{"id":1450,"date":"2017-11-03T19:03:03","date_gmt":"2017-11-03T16:03:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/?p=1450"},"modified":"2020-11-11T20:43:13","modified_gmt":"2020-11-11T17:43:13","slug":"icons-in-worship-a-study-by-d-dirksen-ii-a-brief-critique-of-the-orthodox-theology-of-icons","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/1450\/icons-in-worship-a-study-by-d-dirksen-ii-a-brief-critique-of-the-orthodox-theology-of-icons\/","title":{"rendered":"Icons in Worship, a study by D. Dirksen – II: A Brief Critique of The Orthodox Theology of Icons"},"content":{"rendered":"

[First part of Icons in Worship<\/a>]\u00a0 Second Part:<\/p>\n

This brief critique of the Orthodox understanding and use of icon is designed to be helpful in finding potential application for the use of symbol, and even icon, in an evangelical context.144 It is understood that an Orthodox person might consider this process inappropriate. However, for the purposes of this project, it is important that these questions are voiced. In any case, discussion surrounding these concerns is important for any person who desires to live in obedience to God.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

The Implications of A Theology of Equality Between Image And Word<\/p>\n

While there is significant and valuable history regarding the use of images in Christianity, it is somewhat of a leap to equate the authority of image and word. In Orthodox teaching, the word of God is understood as having been given but also as continuing to be given. Mostly, God\u2019s word continues to be given through sacred tradition. This is central to the Orthodox understanding of tradition. The Orthodox Church has an extremely high view of the scripture, \u201c\u2026 a fundamental view of the sanctity and authority of the bible.\u201d145, but warns against bibliolatry. Unfortunately, the equation of tradition and the bible can be problematic. An evangelical understanding of the Word includes a foundational belief that it is without error. This cannot be said of church tradition. It would be fair to criticize Evangelicals for not holding the tradition of the church in a high enough place, but to equate word and tradition is also questionable.<\/p>\n

144 I feel significant personal tension undertaking this part of the process. My interaction with Orthodox ideology and practice has resulted in great respect for the traditions. I would rather this \u201ccritique\u201d be understood as more a series of important questions, rather than an attack or put down of Orthodoxy.
\n145 Coniaris, 1982, p. 155.<\/p>\n

Contradictions in the Theology of Icons<\/p>\n

While a foundational ideology of the icon is that matter and created things have potential to become sacred, some of the ideology actually implies that the physical world is a lower reality. Calian suggests that the icon seeks to convey a structure of ideas \u2013 a picture of the divine world order \u2013 a picture of how things are in their true state \u2013 in the eyes of God \u2013 and not as they appear.146 This implies that the way things appear (the material and physical) is just an image of reality. This is a Platonic idea that seems to be inconsistent with Orthodox theology. A further application of this thought might result in the conclusion that the reality of Christ was not evident in his physical body. His reality was as he appeared but his appearance was merely some kind of shadow of his reality. This appears in contradiction to other Orthodox teaching on the icon, which is very material and incarnational.<\/p>\n

The physical characteristics of those portrayed in icons also reflect this problem. The persons in icons have a small mouth \u2013 teaching that the saint has no thought for his own life or what he may eat or drink, but seeks first the kingdom of God.147 According to Ouspensky, 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.148 Limouris suggests that the icon, according to OC thought, is to represent a plane above the physical \u2013 the spiritual \u201c\u2026which constitutes the highest truth.\u201d149<\/p>\n

146 Calian, 1968, p. 131.
\n147 Coniaris, 1982, p. 175.
\n148 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 178.
\n149 Limouris, 1990, p. 100.<\/p>\n

The implication is that the physical (material) has less importance than the spiritual. It seems that this violates the idea of kenosis and the redeeming of creation. To relegate all human desire to the evils of the flesh seems in contradiction to the idea of the possibility of the redemption of creation. It seems highly possible that this reflects a problem of the acceptance of the physical as good. In light of many of the defenses of icons in the first millennium, this seems like a contradiction. The primary defense for icons includes the belief in the actual, physical incarnation of Christ. A reasonable conclusion from this is that the physical Christ had healthy, appropriate, physical desires and pleasures. Certainly we see examples of this in the Gospels. In fact, Christ participated in the joys of eating and drinking to the point that he was accused of being a glutton and drunkard (Matt. 11:19). Therefore, it seems unfair to portray Christ and others in icons as being free from such wholesome physical desires and pleasures. Impassionate portrayals of Christ and others seem to downplay the humanity of Christ. This singular emphasis on transfiguration seems somewhat unbalanced.<\/p>\n

When we consider the theme of \u201cother worldliness\u201d in icons, it sometimes appears more like Nirvana than the Kingdom of God. The idea that the subjects of icons have \u201cleft this world\u201d as purported by Zibawi (\u201cIn this solemn calmness, the whole being is listening to God.\u201d150) contributes to this almost anti-world sentiment. It is almost as if listening to God means complete detachment from the physical, created world. This appears in contradiction to incarnational theology. A theology that accepts the incarnation of Christ as real and physical, must also accept the possibility of interaction with God, without departure from the physical world.<\/p>\n

150 Zibawi, 1993, p. 54-55.<\/p>\n

Orthodoxy And The Other Arts<\/p>\n

It seems that the Orthodox so strongly advocate a certain specific kind of art yet neglect the possibility of any other kinds of art for the church. Music is very limited in the Orthodox Church. Sculpture is virtually forbidden and dance and other physical art is unheard of. This appears contradictory in light of the strong theology of visual, two-dimensional art. The reasoning in defense of icon could and should be used in the context of the defense of the other arts as well.<\/p>\n

