already shine or will shine \u201clike the sun\u201d in accordance with the teaching of the Gospel.\u201d69 A distinct theology of the use of icons in the church came out of this council. Key ideas in this theology included a strong sense of the potential sacredness of matter, the extension of veneration from existing objects (like the cross) to icons and an affirmation of the humanity of Christ himself. This council also considered Old Testament prohibition against the use of images and concluded that certain kinds of images were permissible because of the incarnation. This defense of icons will be discussed here in some detail.<\/p>\n
Basically, the iconoclasts refused to allow that matter could be good at all. A root of this ideology was the Platonic idea that the physical world was a mere shadow of the ultimate reality, the spiritual world. In fact, Plato considered painters as contributing to an inferior degree of truth because the painter fostered an inferior part of the soul and impaired the possibilities of reason, which was the sole way to truth.70 Matter was seen as the antithesis of spirit, which was good. In other words, God (spirit) is indescribable. However, Zibawi suggests that, although God is indescribable, Christ is fully describable.71 This demonstrated that, through the incarnation, matter had the potential of being\/becoming sacred. \u201cIt (the iconoclastic controversy) was not simply a controversy over religious art, but over the entire meaning and implication of the incarnation and its consequent significance for man.\u201d God took a material body, proving that material can be redeemed.72<\/p>\n
69 Giakalis, [Mansi, 12, 967C] 1994, p. 78.
\n70 Barasch, 1992, p. 129.
\n71 Zibawi, 1993, p. 27.
\n72 Calian, 1968, p. 137.<\/p>\n
\u201cThose who defended the veneration of the Holy Icons in the troubled times of the eighth and ninth centuries believed they were fighting for the truth of the Incarnation of the Son of God; and they believed that those who attacked the icons were attacking the reality of the Incarnation and the possibility of that revelation being communicated through matter.\u201d73<\/p>\n
L\u2019Engle suggests that the \u201chorrendous mistake\u201d of considering that matter, the flesh, is evil while only the spirit is good \u201c\u2026has distorted our understanding of the incarnation ever since.\u201d74 Of course, this is largely influenced by a theology of the fall of Adam (and all mankind) that includes the permeation by sin of all of created things. While there is some truth to this theology, there is Old Testament evidence, especially in the Psalms, that creation was still able to declare God\u2019s glory. In other words, all good in creation (matter) has not been destroyed by the fall. It is possible that creation can contribute toward the glory of God. This is ultimately evidenced by the incarnation itself when God actually became part of created things. In fact, Ouspensky augments the significance of this by suggesting that the prohibition of images actually ends with the incarnation of Christ.75 In the eyes of the iconodules, the ultimate conclusion of the iconoclastic \u201cheresy\u201d was that it was not possible for God to become fully human in Christ. They went further to say that icons celebrated the incarnation by participating in the redemption of matter. In this sense, veneration of icons was a \u201c\u2026manifestation of honour\u201d not of the image itself but of the person in the image.76 This person has the reality of God in him (or her, in the case of Mary and some of the saints).<\/p>\n
73 Baggley, 1988, p. 23.
\n74 Madeleine L\u2019Engle. Penguins and Bolden Calves: Icons and Idols. (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Pub., 1996), p. 30.
\n75 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 42-44.
\n76 Giakalis [Mansi 13, 56B], 1994, p. 124.<\/p>\n
Another element of the defense of icons in the Seventh Ecumenical Council was that veneration already existed in the church and that it was appropriate to add icons to the list of items to be venerated. According to St. John of Damascus, whose teaching were heavily relied on during this council, veneration of the cross was common in the church. Apparently it was also common to venerate the \u201c\u2026lance, the reed, the sponge.\u201d77 It was, therefore, no significant leap to venerate an image of the one who was on the cross.78 In the same way, \u201cThe Eucharist may be considered the image or icon of Christ\u2026\u201d79 \u201cFor the icon testifies to the basic realities of the Christian faith \u2013 to the reality of the divine penetration of the human and natural world, and to the reality of that sanctification which results from this.\u201d80 Because it was acceptable to venerate the cross, it was defended that the veneration of icons was also acceptable. This allowed the possibility of the veneration of any material thing that was infused by the reality of God. In essence, this could even include a living person who exemplified commitment and service to God.<\/p>\n
Old Testament prohibition against images was discussed in detail at the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Much of this discussion was based on the teaching of St. John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite. They refuted the charges that icon veneration was against Old Testament rules about idolatry with the following arguments:81 1. Pagan idols forbidden in the Old Testament were very different from icons.<\/p>\n
77 St. John of Damascus, 1980, p. 64)
\n78 Ibid, p. 41.
