Presumptuous Propositions
A Reply to the Credenda/Agenda Concerning Icons
By Timothy Copple and Patrick Barnes
Receive as a single stream the testimony of Scripture and the Fathers;
it shows you that the making and worship of images is no new invention, but the ancient
tradition of the Church.St. John of Damascus
INTRODUCTION
In "Presumptuous Icons"
(Credenda/Agenda Vol. 6, No. 5) Wes Callihan critiques the Orthodox use of Icons in
worship from a Reformed Protestant perspective. His main objections fall under the
umbrella of Orthodoxy's ostensible "confusion over divine revelation": 1) Icons
supplant the need for preachers and teachers; 2) Icons undermine the priority that
propositional truth should hold, even dismissing it altogether; 3) Icons miss the point
that Christ should be understood not as the Picture of God but as the Word of God; 4)
Icons violate the Second Commandment. In what follows we address each of these claims in
the order here listed. In the process an overview of the Orthodox teaching concerning
Icons emerges.
PRESUMPTUOUS PRESUPPOSITIONS
Before addressing each of the four charges we must first say a few
words about Mr. Callihan's overall approach to the subject. The confusion over divine
revelation is not ours but his. This is because of the underlying gridor network of
presuppositionsthrough which he undoubtedly filters and interprets what he reads and
observes. These presuppositions are integrally related to the traditional Protestant
understanding of divine revelation. As we will see, this Reformed Protestant mindset is
one that is entirely foreign to Orthodoxy and leads him astray on nearly every point. Here
we will only mention the watershed presupposition concerning the Church and truth, noting
that it is this one issue that is at the root of the classic Protestant
disagreement with the Orthodox over the use of Icons. Commenting upon the four of the
marks of the Church that are affirmed in the ninth article of the Nicene Creed ("And
I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"), Fr. Michael
Pomazansky writes:
The Church is holy likewise through its pure, infallible teaching of faith:
The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). The Patriarchs of the
Eastern Churches, concerning the infallibility of the Church in its teaching, express
themselves thus: "In saying that the teaching of the Church is infallible, we do not
affirm anything else than this, that it is unchanging, that it is the same as was given to
it in the beginning as the teaching of God" (Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs,
1848, par. 12).
Though Mr. Callihan may belong to a Protestant group that recites the Creed at Sunday
morning worship, their understanding of the Creedespecially the ninth
articledeviates sharply from the Christian consensus. From this deviation flows
divers heterodox presuppositions that taint the waters of his understanding, e.g.:
- cumenical Synods have erred on a number of issues. Therefore, the Seventh's decrees
concerning Icons are flawed and have no authority for Protestants.
- There is not one visible church to which 1 Timothy 3:15 can be applied.
- Oral Tradition carries no weight, despite what the Saints have clearly stated on this
matter (e.g., St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, Ch. 27).
- A corollary to this: there is no discernible consensus Patrum which carries any
authority. To know the truth one should trust the Reformers' interpretation and selective
use of the Fathers, or even worseas is the case with much of modern
Protestantismtrust one's own interpretation and selective use of the same, using
only the Bible as a guide.
This last point is perhaps the most presumptuous. The opinions of Calvin and Luther
with respect to Iconsformed some seven hundred years after these issues were
definitively settled by the Churchare from the Orthodox perspective hopelessly
shackled in a late medieval nominalistic framework. [1] They have very little continuity
with the Tradition of the Church. That anyone would consider these opinions to be more
reliable or truthful than the teaching that was for centuries held throughout the
Christian world of the Church, often unto martyrdom, is lamentable.
Therefore, in considering how to respond to Mr. Callihan we do not
assume that our reasoning will ultimately sway him unless and until the foundational
questions of "What is the Church?" and "Where is the
Church?"questions that are integrally related to the subject of truth
[2]are resolved. However, we will still attempt to reason with him in hopes that
some of what follows will sufficiently challenge his worldview and lead him to begin
questioning its tenability. We also hope that other readers will benefit from this
overview of Orthodox iconography. Nevertheless, we stress from the outset that a complete
answer to Mr. Callihan was written by St. John of Damascus over twelve hundred years ago:
the three apologies Against Those Who Attack the Divine Images. [3] There are also
many fine modern works available on Orthodox iconography. Among the best is Leonid
Ouspensky's two volume Theology of the Icon. [4] We can only assume that despite
the wide distribution of these works Mr. Callihan somehow overlooked them in his research;
and we readily admit that if these works were not persuasive to a Protestant reader,
nothing we could add here would carry the argument.
We have two further preliminary remarks. First, Mr. Callihan is
incorrect in his claim that the Orthodox argument for the necessity of Icons derives from
pedagogical concerns (e.g., "books for the unlearned"). As we will have occasion
to see, these concerns take back seat to ones that touch on the very core of Christianity:
Defending the icon in the period of iconoclasm, the Church was not defending
merely its educational role, and still less, its aesthetic value; it was fighting for the
very foundations of the Christian faith, the visible testimony of God become man, as the
basis of our salvation. "I have seen the human image of God, and my soul is
saved" says St. John of Damascus. Such an understanding of the icon explains the
steadfastness and intransigence with which its defenders faced torture and death in the
period of iconoclasm. [5]
Second, Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary defines the
word "proposition" as "a statement of religious doctrine; an article of
faith; creed; as, the propositions of Wyclif and Huss." We assume that this is how
Mr. Callihan uses this term, noting at the outset that this is a very narrow type of
truth. In fact the Church has always resorted to an apophatic, as opposed to cataphatic,
approach to truth as much as possible. Bishop Auxentios of Photiki explains these terms:
In his now classical treatment of the subject [The Mystical Theology of the
Eastern Church], the Russian theologian Vladimir Lossky makes a Patristic distinction
between two ways of theologizing, these, in turn, based on corresponding approaches to
knowing and experiencing of God. This distinction is so significant, that Lossky uses it
as a focal point in every subdivision of his theological inquiry (e.g., Trinitarian
theology, Christology, cosmology, anthropology, etc.). The first of these ways is the
cataphatic or "positive" way, and corresponds to man's normal way of relating to
his world. It involves, above all, affirmation. From this perspective, we would speak of
God in normal cognitive categories, attributing to him such characteristics as supreme
good, truth, justice, mercy, love, beauty, compassion, and so on. This first way, this
"natural" way, Lossky argues, must rest on constant qualifications and is
strongly limited by comparison to a second apophatic, or "negative," way. This
second way is ultimately more appropriate to the objective of knowing God or of
theologizing. From this more accurate perspective, the human language can only be used to
deny or to express negation. Human cognition becomes a method of negation, rather than
affirmation, and truth rises above (simply because it lies beyond) cognitive knowledge.