The Dangers of Veneration as Idolatry<\/p>\n

It is acknowledged by many Orthodox theologians that there is a significant danger that veneration degenerates into idolatry. In fact, Ouspensky admits that \u201c\u2026there were ways of venerating sacred images which could be mistaken for blasphemy.\u201d151 While this does not negate the potential of the use of images in worship, it does raise some questions. How can the pitfalls of idolatry be avoided? How can the distinctions between veneration and adoration, as discussed earlier, be maintained? And what safeguards can be set in place to protect the church against this error? It is unclear that these questions are addressed regularly in the Orthodox Church.<\/p>\n

If it is valid to venerate icons, it follows that it is also valid to venerate each other, seeing as we are also in the image of God and sanctified (or in the process of becoming sanctified) matter. This is appropriate, according to Orthodox teaching, but seems to be rarely done. In the Orthodox church, a dead saint seems to be more worthy of veneration than a live one. If all followers of Christ are in the process of being sanctified, then it would be appropriate to venerate all members of the body of Christ, whether living or dead. Although this seems appropriate, there are definitely some dangers.<\/p>\n

151 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 103.<\/p>\n

Problems In The Idea of Beauty<\/p>\n

Ouspensky suggests that beauty should be inherent to the icon.152 However, beauty is a difficult thing to determine. There is much discussion of beauty in regard to icons (and to art in general); yet, beauty is usually a cultural thing. What one culture perceives as beautiful, especially when it comes to human form, another finds unbeautiful. It is clear that the idea of beauty in relation to icon focuses more on the transcendent than the visceral. Natural beauty is no longer important in the face on an icon.153 But even this understanding has potential problems. Some find images of nature to contain the transcendent. Yet the icon does not focus on the natural. It seems that beauty in the icon, in spite of historical attempts at standardization, is subject to the ideas of people who live in certain cultures and certain times. This is not inherently problematic, however, it does raise some questions around the idea of what transcendent beauty is. It is truly remarkable that the style and appearance of icons have remained so consistent throughout the history of icon painting.<\/p>\n

152 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 346-347.
\n153 Quenot, 1991, p. 91.<\/p>\n

Eliminating the Personality of the Icon Painter<\/p>\n

Key to the understanding of the process of painting icons is the idea that the icon painters must eliminate their personality from their work. The basis of this idea is that individual personality in an icon would be distracting.154 Yet, this is inconsistent with much of the communication between God and man. The biblical writers often identified themselves and their personalities were evident in their writings. Ironically, the subjects in the icon itself are identified personally. Maybe if the iconographer considered himself a saint, he would feel it could be appropriate to be identified. In any case, it is considered inappropriate for the iconographer to identify himself in any way, either through technique or by actually signing the project. This seems inconsistent even with the biblical writings where the authors often identified themselves. The necessity of identity is, however, more an emphasis of western individualism and autonomy than a biblical principle. It just seems that enforced anonymity has the tendency to be non-incarnational. This tension exists in almost every area of practices surrounding icons.<\/p>\n

Problems Related to the Iconostasis<\/p>\n

According to Orthodox teaching, 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.155 Yet this seems a possible contradiction in that only the clergy are allowed to enter through the royal door into the sanctuary. This reflects Old Testament restrictions on who may enter the Holy of Holies.<\/p>\n

154 Ibid, p. 72-73.
\n155 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 278ff.<\/p>\n

However, through the redeeming work of Christ, these restrictions of access have been removed. Quenot suggests that this is a misunderstanding. The iconostasis is not a barrier but a window \u2013 not to block but to bring light to. This reaffirms the idea of mystery perceived not by human eyes.156 The iconostasis certainly creates a sense of mystery. But does it also create a sense of prohibition? The examples mentioned earlier, of a shorter icon wall that a person could look over seem to better convey the ideas of mystery and accessibility. A theology that so emphasizes the incarnation seems at odds with any sense of barrier between the sanctuary and the believer. Again, the physical is downplayed for the sake of the spiritual. While this is a very important emphasis, especially in a culture rooted in modernity, it seems that it may actually be potentially contradictory in light of the physical incarnation of Christ. Reality exists not only in the spiritual but in the physical as well.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

156 Quenot, 1991, p. 48.<\/p>\n

Symbol In Contemporary Evangelical Churches<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Differences Between Western and Eastern Theological Perspectives<\/p>\n

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 \u2013 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. \u201cThe Book is the repository of meaning, yet the Book is regarded and treated as if it were itself an image begetting images.\u201d It is image producing \u2013 \u201c\u2026transforms dead matter into the reflected image of Jesus Christ.\u201d159<\/p>\n

\u201cThe American Protestant mind is culturally and literarily disposed to envision the Word in terms of a book, the \u201ctext\u201d of creation. The Russian Orthodox mind, through the veil of its own culture, interprets that Word in light of the images that reflect it.<\/p>\n

157 Baggley, 1988, p. 2.
\n158 Ugolnik, 1989, p. 49.
\n159 Ibid, p. 50.<\/p>\n

American Christians obey the Augustinian injunction \u201cTake up and read!\u201d Their Russian counterparts are apt to concentrate upon the insight that follows the imperative \u201cLook up and see!\u201d.\u201d160<\/p>\n