\n79 Calian, 1968, p. 131. [quoting Philip Sherrard, \u201cThe Art of the Icon,\u201d Series 4, No. 6 (1962), p. 295]
\n80 Ibid.
\n81 Clendenin, 1994, p. 85-93.<\/p>\n
2. An image of God (the Father) was not only blasphemous, but also impossible. 3. The tent of meeting was very image oriented and was itself an image. Examples of the images included there were the cherubim, the serpent and the artistic craftsmanship of Bezalel and Oholiab. 4. God became a human body\/image\/icon in the person of Christ. 5. Not every Old Testament prescription is applicable for the New Testament church (e.g. circumcision, the sacrificial system, the Sabbath). And 6. The prohibition against images has been superceded by the image of Christ \u2013 God Himself.<\/p>\n
Significant examples of the acceptable use of image in the Old Testament were considered. These included Jacob raising a stele to God, as a result of which he blessed him and promised him gifts (Gen 28:18), and Cherubim of gold made by Bezalel and Oholiab (Exod. 25:18-22). The people of Israel were \u201csaved\u201d by looking at the bronze serpent (Num. 21:9). This image in the Old Testament was not divine but inspirational, yet it had sacred power.82 According to Giakalis, the New Testament confirms and affirms the tradition of the Old Testament.83 This clearly demonstrated that, in the Old Teastment, \u201c\u2026objects made by human hands do exist for the service and glory of God.\u201d84<\/p>\n
In addition, the Seventh Ecumenical Council distinguished between absolute worship (for God alone) and relative worship (veneration), which is given to God but also to people, objects, etc. An example of this might be the honor a servant gives to his master or subject to his king.<\/p>\n
The Orthodox Church in \u201cThe Triumph of Orthodoxy\u201d celebrates the victory of this council annually. This occurs on the first Sunday of Lent.<\/p>\n
82 Giakalis, 1994, p. 32.
\n83 Ibid.
\n84 Ibid, p. 31.<\/p>\n
It is a remembrance of the replacing of sacred images in Hagia Sophia (a church in Constantinople) on March 11, 843 CE.85<\/p>\n
85 Orthodox Tradition, Vol. IV, No. 3, pp. 49-64.<\/p>\n
Themes and Examples of Icons<\/p>\n
The work of an iconographer is very unique in the world of art. This is especially true when icons are compared to the visual art of the west. In the West, self-expression became the ultimate goal. In the Orthodox tradition, there were serious personal and spiritual expectations for one who desired to paint icons. Self- expression was not the goal. An iconographer was not merely an artist. In fact, the Byzantines cast the artist in a priestly light.86<\/p>\n
Icon painters \u201c\u2026are not considered to be religious artists but rather as persons who have a religious vocation. They are missionaries preaching visual theology. The icon, like the Word, is a revelation, not a decoration or illustration. It is theology in color. More important than being a good artist is the fact that the icon painter be a sincere Christian who prepares himself for his work through fasting, prayer, Confession, Communion and has the feeling that he is but an instrument through whom the Holy Spirit expresses Himself.\u201d87<\/p>\n
It was expected that the icon painter have significant spiritual maturity. Icons were not to be painted lightly. This involved long periods of preparation and contemplation. It was not a frivolous exercise.88 In sharp contrast to Western ideas of self-expression in art, the iconographer was to work in service to the church. Personal expression was not only inappropriate but actually forbidden.<\/p>\n
86 Anthony Ugolnik. The Illuminating Icon. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1989), p. 55.
\n87 Coniaris, 1982, p. 177.