Here, one who truly loves, experiences, and knows God (to the extent that such is humanly
possible) is compelled to speak as follows: "God is not good, truth, justice,
etc. It is not, of course, that God is the opposite of these things (evil, falsehood,
injustice...); rather, these characteristics must be refuted, since they are the products
of human experience of the created universe. God, being uncreated and, in His divine
essence, wholly transcendent, cannot, in the depths of His being, in the internal life of
the Trinity, be known in any cognitive manner whatever. [6]
Typically the Church resorted to the expression of truth in a
"propositional" (cataphatic) way only when heresy threatened that which She had
always known by experience and preserved in Her catholic consciousness. [7] Therefore,
this restriction of truth to the "propositional" type is not in accordance with
the way the Church has traditionally expressed Herself. It is unacceptable to Orthodox
Christians. We have here another example of a Reformed presupposition that is
"downstream" of the aforementioned watershed.
With these remarks in mind we can proceed directly to the four
charges.
#1ICONS OR PREACHING: A FALSE DILEMMA
Anyone familiar with Orthodox worship can readily see that Mr.
Callihan has put forth a false dilemma. In fact, if one reasons consistently from his
words, the conclusion is easily drawn that there is no preaching or use of
"propositional truth" at all in Orthodoxy!
First, we find his implication that Icons supplant the need for
preaching to be entirely without basis in fact. The Orthodox Church reads and chants more
Scripture in Her services of worship than any Protestant confession of which we are aware.
Sermons (better, "homilies") are also regularly preached on Sundays. The
Orthodox Church is adorned with numerous gifted preachers and teachersSaints from
every age. For example, St. John Chrysostom is one of Orthodoxy's greatest Saints
precisely because of his powerful preaching and teaching that drew crowds from all over
the Roman Empire. ("Chrysostom" is not St. John Chrysostom's last name but
rather a Greek word which means "Golden-Mouthed.") Our history is replete with
examples of such eminent preachers. Emphasis on the spoken and written Word of God is also
commonplace in the writings of the Saints. The following remarks by the great Russian
theologian and ascetic, St. Theophan the Recluse (fl. late nineteenth century), are
characteristic of Orthodox writings on this matter:
Catechistic teaching must be heard unceasingly, and indeed, is heard, in
Church. True believers will become established more firmly through it, whereas the fallen
and the aroused will have an immediate, true guidebook. How vitally important is the duty
of priests to proclaim God's salvific ways at any time, without an overreliance on
presupposed general knowledge!
The Word of God, however, not only enhances all the methods shown; it can also replace
them. It arouses more fully and distinctly. Through its affinity with the spirit, which
also comes from God, it passes inwardly, to the division of soul and spirit. It enlivens
the latter, and inseminates it so that acts of the spiritual life may come to fruition
(that is why the Word is also called seed). The arousing force of it is the more
significant in that it acts at once on the entire person, on his entire being: his body,
soul, and spirit. Sound, or the audible component of the Word, strikes the hearing, and a
thought occupies the soul. The invisible energy concealed inside this thought touches the
soul, which, if it is attentive, after the Word has safely passed the rough barriers of
body and soul, becomes aroused, and, by exerting effort, it bursts the bonds that hold
it
.
By virtue of its comprehensive general suitability for awakening sinners,
the Word of God goes throughout the world and reaches our ears in various forms. It is
heard unceasingly in churches at every divine service, and outside churches in every
religious ceremony. It is heard in the sermons of the Fathers and in every enlightening
book. It is heard in wholesome discussions and in popular, edifying sayings. It is in
schools, pictures, and every visible object that represents spiritual truths. Judging by
this, we are surrounded by the Word of God and filled with it from all sides. From
everywhere the trumpet sounds come to us for the destruction of the strongholds of sin, as
for the walls of Jericho. The Word of God has already shown and continually shows its
triumphant power over the human heart. It is necessary only to take care that the paths by
which the Word of God is disseminated are maintained without interruption, so that true
preaching does not cease, divine worship is fulfilled according to rite and in an edifying
manner, iconography is uplifting and pious, and the singing is sober, simple, and
reverent. The fulfillment of this is the responsibility of those who serve at the altars.
That is why they are the most necessary and powerful weapons for the conversion of sinners
in the hands of divine Providence. It is necessary for them to acknowledge this and speak
out not just in churches, but also in homes, using every opportunity both to describe the
divine world, and to expose the seduction of our soul by the illusions of the mind and
body. [8]
It is possible that Mr. Callihan is working with some old
information. One of the authors recalls that in his Protestant college class on worship
the Orthodox were characterized by not having a homily. This was also emphasized on a
series that PBS did on world religions. However, this was a result not of the Orthodox
denial of preaching, but of Communist prohibitions against any form of preaching. Most of
that information came from outside observers of the Orthodox Church which was then
predominately under Communist or Moslem rule. Traditionally the homily has always followed
the reading of the Gospel and is considered an important part of the service.
Nevertheless, being denied that form of communication during the Communist rule did not
prevent the faithful from receiving the Gospel via the Divine Services, Lives of Saints,
Icons, and oral Tradition. The strong presence of the underground Church in Russia during
these years indicates that iconic teaching is well suited for the communication of divine
truths. And where there are no prohibitions against public preaching, one will almost
inevitably hear a homily preached at the Sunday morning Divine Liturgy, and occasionally
at other services as well.
In short, the role that iconography plays in the instruction of the
faithful is complementary and does not undermine the need for preaching and teaching. To
better understand this, however, we need to touch upon the interplay between word and
image. In so doing we will further address his overt penchant for hinging arguments
upon the necessity of using "propositional truth"one of the traditional
Protestant presuppositions concerning the means of conveying divine revelation.
#2, 3 WORD AS IMAGE, IMAGE AS WORD
St. Matthew records the question asked of Jesus by Pontius Pilate:
"What is Truth?" (18:38). To our minds Mr. Callihan would undoubtedly answer
"It is a system of propositional truths like the Westminster Confession of
Faith." In other words, we infer from his article that the Protestant mind
subconsciously reads Jesus' words thus: "I am the Way, the Propositional Truth, and
the Life...." This may sound unfair, but such an implication is inescapable within
his apparent schemaone in which Jesus Christ is effectively reduced to a mere
"propositional truth of the Father." We turn now to address his "confusion
over divine revelation," namely, the erroneous reduction of the "Word of
God" to "propositional truth" and the exclusion of the correlatives, word
as image, image as word.
Mr. Callihan makes use of the term "word" in a very strict
sense and all without any reference to Scriptural context. Reasoning simplistically from
Hebrews 1 he argues that "since the words spoken to the fathers through the prophets
have culminated in the words spoken to us through His Son, and the transgression of those
earlier words brought the severest penalties, how much more ought we to listen to the
words of Jesus Christ and understand Him to be not fundamentally the Picture of God for us
but the Word of God?" This is connected with his earlier assertion that "God
holds, and wants us to hold, verbal and propositional truth in the very highest regard,
and to dismiss that form of truth for pictorial representations is infidelity."
We have already addressed one of his false dilemmas. We now run up
against similar logical fallacies. Can the reader not detect that he is again pitting
"propositional truth" against the use of Iconsthe "Picture"
against the "Word,"as if the latter negated or undermined the former?