This has radically affected the understanding of the role of the artist in the church. \u201cIn the West, the theologian has instructed the artist. In the east\u2026the iconographer instructs the theologian.\u201d161 In this sense, the Orthodox Church fuses the aesthetic with the theological.162 This is in sharp contrast with an Evangelical context \u201c\u2026a church with four whitewashed walls, a slightly out-of-tune piano, and a leader whose expressed intent is \u2018to share a few thoughts from the Word.\u2019\u201d163 In the Orthodox Church, seeing is valued above hearing.164<\/p>\n

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. \u201cIn 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\u2026\u201d.166 \u201cIn 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

160 Ugolnik, 1989, p. 52.
\n161 Calian, 1968, p. 140.
\n162 Clendenin, 1994, p. 73.
\n163 Ibid, p. 72.
\n164 Clendenin [John of Damascus, Divine Images 1.17], 1994, p. 75.
\n165 Clendenin, 1994, p. 77. see reformation examples of Zwingli and Luther.
\n166 Ibid, p. 75.<\/p>\n

There is \u201c\u2026little empathy for social aesthetic, much less a pastoral aesthetic (the idea that aesthetics can instruct us and urge us toward the good).\u201d167 Ouspensky goes on to suggest that in the east the church depicts Christ in icons \u201c\u2026not as an ordinary man, but as the God-Man in His glory\u2026\u201d. This is in contrast to Western art, which depicts Christ \u201c\u2026simply as a man who suffers physically.\u201d168<\/p>\n

In the Orthodox Church, intuition and reflection is of more value than rational discourse. \u201cEastern theology originates in the sanctuary, Western theology in the scholar\u2019s study or university library. The one employs candles, frescoes, mosaics, bells, icons, and incense, the other a word processor\u2026In short, in the West theology takes the form of scientific wisdom; in the East it is sacramental worship.\u201d169 \u201cIn 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.\u201d170<\/p>\n

The anti-aesthetic sentiment common to evangelicalism is obviously an inadequate approach for ministry in a post-modern culture. Giakalis suggests that: \u201cThis 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\u2019s 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\u2026\u201d171 Giakalis concludes that icons and teaching by sight is a more effective approach to Christian education.<\/p>\n

In the 21st century, a climate of post-modernity, there are significant changes happening in the dialogue between the east and the west.<\/p>\n

167 Clendenin, 1994, p. 75.
\n168 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 153.
\n169 Clendenin, 1994, p. 79.
\n170 Coniaris, 1982, p. 177.
\n171 Giakalis, 1994, p. 54.<\/p>\n

The positive news is that: \u201cWe have come from an age of disputes to tone of dialogue, from divergence to convergence, from polemics to irenics.\u201d172<\/p>\n

Anti-image Sentiment in the Post Reformation Church<\/p>\n

John Calvin contested the ecumenical legitimacy of the 7th Ecumenical council. He believed that it wasn\u2019t actually ecumenical.173 Calvin also said \u201cimages cannot stand in the place of books\u201d174 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 \u201c\u2026 probably never saw an icon in his life.\u201d175 This is somewhat ironic in that the term used in I Corinthians in one case for Christ and in another for man is \u201cimage\u201d (eikon).176 Yet this anti-image sentiment has persisted through much of the protestant church since the time of Calvin.<\/p>\n

Luther was also suspicious of images and saw a dichotomy between an image of Christ and Christ himself. He felt that it was \u201c\u2026intolerable that a Christian should set his heart on images and not on Christ.\u201d He considered this to be superstition.177 But the \u201cword\u201d is essentially discussion of life \u2013 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.<\/p>\n

172 Calian, 1992, p. 92.
\n173 Limouris, [Kretschmar]1990, p. 79.
\n174 Clendenin, 1994, p. 78.
\n175 Limouris, [Kretschmar]1990, p. 80.
\n176 I Cor. 11:7 \u2013 Man is the image of God. II Cor. 4:4 \u2013 Christ is the image of God
\n177 Limouris, [Kretschmar]1990, p. 81.<\/p>\n

Pheidas suggests that the protestant church\u2019s suspicion of icons was rooted in the pre-reformation western church, which \u201c\u2026had never been fully capable of incorporating in its tradition the theology on icons of the Eastern Church.\u201d178 It is intriguing and ironic that, in protestant churches, \u201cwords\u201d can be put on the wall without suspicion. Yet, these words virtually always inspire image in ones mind. In any case, the Orthodox theology of icons has been largely hidden until the 20th century. For evangelicals it is basically now a new discovery.179 Many of the concerns of Calvin, Luther and other reformers have been obscured by a contemporary intrigue with anything new. In this sense, the rediscovery of icons, and resulting intrigue, may be more related to a hunger for novelty than to any theological stance.<\/p>\n

A Healthy Understanding of Symbol<\/p>\n

We have seen that many of the reasons for the lack of use of image in the Protestant churches are reactionary. They stem from observation of the abuses in the various contexts in the church leading up to the Reformation. However, the introduction of symbol, and specifically, icon to contemporary churches must begin with a healthy understanding of symbol itself. The starting point for this understanding can be the content of bible itself. The bible is full of symbol.<\/p>\n