\n88 Michel Quenot. The Icon: Window on the Kingdom. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir\u2019s Seminary Press, 1991), p. 84.<\/p>\n
Iconography is \u201c\u2026 a creative activity in which the artist has no initiative, in which he finds the problems and their solutions long since formulated, in which he conforms to a well- established hieratic canon and expresses neither his personal emotions nor the beauty of nature.\u201d89 Icons are never painted from the imagination of the painter or from a living model.90 Rather, iconographers used existing icons as points of reference. This affirms the Orthodox commitment to tradition. However, Ouspensky suggests that to paint icons as the ancient iconographers painted them did not mean to imitate their style, but rather to imitate their lives, as Paul imitated Christ. This was accomplished not by copying gestures and words but imitating life. \u201d\u2026to follow the sacred tradition, to live the tradition.\u201d91<\/p>\n
Icons have a unique beauty that is also significantly different to ideas of beauty in the West. Beauty in Orthodox understanding is not the beauty of the creature but the potential beauty when God will be \u201c\u2026all in all.\u201d92 The icon does not represent corruptible flesh but transfigured flesh. This is divine beauty. In this way, there is a clear distinction between a portrait, which focuses on the corruptible flesh, and an icon which focuses on that which is transfigured.93<\/p>\n
Much of this focus on the eternal is accomplished through the use of color and, especially, light. What the Gospel proclaimed by words, the icon proclaimed by color.94 Sometimes there is a darkness at the bottom of the icon representing evil and a brightness at the top representing the Divine Presence. Sometimes there is a ladder indicating the possibility of a journey into light.<\/p>\n
89 Mircea Eliade. (Ed. by Diane Apostolos-Cappadona), Symbolism, the Sacred and the Arts. (New York, NY: Crossroad Pub. Co., 1986), p. 76.
\n90 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 170.
\n91 Ibid, p. 11.
\n92 Ibid, p. 160.
\n93 Ibid, p. 161-162.
\n94 Clendenin, 1994, p. 80.<\/p>\n
Sometimes there is a hand at the top of the icon representing God.95 Light permeates the icon like light permeates heaven. There are no shadows. Often, the color gold represents the idea that \u201c\u2026light is called the background of the icon.\u201d96 The body of Christ became luminous and in the same way, the bodies of the saints are portrayed as luminous in icons.97 The halo or nimbus is also used to convey the idea of the eternal. \u201cThe gold nimbus or halo around the head symbolizes the brilliance of Divine Light in the person who lives in the intimacy of God.\u201d \u2013 more interest in soul than body.98 This is divinity brighter than the sun.99 If the icon has a square halo, it indicates that the icon was painted when the person was still alive.100<\/p>\n
Some Physical Features of Icons<\/p>\n
Because the intent of iconography was that the artwork be usable in the church for many years, even centuries, a unique process of iconography was developed to ensure preservation. Many layers, consisting of loosely woven linen, a glue and chalk mixture, gold, and egg tempera paint using earth tones, make up the icon. \u201cThe icon is an image painted in tempera, with pigments of natural colors mixed into egg yoke. It is painted upon the surface of a wooden board covered with a preparation of plaster mixed with glue.\u201d101<\/p>\n
95 Baggley, 1988, p. 79.
\n96 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 192.
\n97 Ibid, p. 159.
\n98 Quenot, 1991, p. 100.
\n99 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 174.
\n100 Ibid, p. 176.
\n101 Zibawi, 1993, p. 64.<\/p>\n
Ouspensky and Lossky suggest that \u201cLayers of paint, superimposed upon another, create a barely perceptible relief, lower in the darks and higher in the lights. In this way the icon is not only painted, but also as it were modeled, according to the traditional requirements of an icon\u2019s structure.\u201d102<\/p>\n
The various techniques of painting icons include specific attention to the physical nature of the subject of the icon. Perspective is ignored, as the focus is not on the depth of field in the icon.103 The role of the icon is not to bring us closer to what we see in nature (eyes, nose, mouth, ears, etc.) but to emphasize the absence from this world.104 This represents a resistance to the concept of \u201cnatural\u201d beauty as an ideal for the subjects of icons. In fact, \u201d\u2026it would be outrageous to represent Christ according to the natural beauty of some ordinary human model.\u201d105 Rather, an icon is characterized by \u201c\u2026an idealized type unlike any purely human model, with supranatural characteristics such as large eyes, nose and hands.\u201d106 This is common hyperbole used to depict Christ and the saints and contrary to the ideals in the west where young men became actual models for paintings of Christ. These humanly beautiful pictures are unacceptable to the Orthodox tradition. The people in icons generally have a small mouth, implying that that the saint has no thought for his own life or what he may eat or drink, but seeks first the kingdom of God.107 Large eyes convey the idea of inner watchfulness and attention. The \u201c\u2026eyes often seem to be inward looking, turned away from the external world of the senses.\u201d108<\/p>\n
\u201cSensual exuberance was discarded by making the mouth smaller, and the nose thinner and longer.<\/p>\n