First, we postulate that part of Mr. Callihan's misunderstanding
stems from cultural differences of which he is unaware. In a chapter contrasting the
Eastern and Western mindsets and appropriately titled "Image and Word," Fr.
Anthony Ugolnik makes a number of brilliant observations which are apropos of this:
The Protestant mind, whether or not it approaches the Word of God
through the filter of "inerrancy," imagines the Word as embodied within a text,
a book, a bible. This is a cultural inheritance.
The Orthodox mind also gives primacy to the canonical, duly "handed
down" and biblical Word. If Westerners bind their Word in denim or morocco, the
Orthodox lift theirsclad in gold and, of course, iconsbefore the assembly of
worshipers. Their priests then chant a single word: Sophia in Greek, Premudost
in Slavonicin English, "Wisdom." But that wisdom comes in the context of
the liturgy, the Word communally celebrated rather than individually encountered in the
text. The Book is the repository of meaning, yet the Book is regarded and treated as if it
were itself an image begetting images. The Book not only reveals but is itself
"image-producing," transforming dead matter into the reflected image of Jesus
Christ
.
Biblical meaning takes shape in our minds, Orthodox and Reformed, in different
ways. The Protestant mind concentrates on the message itself, the concrete word that is
the utterance. The Orthodox mind takes into account a more peripheral vision: the Orthodox
embrace the surroundings as well, the context within which this utterance is proclaimed.
And for the Orthodox, the context includes the full range of the senses that shape
meaningsight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. In liturgy, which employs all these
senses, the Word emerges dialogically rather than in individual, private encounter.
The community within which the Russian Christians live and the tradition which
passed that Word on to them are the vessels wherein they receive and within which they
understand that Word. The American Protestant mind is culturally and literarily disposed
to envision the Word in terms of a book, the "text" of creation. The Russian
Orthodox mind, through the veil of its own culture, interprets that Word in the light of
the images that reflect it. American Christians obey the Augustinian injunction "Take
up and read!" Their Russian counterparts are apt to concentrate upon the insight that
follows the imperative "Look up and see!
" [9]
Nevertheless, however interesting these cultural observations may be
they are merely symptoms of the western disavowal of images centuries ago. With this came
the loss of an understanding of the essential interrelatedness of image and word. This
relation is especially lost on bookish and rationalistic Protestants who have little
awareness of the subtle yet sublime power of liturgical art. In drawing a sharp
distinction between words and pictures, and in making the claim that "propositional
knowledge of God
cannot be conveyed in any other way than words," Mr. Callihan
fails to realize that the Church has always understood images to be very equally
effective for relating truth. In some circumstances they are even more effective.
The [Seventh Ecumenical] council states that Holy Scripture and the holy image
are "mutually revelatory." One single content is witnessed in two different
wayswith words or with imagesconveying the same revelation in the light of the
same sacred and living Tradition of the Church. We read in the council's canons:
The Fathers neither transmitted to us that it was necessary to read the Gospel
nor did they convey to us that it was necessary to make icons. But if they conveyed the
one, they also conveyed the other, because a representation is inseparable from the
biblical account, and, vice versa, the biblical account is inseparable from a
representation. Both are right and worthy of veneration because they explain one another
and, indisputably, substantiate one another.
Thus, the visible image is equivalent to the verbal image. Just as the word of
Scripture is an image, so is the painted image a word. "That which the word
communicates by sound, a painting demonstrates silently by representation," the
Fathers of the council said, referring to St Basil the Great. Elsewhere they write,
"By means of these two ways which complement one another, that is, by reading and by
the visible image, we gain knowledge of the same thing." In other words, the icon
contains and proclaims the same truth as the Gospel.
Like the Gospel and the Cross, it is one of the aspects of divine revelation and
of our communion with God, a form in which the union of divine and human activity,
synergy, is accomplished. Aside from their direct meaning, the sacred image as well as the
Gospel are reflections of the heavenly world; the one and the other are symbols of the
Spirit they contain. Thus, both the one and other transmit concrete, specific realities,
not human ideas. In other words, what was asked was "How can the icon correspond to
the Gospel and explain it, and vice versa?"
In 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 to the book itself as an object, but to the evangelical kerygma,
that is, to the content of the Scripture itself, to its meaning, as is true also for
liturgical texts. This is why the icon plays the same role as Scripture does in the
Church; it has the same liturgical, dogmatic, and educational meaning.
The content of holy Scripture is conveyed by the icon not in the form of a
theoretical instruction, but in a liturgical manner, that is, in a living way, appealing
to all the human faculties. In it, the truth contained in Scripture is conveyed in light
of the entire spiritual experience of the Church, of its Tradition. It therefore
corresponds to Scripture in the same way as the liturgical texts correspond to it, as we
have said. Indeed, these texts do not merely reproduce Scripture as such: they are
interwoven with it. By alternating and juxtaposing passages, they reveal their meaning and
show us how to live the biblical preaching. By representing various moments of sacred
history, the icon visibly conveys their meaning, their vital significance. Thus, Scripture
lives in the Church and in each of its members both through the liturgy and through the
icon. This is why the unity of the liturgical image and of the liturgical word is of
crucial importance, because the two modes of expression control one another. They live the
same life; in worship, they share a common, constructive action. The denial of one of
these modes of expression leads to the downfall of the other. What happened among the
iconoclasts of the eighth and ninth centuriesa total decline of the liturgical and
therefore of the spiritual lifewas the result of a repudiation of the sacred image.
To replace icons, the iconoclasts intensified preaching, religious poetry, and
they introduced all types of music. On this subject, Pope St. Gregory wrote to Emperor Leo
III: "You have entertained the people with vain discourses, futile words, citharas,
castanets, flutes, with inaneness; instead of doxologies and thanksgivings, you have led
the people into fables." This is how the liturgical tradition was broken, with
everything it entailed. Indeed, the divine revelation penetrates into the believing people
through the liturgy and the icon, the sanctifying life, giving things their true meaning,
and thus becomes the fundamental task to be fulfilled by the faithful. [10]
It should be obvious that Holy Scripture does not read like a
confessional statement. One finds instead stories about people, God's encounter with man
and man's response to Him throughout redemptive history. In this way the entire Bible is a
like a mosaic Iconpainting in words the beautiful portrait of God's Economy towards
Manpointing us always to the Word of God IncarnateTruth Himselfthrough
Whom we have access to God the Father. We catch a glimpse of this in the following
passages from St. John of Damascus' first apology:
Again, visible things are corporeal models which provide a vague
understanding of intangible things. Holy Scripture describes God and the angels as having
descriptive form, and the same blessed Dionysius teaches us why. [Cf. On the Celestial
Hierarchies, Ch. 1] Anyone would say that our inability immediately to direct our
thoughts to contemplation of higher things makes it necessary that familiar everyday media
be utilized to give suitable form to what is formless, and make visible what cannot be
depicted, so that we are able to construct understandable analogies. If, therefore, the
Word of God, in providing for our every need, always presents to us what is intangible by
clothing it with form, does it not accomplish this by making an image using what is common
to nature and so brings within our reach that for which we long but are unable to see? A
certain perception takes place in the brain, prompted by the bodily senses, which is then
transmitted to the faculties of discernment, and adds to the treasury of knowledge
something that was not there before. The eloquent Gregory says that the mind which is
determined to ignore corporeal things will find itself weakened and frustrated. [Theological
Orations, 2] Since the creation of the world the invisible things of God are clearly
seen [Rom. 1:20] by means of images. We see images in the creation which, although they
are only dim lights, still remind us of God. For instance, when we speak of the holy and
eternal Trinity, we use the images of the sun, light, and burning rays; or a running
fountain; or an overflowing river; or the mind, speech, and spirit within us; or a rose
tree, a flower, and a sweet fragrance.