178 Limouris, [Pheidas] 1990, p. 20.
\n179 Limouris, [Kretschmar]1990, p. 84.<\/p>\n

For example, \u201cThe parables fulfill for us the function of icons, by putting forward the efficacy of what they mean, as if it were accessible to sight and to touch, as well as even of those things that may be contemplated invisibly in subtle conceptions.\u201d180 A healthy understanding of symbol helps us consider the mystery of meaning that is beyond the obvious and physical. In this sense, symbols can \u201c\u2026participate in the reality they convey.\u201d181 We \u201c\u2026see the image itself as an emblem of Incarnation.\u201d182 It provides us with the possibility of participating in the redemption of created things, the sanctification of matter. \u201cIt (the icon) is a sanctification of materiality, meant to remind us of its Prototype\u2026\u201d The prototype is the image of the invisible God.183<\/p>\n

It may be fair to suggest that in real life, it is impossible not to have symbol. In the context of evangelicalism, it is important to remember that words themselves are symbols. Language is bound to images. \u201cThe meaning of words is necessarily invested with the images that those words suggest.\u201d184 In this way, the distinction between word and image is somewhat artificial in that all words are symbolic. In fact, in some cases, the priority of words has caused evangelicals to miss the point behind the words, which is the images the words represent. In the same way, there has been some inappropriate separation between the logos (word) and the bible (words). These are inseparable. The church has maintained symbols from its inception. For example, a symbol of the church (early and contemporary) is the church building. Generally, the gathering place of the body of Christ is treated in a different way from other buildings, no matter how common it is. This indicates symbolic power. The communion table represents symbol.<\/p>\n

180 Giakalis, [Mansi 12, 1067B] 1994, p. 55.
\n181 Ugolnik, 1989, p. 45.
\n182 Ibid.
\n183 Ugolnik, 1989, p. 45.
\n184 Ibid, p. 46.<\/p>\n

Certainly, we believe the Eucharist should at least be respected, no matter how evangelical (and anti-symbol) we think we are.<\/p>\n

A healthy understanding of symbol must contain an appropriate sense of accountability between material reality and spiritual reality. Because evangelicalism is rooted in the enlightenment and subsequent modernity there is often a profound sense of the lack of continuity between the material and the spiritual. Orthodox doctrine is helpful in this light. \u201c\u2026 it is endemic to Orthodoxy itself, precisely because \u201cenlightenment\u201d encloses the single, inquiring mind within an isolated, interpreting self separated not only from a creator but from the social framework of other minds.\u201d185 An evangelical post enlightenment understanding of symbol must account for this compartmentalization. Lack of proper theology regarding matter has allowed westerners (and evangelicals in particular) to largely remove accountability in this area. Rather, the relationship between man and matter is seen as autonomous (matter and spirituality are unrelated). North American evangelicals are, for the most part, blind to this fact. This is reflected in treatment of creation as well as in practices of worship. However, this approach is no longer acceptable. For example, the absence of beauty from our contemporary churches has created a hunger for a deeper spirituality and we are experiencing a revival of religious art and icon painting.186<\/p>\n

185 Ugolnik, 1989, p. 66.
\n186 Zibawi, 1993, p. 53.<\/p>\n

The contemporary evangelical church exists in a visual age. Protestants need a proper visual theology that is incarnational. \u201cThus, in a world replete with the images that shower down upon us from billboards, pour from the television screen, adorn our cities and public parks, and inhabit our entire interior landscape, the religious image has little power of itself to claim its own dominion over the imagination.\u201d187 Effective ministry will require the appropriate use of symbol. Leadership in this area is important in order to avoid trivialization of the symbolic. In North American culture, religious images are often more fashion statements than true icons, though they sometimes use historical content and appear icon-like. At best they are merely reminders.188 This leadership is essential because \u201cWhen the church confines its territory to the heavenly realm alone, it surrenders the material world totally to the secular powers.\u201d189 We have definitely seen the triumph of the secular in the area of symbol during modernity.<\/p>\n

The Possibility of Veneration In The Evangelical Church<\/p>\n

Much of the reasoning around the Seventh Ecumenical Council was that veneration already existed in the church. The issue was not whether veneration was a problem but where its practice was appropriate. There were many inappropriate examples that leaned to worship of icons (inappropriate adoration) or superstition. In some cases, problems such as adding flecks of icon paint to the communion wine for luck were happening.190 However, there were appropriate examples as well. The premise of the reasoning of the Seventh Council was that veneration of icons was very close to other kinds of veneration that was present in the church of the 9th century, and therefore, no great leap.<\/p>\n

187 Ugolnik, 1989, p. 57.
\n188 An example of this would be the gold crosses adorning music award show guests or WWJD araphernalia that is common among younger people.
\n189 Ugolnik, 1989, p. 58.
\n190 Clendenin, 1994, p. 83.<\/p>\n

At first glance, however, it seems this argument is irrelevant for the Evangelical church of today. Most would suggest that veneration does not occur in any context in contemporary evangelicalism. But there are appearances of veneration, even though they would not be considered veneration and certainly admission would be unlikely. Some possible examples of veneration would include the Bible itself. The Evangelical emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible that permeated the 20th century often appeared like bibliolatry. Specific acts of veneration were not formally required or observed, but the treatment of certain bibles or even versions of bibles was definitely similar to veneration. L\u2019Engle suggests that the Bible is one of our greatest icons and potentially, one of our greatest idols. \u201cThe greater an icon is, the more dangerously easy it is for us to turn it into an idol.\u201d \u201cWhen the Bible becomes a thing in itself, rather than the word of God, it becomes an idol.\u201d191 In any case, the appearance of veneration has often been present. Morgan suggests that Protestants interact with pictures of Christ much in the same way that Catholics do.192 It is debatable whether this exemplifies veneration or merely sentimentalism, but it is definitely interaction beyond the merely cerebral. Morgan refers to a study done by Emile Durkheim who argued, \u201c\u2026social thought can make us see things in the light that suits it\u201d. We see Christ in the picture because we want to.193<\/p>\n