102 Ouspensky and Lossky. P. 54.
\n103 Quenot, 1991, p. 106.
\n104 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 178.
\n105 Coniaris, 1982, p. 173.
\n106 Ibid.
\n107 Ibid, p. 175.
\n108 Baggley, 1988, p. 83.<\/p>\n
The spiritual nature of man was emphasized; the expression of the eyes was also changed. They were no longer the anxious eyes of a person looking with longing on the world dear to him which he was reluctant to leave. On the contrary, the eyes of the saints testified to the peace and contentment of one who has reached his Father\u2019s home.\u201d109<\/p>\n
When the thumb and 4th finger are joined the upright index finger and the bent middle finger indicates the name IC. The thumb and the 4th finger crossed with the little finger beside indicate XC. IC and XC is an abbreviation for Jesus Christ.110 These written letters also often appear on the icon as part of the halo around Christ\u2019s head. Generally, icons portray the person in a direct pose (not profile). This is because of the viewers need to interact with the icon. He\/she in the icon interacts with us.111 The forehead is often large and high indicating the power of the spirit and of wisdom, inseparable from love.112 The nose is thin and elongated giving nobility to the face. It \u201c\u2026no longer detects the scents of this world, but only the sweet odor of Christ and the life-giving breath of the Spirit gushing from a throat and neck which are disproportionately large.\u201d113 \u201cThe mouth, being an extremely sensual organ, is always drawn finely and geometrically, eliminating its sensuality\u2026 The lips remain closed, because true contemplation demands silence.\u201d114 The body no longer needs nourishment. The ears tend to be interiorized. They no longer need to hear external things but only the \u201cinterior voice\u201d.115 The absence of naturalism indicates a \u201c\u2026deafness to worldliness\u201d.116<\/p>\n
109 Nicolas Zernov. Eastern Christendom: A Study of the Origin and Development of the Eastern Orthodox Church. (New York, NY: G. P. Putnam\u2019s Sons, 1961), p. 278.
\n110 Baggley, 1988, p. 85.
\n111 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 187.
\n112 Quenot, 1991, p. 97.
\n113 Ibid.
\n114 Ibid.
\n115 Ibid.
\n116 Ibid.<\/p>\n
\u201cLengthy fingers and elongated bodies indicate dematerialization in the most eloquent way\u2026\u201d117 The arched eyebrows signify being \u201c\u2026consumed in the fire of contemplation.\u201d118 In this way, sensual powers are internalized. \u201cThe bodies no longer have a sex: naked Christ, St. Basil the Blessed, or St. Mary the Egyptian have asexual bodies, deeper \u201cinner\u201d bodies, \u201cbodies on the innermost parts of their bodies,\u201d to quote an expression dear to the mystics.\u201d119<\/p>\n
Transcendence In Icons<\/p>\n
In the icon, the naturalistic is distinguished from spiritualistic. The naturalistic is inadequate, as it is influenced by the fall. Icons do not portray naturalistic ideas or images.120 Rather, the transcendent is emphasized. The icon is devoid of emotional explanation. It is a peaceful transmission: \u201cThe icon does not represent the divinity. Rather, it indicates man\u2019s participation in the divine life.\u201d121 Christian art is not to represent everyday life but life infused by the Gospel. Lazarev has given us a number of examples of icons that emphasize a sense of the transcendent \u2013 moving beyond this world.122 Some examples of this transcendence are: The Holy Face (12th century), Angel (12th century), Saint Nicolas The Wonderworker (13th century), The Apostle Peter (14th century), The Virgin Hodegetria (1482), The Savior Of The Fiery Eye (14th century). Generally, Christ is portrayed as serene when on the cross. This highlights the contrast between the spiritual and the physical and other kinds of pain he must have experienced.<\/p>\n
117 Quenot, 1991, p. 100.
\n118 Zibawi, 1993, p. 40.