Again, an image foreshadows something that is yet to happen, something hidden in
riddles and shadows. For instance, the ark of the covenant is an image of the Holy Virgin
and Theotokos, as are the rod of Aaron and the jar of manna. The brazen serpent typifies
the cross and Him who healed the evil bite of the serpent by hanging on it. Baptismal
grace is signified by the cloud and the waters of the sea. [I Cor. 10:1]
Again, things which have already taken place are remembered by means of images, whether
for the purpose of inspiring wonder, or honor, or shame, or to encourage those who look
upon them to practice good and avoid evil. These images are of two kinds: either they are
words written in books, as when God had the law engraved on tablets and desired the lives
of holy men to be recorded, or else they are material images, such as the jar of manna, or
Aaron's staff, [Ex. 34:28; Heb. 9:4] which were to be kept in the ark as a memorial. So
when we record events and good deeds of the past, we use images. Either remove these
images altogether, and reject the authority of Him who commanded them to be made, or else
accept them in the manner and with the esteem which they deserve. In speaking of the
proper manner, let us consider the question of worship. [11]
No, the Bible was never intended by God to be a "theological
textbook," standing on its ownapart from the Churchas "the pillar
and ground of the truth." Familiarity with the early doctrinal controversies makes
this point clear. Take, for example, the doctrine of the Blessed Holy Trinity. This most
fundamental Christian doctrine is nowhere explicitly stated in Holy Scripture. It is,
however, alluded to in many ways. The chief example is from St. Matthew's Gospel:
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo,
the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and
lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I
am well pleased. (St. Matt. 3:16-17).
The Church sings of this event at the Feast of Theophany (Baptism of Christ):
When Thou, O Lord, wast baptized in the Jordan, the worship of the Trinity was
made manifest. For the voice of the Father bore witness unto Thee, calling Thee the
beloved Son, and the Spirit in the form of a dove confirmed His word as sure and
steadfast. O Christ our God who hast appeared and enlightened the world, glory to Thee. (Troparion
of the Feast)
As with most doctrines the teaching concerning the Holy Trinity was revealed to the
Church through the Holy Scriptures as they were understood in the life of the worshipping
Body of God's people. As members of this Body certain Holy Fathers were ordained by God
noetically to perceive the mystery to an even greater degree. Using this gift they
undertook apophatically to describe it within the limits of human language. The Church
then affirmed these teachings at the First and Second cumenical Synods by drafting the
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. It is noteworthy that no specific defense of the Third
Person of the Holy Trinity as God was even written until the fourth century: St.
Basil the Great's On the Holy Spirit. Parenthetically, although traditional
Protestants purport to cherish this treatise, it contains at least one passage that must
make them cringe. We quote here only a small part of it:
Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly
enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching;
others we have received delivered to us "in a mystery" by the tradition of the
apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no
one will gainsay; no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the
institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no
written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should
unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public
definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most
general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the
cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught
us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words
of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing?
For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has
recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great
importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching.
Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the
catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our
authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil
itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other
customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his
angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers
guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation?
Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved
by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed: to look at was hardly likely to be
publicly paraded about in written documents....
Time will fail me if I attempt to
recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very
confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it
be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our
confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism
and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the
right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith. If
they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give
us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we
have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on
"the mystery of godliness" is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single
word which has come down to us from the Fathers; which we found, derived from
untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches;a word for which the arguments are
strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the
mystery? [12]
Returning to our point, as with the teaching concerning the Holy
Trinity so also with many other doctrines, not the least of which concerns the Person of
Christ. Anyone even remotely familiar with the Christological controversies would
acknowledge that the heretics were not lacking in Scriptural "proof" for their
views. Fr. Michael Pomazansky remarks:
Of course, many truths of the Faith are so immediately clear from Sacred
Scripture that they were not subjected to heretical reinterpretations; therefore,
concerning them there are no specific decrees of councils. Other truths, however, were
confirmed by councils. [13]
Is this fact concerning the expression and defense of dogmas by the cumenical Synods
not a solid argument against the idea of Sacred Scripture as a compendium of
propositional truths and for the necessity of the Church as the keeper and
preserver of truth? If Christ is the very Word of God Incarnate, and the Church is His
Body (Eph. 1:22-23), then the Church is in a very real sense the Word of God. As Jesus is
"the way, the truth, and the life" so also is the Church (cf. 1 Tim. 3:15;
Ephesians). We cannot help wondering how Protestants can fail to see that without the
Church they would not have the vestiges of the true faith which they have selectively
retained from the cumenical Synods, nor would they have an authoritative Canon of Sacred
Scriptures with which to
attack the teachings of the very Church that bequeathed it to them! No wonder St.
Augustine could say, "For my part I should not believe the gospel except as moved by
the authority of the catholic church."
Finally, Mr. Callihan states that "...God revealed Himself
through words to the prophets and apostles and required them, under direst penalty, to
relate those words unaltered to His people." Though we do not necessarily disagree
with this statement, it proves too much. Carried to its logical conclusion the Church
would be forced never to translate the Scriptures into languages other than the original
ones. After all, who will not admit that translating from the original language tends to
alter the words and very often the meaning? Oddly enough, there is one group in America
which claims that most Protestants, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics are not going to heaven
simply because they have called upon the name of "Jesus" instead of
"Yeshua"! Because "there is no other name under Heaven and Earth by which
men might be saved" they conclude that anyone who has called upon "Jesus"
has not called upon "Yeshua." Although we are quite certain that Mr. Callihan
would not wish to take it this far, his premise certainly leads to that conclusion.
Furthermore, his position ironically should lead him to throw out preaching since this
medium always fails to relate the words of God "unaltered" (in the strict sense
he employs).
#4MOSAIC PROHIBITIONS AND THE INCARNATION
In the fourth argument Mr. Callihan brings out the usual Protestant
objections to Icons.