191 L\u2019Engle, 1996, p. 160.
\n192 David Morgan. Visual Piety: A History and Theory of Popular Religious Images. (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998), p. 55. This book is based on responses people give regarding the popular artwork of Warner Sallman, and especially, his common picture of Jesus – \u201cHead Of Christ\u201d. Many consider this religious kitsch.
\n193 Ibid, p. 45.<\/p>\n

In light of this phenomenon, it is possible for people to see Christ in the clouds, for example. Morgan says they see what they want to see. People can almost always recognize a Sallman picture as one of Jesus. Is this because they have been conditioned to or because they want to?194 In any case, \u201c\u2026Lutherans, and Protestants generally, find a very important place for images in their religious lives, particularly in their homes.\u201d195 If this is not specifically veneration, it is very similar. It is certainly a religious use of images. Another potential example of veneration for the evangelical context might be the act of preaching. In fact, there are obvious similarities in ideology and terminology between the Orthodox understanding of icon and the Evangelical understanding of preaching. Often, preaching is referred to as opening the word.<\/p>\n

This terminology treats preaching like a window, which is exactly the Orthodox picture of the icon. Ironically, preaching is mostly explaining of the word rather than the reading of the word itself. Evangelicals would not call this explanation \u201cthe word\u201d yet treat it in a similar way. Again, honor accorded to preaching is strikingly similar to the honor given to icons. Another significant example of possible veneration in the Evangelical context is prayer itself. When Evangelicals pray, they often assume some unique position. This could be simply closing eyes but could also include kneeling, folding of hands and bowing. These are all acts consistent with veneration. In fact, it is impossible to pray without some kind of image, even if it is only imagined \u2013 how can one pray with no image? There is always a sense of an image in prayer, whether it is an image of God or something else.<\/p>\n

194 Ibid, p. 125.
\n195 Ibid, p. 152.<\/p>\n

It could be argued that if one prays without an image of God (whether physical or not) or at least some sense of the location of God (even if it is inside the one praying), one is participating in idolatry. Certainly, much of historical and contemporary worship practices are metaphorical and image oriented. A final example of veneration in the Evangelical context will be considered. This is the example of music. This veneration can be easily seen in the context of \u201ccontemporary\u201d worship. To the uninitiated, the first exposure to contemporary worship practices would definitely appear to be veneration. In many of these contexts, there is only one time during a corporate worship service when people will either shut their eyes, bow, sway, raise hands or perform a number of other physical acts. This is during the participatory music, often identified as \u201cworship\u201d in evangelical churches. In fact, in many of these contexts, the only component of the corporate worship service referred to as worship is the participatory music. Whether it is intentional or not, these are acts of veneration. The music provides the window to the supernatural in the same way that the icon does. The similarities are significant.<\/p>\n

The point of this discussion is not to condemn the Evangelical church for practices of veneration. Rather, it is to affirm that certain kinds of veneration exist in the Evangelical church already. To include the honoring sacred images along with the acts common to the practices of prayer, the place of the bible, the act of preaching and participation in music is not a significant leap. In fact, in post- modernity, the use of visual symbol (image) is essential for a holistic worship experience. The days when corporate worship could be primarily cerebral are past. Certainly, it would be inappropriate if worship did not have a cerebral component, but a more holistic inclusion of participatory music, prayer, reading of the scripture and use of sacred symbol is essential to the effective leadership of corporate worship today. It is apparent that this is also true of much of the worship over the past 2000 years. The iconoclastic tendencies of the western churches have been largely reactionary. It is time that the richness of various historical traditions, including those of sacred images, is included in Evangelical worship of the 21st century.<\/p>\n

The Proper Introduction of Icon<\/p>\n

Introducing the use of sacred image to the contemporary churches must be done in a very careful manner. The 20th century was full of the rediscovery of icons. This is largely because the technique of removing paint that had previously covered them was developed.196 There is a danger that fascination with sacred images may simply be an interest in novelty. The Orthodox are concerned that the use of sacred images and the icons themselves are not trivialized. In fact, the popularity of ancient icons in the west today is considered blasphemous, a distortion of their purpose.197 Giakalis declares \u201c\u2026no one apart from the believer has any right to put up icons of holy persons and the events of sacred history.\u201d It is quite possible that he might amend this statement to exclude non-Orthodox believers. A trendy use of icons, more for art or decoration outside of true religion, is profane. Icons are not \u201cart\u201d or \u201cmementos\u201d.198<\/p>\n

196 Lazarev, 1997, p. 11.
\n197 Coniaris, 1982, p. 171.
\n198 Giakalis, 1994, p. 62-63.<\/p>\n

Developing and maintaining an understanding of the sacred is essential for the journey into the appropriate use of image in Evangelicalism. Ouspensky\u2019s exhortation to avoid Images that might \u201carouse shameful pleasures\u201d (prohibited by the Quinisext council) is a good start.199 However, it is extremely difficult to identify these universally. What might arouse one person (man) might not arouse another. It may even be, as is common in North American culture, that the withholding of the image arouses. Also, it may not be the fault of the image but of the viewer. Nudity in art is a potential example of this. Or dancing. Icons depicting the narrative of the Song of Songs are difficult to find. Yet this is part of life, the scripture and a healthy incarnational theology.<\/p>\n