\n119 Ibid, p. 41.
\n120 Ibid, p. 47.
\n121 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 166.
\n122 Viktor Nikitich Lazarev. The Russian Icon: From Its Origins to the Sixteenth Century. (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1997), p. 142, 144, 148, 194, 316, 252, respectively.<\/p>\n
The Eastern Orthodox cross always includes the footrest and nameplate. The footrest allows Christ to stand rather than to hand by his arms and hands.123 Again, this contributes to a sense of the transcendent in the icon, and, specifically, in the face of Christ. The subject (Christ) has risen above the things of this world.124 We see this same transcendence in the description of the face of Stephen while he is being stoned to death (Acts 7:54-56). This is true of any \u201ctransfigured\u201d person in the bible.<\/p>\n
Some Examples of Icons<\/p>\n
A few examples of icons are included here. In spite of the fact that there are far too many icons to be considered, observation of a few examples is helpful in understanding both iconography and some themes in icons. The physical features of the subjects of icons, discussed earlier, are evident in these examples.<\/p>\n
There are many icons of Christ. Some of the most common are the Acheiroppoietos Icon (made without human hands) which was discussed earlier, and Pantocrator (the one who presides over the world), seated on the throne, with scroll or book.125 An example of Christ Pantocrator is included on the next page.126 This icon is found in all Orthodox Churches. It is generally painted in the dome above the center of the Nave.<\/p>\n
123 Freiedrich Rest. Our Christian Symbols. (Piladelphia, PA: The Christian Education Press., 1954), p. 26.
\n124 Zibawi, 1993, p. 45.
\n125 Ouspensky and Lossky, 1983, p. 73.
\n126 Christ, our Lord. 16th century icon, monastery of St. Catherine, Sinai<\/a> (Ellopos Gallery)<\/p>\nAnother example of an icon of Christ is this crucifixion icon. Note the footrest and name plate that is always a part of the Orthodox cross. Also, note that Christ is not hanging on the cross but standing. He exemplifies transcendence above the physical pain of the cross.<\/p>\n
There are also many icons of Mary, the mother of Christ. The Orthodox call Mary \u201cTheotokos\u201d which means \u201cmother of God\u201d. Some examples of icons of Mary include: Our Lady of the Sign \u2013 upraised hands, posture of prayer; The Hodigitria \u2013 similar looking to Our Lady\u2026; The Smolensk \u2013 another version of Theotokos; The Tichvine Mother of God; The Kazan Mother of God \u2013 ; The Mother Of God Enthroned.128 The example here is the Theotokos.129<\/p>\n