Fourth, their appeal to the incarnation fails to override the Second
Commandment because in the Old Covenant itself Jehovah at times assumed a bodily,
creaturely form. Though at the same time God took on a creaturely form (e.g., Gen. 15; 18;
32; Ex. 3; Is. 6), He strictly forbade His people to worship or venerate Him via images.
He sets the terms of worship; we don't. Christ's Incarnation upholds rather than
scuttles God's eternal commands.
As is typical in Protestant thought, the Incarnation changes nothing concerning the
Second Commandment. If images were forbidden under the Old Covenant, so the argument goes,
then since "Christ came to uphold the Law," the use of images other than the
ones God explicitly prescribes is idolatrous. These objections were definitively answered
long ago by the Holy Fathers during the iconoclastic controversy (eighth to early ninth
century). Quite tellingly, Mr. Callihan admits that Calvin never factored in the
implications of the Incarnation into his argument against the use of images.
First, we note that his rather odd and spurious argument that God
assumed "creaturely forms" while at the same time prohibiting the use of images
in worship proves nothing at all. Juxtaposing these two premises does not lead to the
conclusion he draws. More importantly, his conclusion fails to recognize the infinite
difference between these special Old Covenant manifestations and the Incarnation of the
Logos. The most "incarnational" example he gives is the visitation of the three
men to Abraham and Sarah's tents near the oak of Mamre (Gen. 18). However, these three men
have never been viewed by the Church as a "pre-Incarnation" of the Holy Trinity
but rather as an appearance of the Holy Trinity in the guise of three Angels, a temporary
appearance manifested in order that God might speak with the holy patriarch. To view
this in any other way is to be completely out of step with the entire interpretive
tradition of Christianity. There is simply no comparison between this and the Second
Person of the Blessed Holy Trinitythe very "Word of God"permanently
taking on flesh. It goes without saying that Mr. Callihan is making a huge leap of logic
and redemptive history to associate the visitation of God in the Book of Genesis with the
Mosaic proscriptions against the use of images. Such statements reveal that he has a very
muddled understanding of the foundational doctrine of the Incarnation and its implications
for Creation. This will become more clear as we proceed.
Second, Mr. Callihan incorrectly asserts that God "strictly
forbade His people to worship or venerate Him via images." Let us examine the Second
Commandment:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing
that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under
the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God
am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third
and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that
love me, and keep my commandments. (Ex. 20:4-6)
As St. John of Damascus reasoned against the iconoclastics of his day so do we:
Answer me this question: "Is there one God?" You will answer, Yes, I
assume there is only one Lawgiver. What? Does He then command contrary things? The
cherubim are not outside creation. How can He allow cherubim, carved by the hands of men,
to overshadow the mercy-seat? Is it not obvious that since it is impossible to make an
image of God, who is uncircumscribed and unable to be represented, or of anything like
God, creation is not to be worshipped and adored as God? But He allows the image of
cherubim who are circumscribed, to be made and shown as prostrate in adoration before the
divine throne, overshadowing the mercy-seat, for it was fitting that the image Of the
heavenly servants should overshadow the image of the divine mysteries. Would you say that
the ark, or the staff, or the mercy-seat, were not made by hands? Are they not the
handiwork of men? Do they not owe their existence to what you call contemptible matter?
What is the meeting-tent itself, if not an image? Was it not a type, a figure? Well then,
listen to the holy apostle's words concerning those things that are of the law! "They
serve as a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary, for when Moses was about to erect
the tent, he was instructed by God saying, 'See that you make everything according to the
pattern which was shown you on the mountain." [Heb. 8:5; Ex. 25:40] But the law was
not an image, but the shadow of an image, for as the same apostle says: "For since
the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of the
realities . . ." [Heb. 10:1] If the law forbids images, and yet is itself the
forerunner of images, what shall we say? If the meeting tent was a shadow and the image of
an image, how can it be true that the law does not forbid the making of images? But this
is not at all the case, for there is a season for everything; a time for every matter
under heaven. [Eccl. 3:1] [14]
In other words, a strict "no image" interpretation of the
Second Commandment runs into all sorts of contradictions. (Although this may be lost on
iconoclastic Protestants, it was not lost on the Jews who translated the Old Testament
into Greek [LXX, or Septuagint]: "graven image" was translated as
"idol" and not merely "image.") St. John has written of the images
used in the Tabernacle. Now consider further examples from Holy Scripture:
He who said, "You shall not make for yourselves a graven image," who
condemned the golden calf, now makes a bronze serpent [Num. 21:4], and not in secret, but
openly, so that it is known to all. Moses would answer that this commandment was given to
root out material impiety and to keep all the people safe from apostasy and idolatry, but
now I cast a bronze serpent for a good purposeto prefigure the truth. And just as I
have erected the tabernacle and everything in it, and the cherubim, which are likenesses
of what is invisible to hover over the holy place, as a shadow and a figure of what is to
come, so also I have set up a serpent for the salvation of the people, as an endeavor to
prepare them for the image of the sign of the cross, and the salvation and redemption
which it brings. As a sure confirmation of this, listen to the Lord's own word: "As
Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up that
whoever believes in Him may have eternal life
." [Jn. 3:14] Notice that the
commandment not to make images was given to lead the people away from idolatry, to which
they were prone, but the serpent lifted on high was an image of our Lord's sufferings.
Listen to what I say, for the making of images is no new invention, but is an ancient
practice known to the most holy and eminent of the fathers. [15]
The context of Second Commandment makes it clear that it cannot mean a prohibition of
images per se but rather the making of images for oneself in order to bow
down and worship them. St. John elucidates:
There is no doubt that they worshipped idols as gods. Listen to what Scripture
says concerning the Exodus of the sons of Israel, when Moses ascended Mt. Sinai to pray
for a time. While he was receiving the law, the stiff-necked people rose up and said to
Aaron, the servant of God: "Make us gods who shall go before us; as for this Moses,
the man who brought us up out of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him." [Ex.
32:1ff] Then, when they had looked over their wives' trinkets, and made the calf, they ate
and drank, and drunk with wine and madness, they made merry, saying in their folly,
"These are your gods, O Israel." Do you not see that they worshipped idols,
which are the abode of demons, as gods, and that they adored creatures instead of the
Creator? As the divine apostle says, "They exchanged the glory of the immortal God
for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles, and served the creature
rather than the Creator. For this reason God forbade them to make any image, as Moses says
in the book of Deuteronomy: "Then the Lord spoke to you, and out of the midst of the
fire you heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice." [Deut.
4:12] And again, "Take heed, and keep your soul diligently. Since you saw no form on
the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you
act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the
likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness
of any winged bird that flies in the air." [Deut. 4:9, 15-17] And again, "And
beware lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the
stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and worship them and serve them . .
." [Deut. 4:19] You see that the one object is that the creature be not adored in
place of the Creator, and that adoration should be given to none but the Creator alone .
In every case he is speaking of adoration. Again, "You shall have no other gods
before Me; you shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness. . ."