It seems that the dangers lie more in the potential for evangelicals to focus trivial symbols. Current examples like the WWJD apparel, the \u201ctestamint\u201d candies and other very questionable uses of symbol are rampant. Church leaders must develop a thoughtful and discerning approach to the use of symbol in worship. This approach must be rooted in meditation on the scripture, immersion in the historical practices of the church, and personal use of sacred images in devotion. In this way, it is possible to avoid the dangers of either embracing a trivial image or trivializing those that have a rich sacred history. In accordance with Orthodox teaching, these things are not to be approached lightly. Rather, they are to be approached with prayer and submission to the will of God.<\/p>\n

199 Ouspensky, 1992, p. 98.<\/p>\n

Practical Applications for Evangelical Churches<\/p>\n

The use of symbol and image is essential for effective ministry in our increasingly post-modern culture. Therefore, it is crucial that church leaders proactively introduce appropriate images in the context of worship. These are some practical suggestions that might help with this introduction. Of course, the possibilities are myriad. These are only a few.<\/p>\n

Teaching on Images<\/p>\n

In light of the negative perception about images that has historically plagued evangelicalism, teaching will be an important aspect of their introduction. In light of the fact that post-modern culture is very open to both image and historical ideas, the focus of this teaching should be a combination of church history and theology. Rediscovery of some of the teaching of St. John of Damascus as well as the conclusions of the 7th Ecumenical Council will be helpful for the introduction of icons. The Orthodox emphasis on incarnation is also very important. Evangelicals have historically ignored the world of created things as it relates to worship. Implied in this ignorance has been the error that the divinity of Christ somehow reduced his humanity. The introduction of image and its accompanying theology is an excellent opportunity to reemphasize the essential doctrine of the humanity of Christ.<\/p>\n

In many evangelical contexts, icons are perceived with some suspicion. This may be because of some teaching against them in the past or simply because they are new to most people. As part of the introduction of icon, it will be valuable to begin teaching on the use of other similar mediums that are more familiar. For
\nexample, a discussion around the use of music as a window for worship will help people understand the potential for image as a window to the divine. Beginning with the familiar will be very helpful in the introduction of the less familiar.<\/p>\n

Included in this teaching must be an acknowledgement that the Bible itself is image. Written words are images of spoken words, which are images of ideas and events. As evangelical churches come to understand this, it will be easier to accept other kinds of images. It is essential, however, that serious consideration be given to the appropriate nature of the images introduced. There is very little discernment in post-modern culture. Symbols are embraced without thought, often simply because of association with a famous figure200. This should not be the case with images introduced into worship. This is why historical images are probably safer than contemporary images. New images have not stood the test and scrutiny of tradition and are more likely to be trivial. This is not to say that there should not be new images. It is just more likely that trivial images will be avoided if a relatively steady diet of established historical images is normative. In other words, consistent exposure to that which is historically excellent and true will help create an environment of discernment that can spot that which is not excellent and true.<\/p>\n

200 The most significant example of this in contemporary culture is the use of commercial logos and name brands. If a celebrity wears a name brand or logo (often because he or she is paid to do it) others will desire to wear it as well.<\/p>\n

Images on PowerPoint<\/p>\n

Many churches today are using various projection technology. This technology has inherent problems that should be considered201 however, it also has potential for introduction of symbol. During various times in the context of corporate worship it would be appropriate to project symbols for contemplation. This suggestion assumes that teaching has already taken place so the people understand the ideas behind the use of image. This use of image could be especially valuable as applied specifically to the various seasons of the church calendar. For example, there is a richness of image available around the seasons of Christmas, Epiphany and Easter.<\/p>\n

Icons for the Home<\/p>\n

Evangelicalism has historically heralded the importance of the printed word. Parishioners have been exhorted to read the bible for themselves \u2013 to learn to interpret and live the text. This has been the icon of choice for the home in modernity. Increasingly, however, music has played a similar role. Most evangelical church members own \u201cworship\u201d CDs, which they play in their homes and cars. This is a way for people to take home their corporate worship experience.<\/p>\n

In many contexts, it may be appropriate to provide icons for worshipers to take to their homes. This is especially valuable if an icon has been used a number of times in corporate worship and there has been teaching on the substance and content of that icon. There are many places where individual icons can be purchased for home use. This provides the excellent possibility that corporate worship will continue into the personal and home lives of parishioners.<\/p>\n

201 See Neil Postman, Technopoly (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992) for a detailed discussion regarding the potential dangers of technology in contemporary society. Postman suggests that technology has the potential to contribute to the trivialization of symbol.<\/p>\n

Seriousness of The Arts As They Relate To Faith<\/p>\n

In an era where the arts are either popularized for the sake of financial gain or intellectualized to the point where they are no longer accessible to the general public, it is important that the church develop a proper approach to the use of the arts in worship. The Orthodox have much to teach in this area. The priestly role of the artist in Eastern churches establishes both a level of respect for those who paint as well as a significant level of accountability. In the West, it is often assumed that \u201cartsy\u201d people will be emotionally unstable and theologically weak. In a very real sense, this attitude has contributed to its reality \u2013 many of them fit the description. However, the priestly conception of the artist assumes significant spiritual maturity and commitment to contemplation. This kind of accountability of the artist raises the standard and expectation about lifestyle and spirituality. Evangelical churches can do this. Rather than consider spiritual maturity only important for those who deal with words, the expectation should be extended to those who deal with any kind of image.202 In other words, the artist (including the musician) should have the same level of accountability as the preacher. This is consistent with Orthodox ideology and is essential for the appropriate use of image in evangelical post-modernity.<\/p>\n