128 Ouspensky and Lossky, 1983, p. 77-89.
\n129 Mother of God enthroned. Athos, 16th century (from Ellopos Photo Blog).<\/p>\n
Another category of icons are the Icons of Loving Kindness. These demonstrate the affection between Mary and the Christ child.130 Some examples are: The Vladimir Mother of God \u2013 11th or 12th century; The Tolga Mother of God \u2013 14th century; The Korsun Mother of God \u2013 strongly bent head of Mary and Christ (Mary bent down, Christ up); and The Mother of God of the Passion.<\/p>\n
130 Ouspensky and Lossky, 1983, p. 92-100.<\/p>\n
Other common icons include important biblical characters like St. John the Forerunner (John the Baptizer) and the apostles. In addition, many of the important leaders of the church are portrayed in icons. St. John the Forerunner is portrayed in the following example.131<\/p>\n
The Iconostasis<\/p>\n
A dominant feature of an established Orthodox church is the Iconostasis or Icon wall. This is a wall of icons that separates the nave (where the people participate in worship) and the sanctuary (only accessible by the priest). The term iconostasis simply means a partition covered with icons.<\/p>\n
131 Icon of St. John the Baptist, made in Greece 1993 (Ellopos Photo Blog)<\/p>\n
It attained its classical form in the fifteenth century. In the churches of early Christianity, there was a low screen or wall. Over time, more icons were added, resulting in a larger wall.132 While the first impression one has is that the Iconostasis is a wall, this is a misunderstanding. It is not a barrier but a series of windows. Its purpose is not to block but to bring light into. This is the idea of mystery \u201cperceived not by human eyes\u201d.133 In Russia, the iconostasis was merely a low wall in the 14th and 15th centuries but in the 16th century, \u201c\u2026attains spectacular dimensions.\u201d134 Early Iconostasis were low. A man could lean on it and look in, making the sanctuary both visible but also inaccessible.135<\/p>\n
Basically, the iconostasis tells the story of how we are able to directly approach the holy of holies. Though it appears as a barrier, the icons are meant to be windows to the truth, more than a wall separating us from this truth. It opens the door to the faithful.136 \u201cThe iconostasis therefore has more than merely a didactic meaning. It represents the ontological link between sacrament and image, and shows this glorious body of Christ, the same real body given in the Eucharist and represented on the icon.\u201d137<\/p>\n
In the center of the iconostasis we find the Holy (or Royal) Door. This represents the \u201cbeginning of our salvation\u201d.138 Generally, an icon of Jesus is on one side and the Theotokos is on the other.139 This Royal Door is the entrance to the Holy of Holies. Only the clergy may enter and only at certain moments.140<\/p>\n
132 Quenot, 1991, p. 47.
\n133 Ibid, p. 48.
\n134 Zibawi, 1993, p. 138.
\n135 Ouspensky and Lossky, 1983, p. 59.
\n136 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 278ff.
\n137 Ibid, p. 282.
\n138 Ibid, p. 278.
\n139 Ouspensky and Lossky, 1983, p. 60.
\n140 Ibid, p. 66.<\/p>\n
Practical Uses of Icons<\/p>\n
Holy icons serve a number of purposes. (1) They enhance the beauty of a church. (2) They instruct us in matters pertaining to the Christian faith. (3) They remind us of this faith. (4) They lift us up to the prototypes, which they symbolize, to a higher level of thought and feeling. (5) They arouse us to imitate the virtues of the holy personages depicted on them. (6) They help to transform us, to sanctify us. (7) They serve as a means of worship and veneration.142 Madeline L\u2019Engle describes her experience: \u201c\u2026an icon, for me, is an open window to God.<\/p>\n
142 (Cavarnos, 1992)<\/p>\n
An icon is something I can look through and get a wider glimpse of God and God\u2019s demands on us, El\u2019s mortal children, than I would otherwise.\u201d \u201c\u2026words are inadequate to describe the Maker\u2019s love for me and I, the made, to describe my love of the Maker.\u201d143 Other possible uses of icon and symbol in an evangelical context will be discussed in more detail later in this paper.<\/p>\n
143 L\u2019Engle, 1996, p. 14.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The friend that sent me this text writes: “this article shows the point of view of an evangelical on icons and the use of icons. I think there are a lot of things in movement in the western, and especially protestant, world concerning Church Tradition, as if there was a look back into the past […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_disable_autopaging":false},"categories":[9,10,46],"tags":[351,3408,3431,369,3430,3411,3418,778,120,3407,1116,1389,3144],"class_list":["post-1448","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-europe","category-orthodox-christianity","category-philosophy","tag-edict-of-milan","tag-evangelical-churches","tag-hagiography","tag-iconography","tag-icons","tag-kenosis","tag-origins","tag-orthodox-churches","tag-orthodox-theology","tag-orthodox-tradition","tag-protestants","tag-seventh-ecumenical-council","tag-transcendence"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1448","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1448"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1448\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1448"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1448"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1448"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![](\"https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/d\/da\/Transfiguration_by_Feofan_Grek_from_Spaso-Preobrazhensky_Cathedral_in_Pereslavl-Zalessky_%2815th_c%2C_Tretyakov_gallery%29.jpeg\/1200px-Transfiguration_by_Feofan_Grek_from_Spaso-Preobrazhensky_Cathedral_in_Pereslavl-Zalessky_%2815th_c%2C_Tretyakov_gallery%29.jpeg\"){kind=spacer}
<\/a><\/p>\n