[Deut. 5:7] Again, "You shall make for yourself no molten gods." [Ex. 34:17] You
see that He forbids the making of images because of idolatry and that it is impossible to
make an image of the bodiless, invisible, and uncircumscribed God. "You saw no form
on the day that the Lord spoke . . ." [Deut. 4:15] and St. Paul, standing in the
midst of the Areopagus, says: "Being therefore God's offspring, we ought not to think
that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and
imagination of man." [Acts 17:29] [16]
Therefore, in order to prove that Orthodoxy is guilty of violating the Second
Commandment one must prove that Icons are equivalent to graven images that are used in
idolatrous ways. This is impossible given the clear distinctions that the Church has
always held between veneration and worship, and Icons and idols. We continue with the
apology of St. John:
Let us understand that there are different degrees of worship. First of all
there is adoration [latreia], which we offer to God, who alone by nature is worthy
to be worshipped. Then, for the sake of Him who is by nature to be worshipped, we honor [proskinesis]
His friends and companions, as Joshua, the son of Nun, and Daniel bowed in worship before
an angel, or as David venerated God's holy places, when he says, "Let us go to His
dwelling place; let us worship at His footstool," [Ps. 132:7] or as when the people
of Israel once offered sacrifices and worshipped in His tent, or encircled the temple in
Jerusalem fixing their gaze upon it from all sides and worshipping as their kings had
commanded, or as Jacob bowed to the ground before Esau, his elder brother, [Gen. 33:3] and
before Pharaoh, the ruler whose authority was established by God. [Gen. 47:7] Joseph's
brothers prostrated themselves in homage on the ground before him. [Gen. 50:18] Other
worship is given to show respect, as was the case with Abraham and the sons of Nahor.
[Gen. 23:7] Either do away with worship completely, or else accept it in the manner and
with the esteem it deserves. [17]
In this vein Bishop Auxentios adds some helpful remarks:
St. John Damaskinos, in his apologetic discourses, concerns himself
mainly with the accusation of idolatry leveled against the Orthodox by the iconoclasts,
who, of course, had in mind the Old Testamental prohibitions against the making and
worship of graven images. Examining the relevant passages from the Old Testament, St. John
sees these Scriptural prohibitions as providentially anticipating their own
abrogation. The prohibition in Deuteronomy against the fabrication and deification of
images of creatures, be they beasts, birds, creeping things, fish, or astronomical
bodiesall of which are simply creatures, or created things, is immediately
preceded by an explanatory passage which justifies the prohibition and, at the same time,
intimates its undoing: "The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard
the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice.... Therefore, take good heed
to yourselves. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of
the midst of the fire" (Dt. 4:12,15). "What is mysteriously indicated in these
passages of Scripture," St. John asks:
It is clearly a prohibition of representing the invisible God. But when you see
Him who has no body become man for you, then you will make representations of His human
aspect. When the Invisible, having clothed Himself in the flesh, becomes visible, then
represent the likeness of Him who has appeared.... When He who, having been the
consubstantial Image of the Father, emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant (Phil.
2: 6-7), thus becoming bound in quantity and quality, having taken on the carnal image,
then paint and make visible to everyone Him who desired to become visible. Paint His birth
from the Virgin, His Baptism in the Jordan, His Transfiguration on Mt. Tabor.... Paint
everything with words and colors, in books and on boards.
Thus, if God is directly revealed in the Old Testament only by word
("you heard the sound of words, but saw no form" [Dt. 4: 12]), for St. John He
is made manifest in the New Testament by both word and image, and so must be depicted and
conveyed ("Paint everything with words and with colors, in books and on
boards").
St. John of Damascus and, of course, Orthodox in general thus see a quantum distinction
between the Old and New Testaments. Quoting St. John, who in turn cites the Apostle Paul,
Leonid Ouspensky, the great Russian commentator on iconographic theory and theology, puts
this very succinctly:
[The Israelites had] ...a mission consisting in preparing and prefiguring that
which was to be revealed in the New Testament. This is why there could be only symbolic
prefigurations, revelations of the future. 'The law was not an image,' says St. John of
Damascus, 'but it was like a wall which hid the image. The Apostle Paul also says:
"The law was but a shadow [skian gar echon o nomos] of the good things to come
instead of the true form of these realities" (Hebrews 10:1).' In other words, it is
the New Testament which is the true image of reality.... That which David and Solomon saw
and heard was only prophetic prefigurations of that which was realized in the New
Testament. Now, in the New Testament, man receives the revelation of the Kingdom of God to
come and this revelation is given to him by the word and the image of the incarnate Son of
God. The apostles saw with their carnal eyes that which was, in the Old Testament, only
foreshadowed by symbols.
Hence there are three stages in God's post-lapsarian relations to man.
The first is depicted in the Old Testament and is characterized by symbol and
shadowsymbolic prefigurations of the "good things to come." The second
stage is embodied in the New Testament, which is characterized by the iconic (by image).
Here we have the "true form [eikon, or icon] of these realities." The
third stage of this relationship will, of course, be the Kingdom of God to come, in which
man will see reality itself, "face to face." Clearly, with regard to
iconography, the "symbolic" can occupy only a secondary position, since the
significant quality of an icon par excellence is the fact that it constitutes a real
image of that which it depicts. The image is in some way a "true" form of
the prototype, participating in it and integrally bound to it. In the second stage of the
iconographic controversy, as we shall subsequently see, St. Theodore the Studite
elucidated this profound relationship between image and prototype. But before examining
this relationship, let us look at yet another aspect of the icon as St. John of Damascus
understands it, that of iconic function. [18]
His Grace alludes to the prohibition in Deuteronomy 4 against making an image of God.
This prohibition is given for a special reason, the significance of which is not grasped
by Protestants who oppose the use of images. They key phrases from this passage are
highlighted as a clue:
And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of
the words, but saw no similitude [form]; only ye heard a voice. And he
declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments;
and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the LORD commanded me at that time to
teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to
possess it. Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of
similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the
fire: Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any
figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the
earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, the likeness of any thing
that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the
earth: And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the
moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and
serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven
(Deut. 4:12-19)
The point that God is making through Moses is that because they saw no form the
Israelites should not presume to fashion something according to their own corrupt
imagination or whims. Implicit in this warning is that had they a true form of God
then an image would be permissible. Moses' warning is therefore an implicit prophecy of
the Incarnation.
But besides this who can make an imitation of the invisible, incorporeal,
uncircumscribed, formless God? Therefore to give form to the Deity is the height of folly
and impiety. And hence it is that in the Old Testament the use of images was not uncommon.