It is possible that a key outcome of a renewed seriousness about the priestly nature of the artist is that there will also be a renewed interest in a different kind of training for the arts in the church. In most of past evangelicalism, training in the arts has focused on skill rather than a pastoral and theological emphasis. In this way, the artist has been seen as a less significant contributor to those who handle words. However, if the approach to artistic training has more to do with theology and spirituality but includes technique and skill, it is possible that artists will have the potential to take their place as priest in the body of Christ.<\/p>\n

202 This can and should be extended to all areas of the arts, including music. If the same expectations were in place for those who lead in musical worship, there would be far less likelihood of poor theology in our hymns and songs as well.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/p>\n

The title of this project is \u201cThe Theology and Use Of Icons In Orthodox Churches and Potential Applications For The Use Of Symbol In Contemporary Evangelical Churches\u201d. In many ways, this has been a journey in the attempt to identify whether the icon even has potential for application in evangelical post- modernity. In conclusion, the resounding answer is \u201cyes\u201d! In fact, it is very likely that a theologically appropriate use of image in evangelical post-modernity is essential for effective ministry. Evangelicals have the profound and unique opportunity to radically influence the introduction of images into worship. Rather than just \u201clet it happen\u201d it is extremely important that images be introduced in a thoughtful and careful way. This will provide the potential for stable long-term use of image and, potentially other of the arts as well. If image is not introduced in a careful, thoughtful way, it is likely that the future of evangelicalism will hold yet another iconoclasm, because iconoclasm often is not a result of the use of image but the inappropriate use of image. The time is ripe for the prevention of this future iconoclasm and the blessing of the introduction of the use of symbol in contemporary evangelical churches.<\/p>\n

Glossary [203]<\/p>\n

Acathistus Hymn A Greek liturgical hymn in honor of the Mother of God said standing, hense its title Acathistus (\u201cnot sitting\u201d)<\/p>\n

Anamnesis Remembrance, commemoration: the Eucharistic anamnesis recalls the work of salvation that God accomplished and the institution of the Lord\u2019s Supper<\/p>\n

Apophatic Refers to a spirituality which emphasizes the inadequacy of human language to express anything about God<\/p>\n

Assiste Features and lines of gold decorating certain elements of iconography, such as the vestments and the wings of angels<\/p>\n

Deesis Literally \u201csupplication\u201d; specifically, a representation of the Holy Mother of God and St.John the Baptist standing on either side of Christ and imploring mercy for the world<\/p>\n

Hesychasm Retreat of the created into silence, calmness, quiet, and solitude<\/p>\n

Hodegitria \u201cShe Who Shows the Way\u201d; a representation of the Mother of God holding the Child in her left arm and pointing to him with her right hand<\/p>\n

Hypostatic Union The union of the divine and human natures of Christ in one hypostasis, or substance<\/p>\n

Iconoclast One who believes religious images are idols and those who venerate them are idolaters<\/p>\n

Iconodule One who venerates religious images, but does not worship them<\/p>\n

Iconolater One who worships religious images<\/p>\n

Iconostasis A partition, made up of icons, that separates the sanctuary from the nave<\/p>\n

Kenosis Literally, \u201cemptying\u201d; specifically, the impoverishment of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity when he willing assumed human nature<\/p>\n

203 This is taken from Mahmoud Zibawi, Eastern Christian Worlds. (Collegville: The Liturgical Press, 1995) p. 271-272, and Mahmoud Zibawi. The Icon: Its Meaning and History. (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1993) p. 173-174.<\/p>\n

Mandylion A cloak, a small cloth, a napkin<\/p>\n

Maphorion A garment covering the head and shoulders and traditionally worn by the Mother of God and holy women in artistic representation<\/p>\n

Monophysitism A doctrine that Christ possessed one source of activity or \u201cenergy\u201d<\/p>\n

Nestorians Those who believe there are two separate Persons in Christ, one divine, the other human<\/p>\n

Orant A representation of the Mother of God or a Saint with arms extended and hands raised to shoulder level or higher in a gesture of prayer<\/p>\n

Pantocrator Christ represented as Ruler of Everything<\/p>\n

Proskynesis Gesture of prostration and reverence<\/p>\n

Quinisext A 7th century council complementary to the use of icon<\/p>\n

Theotokos Mary, Mother of God<\/p>\n

Theosophy A belief in intuitive knowledge of the Divine which is superior to that of historical religions or of philosophy or empirical science<\/p>\n

Zoographe An iconographer, a painter<\/p>\n

Bibliography<\/p>\n

Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978<\/p>\n

Attwater, Donald, The Churches Of The East, Volume II: Churches Not In Communion With Rome. Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Pub. Co., 1962.<\/p>\n

Auxentios, Hieromonk. The Iconic and Symbolic in Orthodox Iconography. [An essay taken from a presentation at the Graduate Atheological Union, Berkeley CA] 1987. http:\/\/www.orthodoxinfo.com\/general\/orth_icon.htm (read 15 pages)<\/p>\n

Baggley, John. Doors of Perception: Icons And Their Spiritual Significance. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir\u2019s Seminary Press, 1988. (skimmed\/read 90 pages)<\/p>\n

Barasch, Moshe. Icon: Studies in the History of an Idea. New York, NY: New York University Press, 1992. (read 25 pages)<\/p>\n

Begbie, Jeremy (Ed.). Beholding the Glory: Incarnation Through The Arts. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000. (read 50 pages)<\/p>\n