But after God in His bowels of pity became in truth man for our salvation, not as He was
seen by Abraham in the semblance of a man, nor as He was seen by the prophets, but in
being truly man, and after He lived upon the earth and dwelt among men, worked miracles,
suffered, was crucified, rose again and was taken back to Heaven, since all these things
actually took place and were seen by men. [19]
The Incarnation ushers in the second stage of God's post-lapsarian
relations with man. If we accept Mr. Callihan's equation of the Old Testament appearances
of God mentioned earlier with the Incarnation we effectively make the doctrine of the
Incarnation meaningless. Holy Traditionof which the Bible is the chief written expressionmakes it clear that we now
have a definitive form of God in the Person of Jesus Christa form quantitatively and qualitatively
different from the Old Testament manifestations which Mr. Callihan cited. The following
passages from Holy Scripture attest to this:
And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath born witness of me. Ye have
neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape (5:37).
Not that any man hath seen the Father , save he which is of God, he hath seen
the Father (6:46).
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto
the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from
henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the
Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and
yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and
how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? (14:6-9)
As Christ is the image of the Father (hos estin eikon tou Theou, II Cor. 4:4; cf. Col. 1:15)
so much so that he who has seen the Son has seen the Fatherso
we are to be transformed into Christians"little christs" who image the One Christ.
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to
the image of his Son [tes eikonos tou hiou autou], that he might be the firstborn
among many brethren. (Rom. 8:29)
But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed
into the same image [katoptrizomenoi ten auten eikona] from glory to glory, even as
by the Spirit of the Lord. (1 Cor. 3:18)
And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that
created him [eis epignosin kat eikona tou ktisantos auton]
(Col. 3:10)
By imaging the Son we are restored to the Imago Dei in which we were first
created (Gen. 1:26-27). Salvation can thus seen as "image restoration," as St.
Athanasius writes in his magisterial On the Incarnation of the Word of God:
What was God to do in the face of this dehumanising of mankind [due to the
Fall], this universal hiding of the knowledge of Himself by the wiles of evil spirits? Was
He to keep silence before so great a wrong and let men go on being thus deceived and kept
in ignorance of Himself? If so, what was the use of having made them in His own Image
originally?...
What, then, was God to do? What else could He possibly do, being God, but renew
His Image in mankind, so that through it men might once more come to know Him? And how
could this be done save by the coming of the very Image Himself, our Saviour Jesus Christ?
Men could not have done it, for they are only made after the Image; nor could angels have
done it, for they are not the images of God. The Word of God came in His own Person,
because it was He alone, the Image of the Father, Who could recreate man made after the
Image.
In order to effect this re-creation, however, He had first to do away with death
and corruption. Therefore He assumed a human body, in order that in it death might once
for all be destroyed, and that men might be renewed according to the Image. The Image of
the Father only was sufficient for this need. Here is an illustration to prove it.
You know what happens when a portrait that has been painted on a panel becomes
obliterated through external stains. The artist does not throw away the panel, but the
subject of the portrait has to come and sit for it again, and then the likeness is
re-drawn on the same material. Even so was it with the All-holy Son of God. He the Image
of the Father, came and dwelt in our midst, in order that He might renew mankind made
after Himself.... [20]
Icons play an important role in the process of salvation by imaging forth to us the
heavenly realities, inspiring us "to press toward the
mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3:14)
CONCLUSION
Mr. Callihan finishes his article by insisting that the Protestant
argument against the use of images is not a denial of creation. However, despite this
protest he cannot escape the charge. Nor can Protestants offer any defense that such a
position does not effectively deny the Incarnation. As we have seen, the Mosaic conditions
were met in the Incarnation. God the Father can now be seen because God the Son has been
born of the Virgin and has dwelt among men. As the Holy Apostle said in his first Epistle:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with
our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For
the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that
eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have
seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly
our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. (I John 1:1-3)
Therefore, it has always been the position of the Church that to prohibit the use of
Icons of Christand by extension, of the Saintsin worship is the same as
denying that Christ came in the flesh.
It is readily apparent from his writings that the depiction and
veneration of icons is not, for St. John, something casual and optional. Both he and the
iconodules in general envision the attack on sacred images as a veritable denial of
Christ's Incarnation itself. For them, the iconoclastic controversy focuses on
Christological issues, and those who reject the sacred images are but counterparts of the
earlier Christian heretics who distorted or misrepresented the true nature of Christ and
His Incarnation. Such a rejection is tantamount to a denial of man's salvation, for, the
iconodules reasoned, in keeping with the tenets of Orthodox soteriology, salvation is
possible only if man can partake of the Divine. If Christ was not fully God and man
(Theanthropos), then man (a created being) can never come to partake of the Divine
(of the uncreated). The fact that "the Word became flesh" is the very meaning of
the icon, and to deny the use of the Church's icons, the iconodules further argued, is
comparable to a denial of Sacred Scripture itself. The icon functions to reveal, embody,
and express the Incarnation of Christ and the soteriological consequences thereof. The
Scriptural message of the Incarnation and the icon are analogous, as two forms of
Christian revelation, both acting to convey the salvific message to mankind:
...We who do not see Him [Christ] directly nor hear His words nevertheless
listen to these words which are written in books and thus sanctify our hearing and,
thereby, our soul. We consider ourselves fortunate and we venerate the books through
which we hear these sacred works and are sanctified. Similarly, through His image we
contemplate the physical appearance of Christ, His miracles, and His passion. This
contemplation sanctifies our sight and, thereby, our soul. We consider ourselves
fortunate and we venerate this image by lifting ourselves, as far as possible, beyond the
physical appearance to the contemplation of divine glory.
Whatever the particular faculty of perception (hearing or seeing), the
net result is the same, the sanctification of the soul. Scripture and sacred images are
both part of the redemptive plan. And this sanctification is precisely, again, the result
of participation in the divine energies, so that "contemplation," in the passage
above, might better read "participation." Thus, the iconoclastic challenge
against the painting and veneration of icons does nothing other than jeopardize the
Church's very teachings about the nature of Christ and, at the same time, the sanctification
of the faithful, which are both accomplished and established through the function if
the icon. [21]
We also note that the relationship with God that St. John directs us towards is not one
of cerebral acknowledgement of "propositional truths" but rather to one
involving all of our senses. Such also is St. Athanasius' reasoning:
Men had turned from the contemplation of God above, and were looking for Him in
the opposite direction, down among created things and things of sense. The Saviour of us
all, the Word of God, in His great love took to Himself a body and moved as a Man among
men, meeting their senses, so to speak, half way. He became Himself an object for the
senses, so that those who were seeking God in sensible things might apprehend the Father
through the works which He, the Word of God, did in the body....
The Self-revealing of the Word is in every dimensionabove, in creation;
below, in the Incarnation; in the depth, in Hades; in the breadth; throughout the world.
All things have been filled with the knowledge of God. [22]
To deny the importance of visual art in the context of worship as a means of relating
to God is to turn the Christian faith into a cerebral and Docetic one that does indeed
show reflect disdain for creation and functional disbelief in the Incarnation.