Calian, Carnegie S., Icon And Pulpit: The Protestant-Orthodox Encounter. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1968. (read 85 pages)<\/p>\n

Calian, Carnegie S., Theology Without Boundaries: Encounters of Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Tradition. Louisville, KY: Westminster\/John Knox Press, 1992 (read 25 pages)<\/p>\n

Cavarnos, Constantine. The Functions of Icons. Chapter III from Orthodox Iconography (Belmont, MA: Institute for Modern Greek and Byzantine Studies, 1992 [1977]), pp. 30-35.
\n[http:\/\/www.orthodoxinfo.com\/general\/icon_function.htm] (read 5 pages)<\/p>\n

Clendenin, Daniel B., Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994 (read 95 pages)<\/p>\n

Clendenin, Daniel B., Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995 (read 40 pages)<\/p>\n

Coniaris, Anthony M., Introducing the Orthodox Church: Its Faith and Life. Minneapolis, MN: Light and Life Pub., 1982. (read 190 pages)<\/p>\n

Eliade, Mircea, (Ed. by Diane Apostolos-Cappadona), Symbolism, the Sacred and the Arts. New York, NY: Crossroad Pub. Co., 1986. (read 50 pages)<\/p>\n

Giakalis, Ambrosios, Images of the Divine: The Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council. New York, NY: E. J. Brill, 1994. (read 130 pages)<\/p>\n

Gombrich, E. H., The Story of Art. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1995.<\/p>\n

Florovsky, Georges, Christianity And Culture. Belmont, MA: Nordland Pub. Co., 1974. (read 100 pages)<\/p>\n

Hohstadt, Thomas. Dying To Live: The 21st Century Church. Odessa, TX: Damah Media, 1999 (read 140 pages)<\/p>\n

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 (read 88 pages)<\/p>\n

Lazarev, Vicgtor Nikitich. The Russian Icon: From Its Origins to the Sixteenth Century. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1997 (read 130 pages, gazed upon the pictures of 143 pages)<\/p>\n

Le Guillou, M. J., The Spirit of Eastern Orthodoxy. New York, NY: Hawthorn Pub. 1962. (read 10 pages)<\/p>\n

L\u2019Engle, Madeleine, Penguins and Bolden Calves: Icons and Idols. Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Pub., 1996. (read 60 pages)<\/p>\n

Limouris, Gennadios (compiled by). Icons, Windows on Eternity: Theology and Spirituality in Colour. Geneva: WCC Publications, 1990. (read 150 pages)<\/p>\n

Morgan, David. Visual Piety: A History and Theory of Popular Religious Images. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998. (skimmed\/read 100 pages)<\/p>\n

Ouspensky, Leonid, and Vladimir Lossky. The Meaning of Icons. Trans. By G. E. H. Palmer and E. Kadloubovsky. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir\u2019s Seminary Press, 1989 (skimmed\/read 150 pages)<\/p>\n

Ouspensky, Leonid. Theology of the Icon. Volumes one and two. Trans. By Anthony Gythiel and Elizabeth Meyendorff. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir\u2019s Seminary Press, 1992. (read 185 + 150 pages)<\/p>\n

Quenot, Michel. The Icon: Window on the Kingdom. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir\u2019s Seminary Press, 1991. (skimmed\/read 80 pages)<\/p>\n

Ramos-Poqui, Guillem, The Technique of Icon Painting. Harrisburg, PS: Moorehouse Pub., 1991 (read 40 pages)<\/p>\n

Rest, Feiedrich, Our Christian Symbols. Piladelphia, PA: The Christian Education Press., 1954 (skimmed\/read 70 pages)<\/p>\n

Ugolnik, Anthony, The Illuminating Icon. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1989. (read 200 pages)<\/p>\n

Ware, Timothy, The Orthodox Church. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1964 (skimmed\/read 20 pages)<\/p>\n

Wolterstorff, Nicholas. \u201cEvangelicalism and the Arts.\u201d Christian Scholar\u2019s Review 17 (1998): 449-473<\/p>\n

Zernov, Nicolas, Eastern Christendom: A Study of the Origin and Development of the Eastern Orthodox Church. New York, NY: G. P. Putnam\u2019s Sons, 1961. (skimmed\/read 20 pages)<\/p>\n

Zibawi, Mahmoud. The Icon: Its Meaning and History. Collegville: The Liturgical Press, 1993. (skimmed\/read 174 pages, gazed upon the pictures of 96 pages)<\/p>\n

Zibawi, Mahmoud. Eastern Christian Worlds.. Collegville: The Liturgical Press, 1995. (skimmed\/ read 50 pages, gazed upon the pictures of 96 pages)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[First part of Icons in Worship]\u00a0 Second Part: This brief critique of the Orthodox understanding and use of icon is designed to be helpful in finding potential application for the use of symbol, and even icon, in an evangelical context.144 It is understood that an Orthodox person might consider this process inappropriate. However, for the […]<\/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":[3420,3410,3431,369,3430,3421,648,120,53,1845,1660,1783],"class_list":["post-1450","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-europe","category-orthodox-christianity","category-philosophy","tag-authority-of-the-bible","tag-church-tradition","tag-hagiography","tag-iconography","tag-icons","tag-obedience-to-god","tag-orthodox-icons","tag-orthodox-theology","tag-orthodoxy","tag-sanctity","tag-scripture","tag-word-of-god"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1450","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=1450"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1450\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1450"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1450"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1450"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}