But iconoclasm, both in its teaching and in its practices, undermined the saving
mission of the Church at its foundation. In theory, it did not deny the dogma of the
Incarnation. On the contrary, the iconoclasts justified their hatred of the icon by
claiming to be profoundly faithful to this dogma. But in reality, the opposite happened:
by denying the human image of God, they consequently denied the sanctification of matter
in general. They disavowed all human holiness and even denied the very possibility of
sanctification, the deification of man. In other words, by refusing to accept the
consequences of the Incarnationthe sanctification of the visible, material
worldiconoclasm undermined the entire economy of salvation. "The one who thinks
as you do," St George of Cyprus said in a discussion with an iconoclast bishop,
"blasphemes against the Son of God and does not confess His economy accomplished in
the flesh." Through the denial of the image, Christianity became an abstract theory;
it became disincarnate so to speak, it was led back to the ancient heresy of Docetism,
which had been refuted a long time before. It is therefore not surprising that iconoclasm
was linked to a general secularization of the Church, a de-sacralization of all aspects of
its life. The Church's own domain, its inner structure, was invaded by a secularized
power. Churches were assaulted with secular images, worship was deformed by mundane music
and poetry. This is why the Church, in defending the icon, defended not only the
foundation of the Christian faith, the divine Incarnation, but, at the same time, the very
meaning of its existence. It fought against its disintegration in the elements of this
world. "Not only the destiny of Christian art was at stake, but 'Orthodoxy' itself
." [23]
That Mr. Callihan's argument arises from careless, perhaps willful
ignorance of Orthodoxy has been relatively easy to demonstrate. Standing in contradiction
to the Christian consensus and evincing a lack of sound reasoning, it fails to hold up to
close scrutiny. We can only encourage him to read the works cited herein and seriously
reflect upon what we have said. To do otherwise and remain an iconoclast would indeed be
the height of presumption.
Endnotes
1. See Louis Bouyer, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism (Westminster, MD: The
Newman Press, 1961).
2. See Fr. George Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern
Orthodox View, Vol. 1 in The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky,
ed. Richard S. Haugh (Vaduz, Europa: Buchervertriebsanstalt, 1987).
3. Published together as On the Divine Images, trans. David Anderson,
(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1980).
4. Trans. Anthony Gythiel and Elizabeth Meyendorff (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's
Seminary Press, 1992). Chapters 1, 2, and 9 are particularly relevant to our discussion.
5. Leonid Ouspensky and Vladimir Lossky, trans. G. E. H. Palmer and E. Kadloubovsky, The
Meaning of Icons (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1989), p. 34.
6. Hieromonk [now Bishop] Auxentios, "The
Iconic and Symbolic in Orthodox Iconography," Orthodox Tradition,
Vol. IV, No. 3, pp. 52.
7. Fr. Michael Pomazansky, trans. Fr. Seraphim Rose, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology
(Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1994), pp. 35-37.
8. The Path to Salvation, pp. 120, 122-123.
9. The Illuminating Icon (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdman's, 1989), pp. 50, 52.
10. Theology of the Icon, pp. 138-140. A footnote on p. 139 states: "It
should be noted that the image has certain possibilities which the word does not have: it
is a more direct form of expression, it has a better capacity for conveying general ideas
than the word. Thus, an icon portrays directly and concisely that which is expressed in
the entire liturgy of a feast." Also, it is worth point out that the Bible nowhere
records Jesus writing anything or commanding anything to be written down.
11. On the Divine Images, pp. 19-21.
12. Chapter 27, section 66. Trans. the Rev. Blomfield Jackson, M.A., in Vol. 8 of A
Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd
ser., ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994 [1886]), pp. 40-42.
13. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, p. 36.
14. On the Divine Images, pp. 22-23.
15. Ibid, pp. 44-45.
16. Ibid, pp. 55-56.
17. Ibid, pp. 21-22.
18. "The Iconic and Symbolic in Orthodox Iconography," pp. 54-56.
19. "The Fount of Wisdom," trans S. D. F. Salmon, John of Damascus,
Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, in Vol. 9 of A Select Library of the Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd ser., ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955), p. 88.
20. St. Athanasius on the Incarnation, trans. and ed. by A Relgious of the
C.S.M.V. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1993), pp. 40, 41-42.
21. "The Iconic and Symbolic in Orthodox Iconography," pp. 56-57.
22. On the Incarnation, op. cit., pp. 43, 44.
23. Theology of the Icon, p. 146.
+ + +
The Oros of the Seventh cumenical Synod:
We retain, without introducing anything new, all the ecclesiastical traditions,
written or not written which have been established for us. One of these is the
representation of painted images (eikonikes anazographeseos), being in accord with
the story of the biblical preaching, because of the belief in the true and non-illusory
Incarnation of God the Word, for our benefit. For things which presuppose each other are
mutually revelatory.
Since this is the case, following the royal path and the teaching divinely
inspired by our holy Fathers and the Tradition of the catholic Churchfor we know
that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit who lives in itwe decide in all correctness
and after a thorough examination that, just as the holy and vivifying cross, similarly the
holy and precious icons painted with colors, made with little stones or with any other
matter serving this purpose (epitedeios), should be placed in the holy churches of
God, on vases and sacred vestments, on walls and boards, in houses and on roads, whether
these are icons of our Lord God and Savior, Jesus Christ, or of our spotless Sovereign
Lady, the holy Mother of God, or of the holy angels and of holy and venerable men. For
each time that we see their representation in an image, each time, while gazing upon them,
we are made to remember the prototypes, we grow to love them more, and we are more induced
to worship them by kissing them and by witnessing our veneration (proskenesin), not
the true adoration (latreian) which, according to our faith, is proper only to the
one divine nature, but in the same way as we venerate the image of the precious and
vivifying cross, the holy Gospel and other sacred objects which we honor with incense and
candles according to the pious custom of our forefathers. For the honor rendered to the
image goes to its prototype, and the person who venerates an icon venerates the person
represented in it. Indeed, such is the teaching of our holy Fathers and the Tradition of
the holy catholic Church which propagated the Gospel from one end of the earth to the
other. Thus we follow Paul, who spoke in Christ, and the entire divine circle of apostles
and all the holy Fathers who upheld the traditions which we follow. Thus, we prophetically
sing the hymns of the victory of the Church: "Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion; shout,
O Israel! Rejoice and exult with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem! The Lord has
taken away the judgments against you, He has cast out your enemies. The King of Israel,
the Lord, is in your midst; you shall fear evil no more" (Zeph 3:14-15).
Thus, we decide that those who dare to think or teach differently, following the
example of the evil heretics; those who dare to scorn the ecclesiastical traditions, to
make innovations or to repudiate something which has been sanctified by the Church,
whether it be the Gospel or the representation of the cross, or the painting of icons, or
the sacred relics of martyrs, or who have evil, pernicious and subversive feelings towards
the traditions of the catholic Church; those, finally, who dare give sacred vases or
venerable monasteries to ordinary uses: we decide that, if they are bishops or priests,
they be defrocked; if they are monks or laymen, they be excommunicated. (Theology of
the Icon, p. 134-135)
+ + +
Read Wes Callihan's apology for writing his article, sent to the OCIC on February 26, 2006.
|