Category: Icons (Page 6 of 12)

Do Your Homework?

April 1, 2016 / Robert Arakaki / 27 Comments

A Response to Pastor Toby Sumpter

So much to read!

In “A Plea & A Sketch of an Argument on Icons” Pastor Toby Sumpter exhorts Protestants interested in icons and Orthodoxy to do their homework before making any move to Orthodoxy. Reading through his admirably comprehensive list of references my first reaction was: “How many people have the time to do all this reading?!” Second reaction was: “OMG! This is way more than a typical seminary syllabus reading list! Is he expecting people to write a doctoral dissertation before converting to Orthodox?”

Here is what he wrote:

First the plea: do some serious study of the actual issues and arguments from both sides. This will take some time to do well. But if you are currently a Protestant considering taking the plunge, do yourself, your family, your current church family, and the catholic tradition the honor of really studying this topic. Can you summarize John of Damascus’ defense of icons? Can you explain where his defense is flawed (according to the Orthodox)? Can you summarize the iconoclastic argument of Constantine V? And what was flawed about his argument? Now sketch the contributions of Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople and Theodore the Studite (abbot of the monastery at Studium). What did the Second Council of Nicaea actually decide? Be specific and trace the conclusion from Nicaea, Chalcedon, through John of Damascus, Nicephorus and Theodore. Now, are you familiar with the Western Carolingian response to the Second Council of Nicaea? Evaluate the claims in light of what you’ve already considered. Do your Protestant heritage the honor of reading the original Reformers on images. Summarize the views of Luther, Melanchthon, Oecolampadius, Bucer, and Calvin on the making and veneration of images. Finally, do some reading on the history of iconography itself. How widespread were [sic] the use of icons in the first three centuries? Does that matter? When the icon “triumphed” after Second Nicaea what stylistic changes did the icon undergo between then and the modern day? What does that mean?

So much for my plea. And related to all of this, spend time as you read and study comparing your notes with trusted counselors and friends, not just people who will smile and nod, but the kind of people who challenge you to think critically and carefully.

Running the obstacle course

Toby Sumpter’s reading list is a lot like a military obstacle course that tests the strength and endurance of the strong and weeds out the weak. This high level of expectations for Protestant inquirers is not realistic. And more to the point they are unfair. It makes me wonder if Pastor Sumpter is engaging in intellectual intimidation of Protestants interested in icons.

Missing Links?

Serious readers might be disappointed Toby Sumpter did not provide links to his references. Serious inquirers would benefit from links that help them get started in doing research on such a complex issue like icons and Protestantism. Since he expects his readers to invest time and energy doing the reading, the least he could do would be to help them get started.

Below are links to a few sources mentioned by Pastor Sumpter and other articles that I consider important for getting a good grounding on the issue of icons, the Reformed objection to icons, and the Orthodox response to these objections.

Secondary Sources

Philip Schaff – History of the Christian Church Vol. IV “Medieval Christianity” pp. 447-470, § 100 to § 104 (19th century Protestant church historian) [Note: the link takes you to a PDF file that has a differentiation page numbering. Reader is advised to search by section numbering, e.g., “§ 100.”]

Jaroslav Pelikan – Imago Dei (20th century church historian, Lutheran scholar, convert to Orthodoxy)

Robert Letham – Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy – A Reformed Perspective (Reformed)

Steven Bigham – Early Christian Attitudes toward Images (Orthodox)

Primary Sources – Church Fathers

John of Damascus – On the Divine Images

Theodore the Studite – On the Holy Icons

Primary Sources – Reformers

John Calvin – Institutes: Book I Chapter XI

Martin Luther – Larger Catechism: First Commandment

Primary Sources – Early Church Councils

Synod of 754 (Iconoclastic) — NPNF Vol. XIV pp. 543-548

Council of 787 (Pro-Icons) – NPNF Vol. XIV pp. 549-577; Caroline Books pp. 578-583

A Caveat – A good bibliography does not assure good understanding of the issue. It is of little value if one reads the text in a superficial manner, i.e., “scanning-with-a-bias/ax to grind.” There is a tendency among some Protestant apologists to quickly scan early church texts and quote passages out of context to make the point they want to make. Protestant readers who read the early church fathers need to guard against imposing their theological biases on the early Church. The early Church was neither Protestant, nor was it Roman Catholic. Many Protestant readers of the Church Fathers are like American tourists who, when visiting a foreign country, judge the local culture by their own American standards, rather than appreciating the distinctive character of that foreign culture. This calls for careful and attentive reading of the early church fathers and the early church councils by Protestant readers.

Running the Gauntlet

Notice the unfairness hidden behind the benign pastoral counsel to “compare your notes with trusted counselors and friends.” These Reformed friends and counselors are not going to be objective about icons. Protestant inquirers need to be aware of the fact that icons are, for the most part, a highly charged topic between Reformed and Orthodox Christians today. Among certain Reformed churches a display of interest in icons and Orthodoxy can lead to censure and other forms of church discipline. Strangely, this is true even in one liturgical-sacramental Reformed group willing to read and cherry-pick (borrow) much from Orthodoxy! Protestant inquirers, especially those in the Reformed tradition, need to approach the issue of icons and Orthodoxy with eyes wide open. My advice to those who find themselves between a rock and a hard place is to take the Nicodemus approach. That is, to study the matter in private and make contact with Orthodox Christians discreetly, like the way Nicodemus came to Jesus at night (John 3:1-2).

A Proposal: Reformed-Orthodox Forums

For several years I was blessed to have been part of a local group of Christians in Hawaii that met on a monthly basis. It was a diverse group of people coming from Evangelical, Charismatic, Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox churches. The diversity of perspectives was enriched by the fact there were former Protestants who had converted to Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and thus were able to see more than one side of a theological issue. From time to time, we would have debates over important issues like sola scriptura and the veneration of saints. Pastor John Armstrong organized a similar forum between Evangelicals and Orthodox in 2008 (see Vimeo podcast).

I propose that interested readers organize similar forums in their own areas. It would be responsibility of presenters to do the “heavy lifting” (reading the sources recommended by Pastor Sumpter). Those who don’t have the wherewithal to do the reading prescribed by Pastor Sumpter could benefit by listening to the presenters present their findings. These face-to-face encounters are likely to be more fruitful than just posting comments on the Internet.

How Much is Enough?

One hidden danger in Toby Sumpter’s reading list is the assumption that head knowledge is enough. Reading books about icons is not enough. Protestant inquirers should make the effort to visit an Orthodox Sunday worship service (Liturgy). While in the service they will find that icons play an important but supportive role in Orthodox worship. The two major focal points of Orthodox worship are: (1) the Gospel reading in which the congregation hears the words of Christ, and (2) the Eucharist in which Christ offers his body and blood for the life of the world. After the Sunday service the inquirer should talk with Orthodox church members about what icons mean to them and why they venerate icons. It would be a good idea to talk to both converts and cradle Orthodox. And of course, inquirers should meet one on one with the local priest.

Where Toby Sumpter’s approach is rational and doctrinal, the approach I am sketching here is similar to the way anthropologists approach the culture and practices of a “foreign” culture sympathetically in order to better understand it. Orthodoxy at its core is not a system of abstract doctrines but a faith lived out in community and in worship.

The Key Question

Greek New Testament

For those whose time and life situation is constrained I would say that the key issue is: Are icons biblical? This is the bottom-line question. More specifically, Is Orthodoxy’s veneration of icons in violation of the Second Commandment? The Reformed position is: Yes. The Orthodox position, on the other hand, is that the Second Commandment applies to the pagan idolatry of Egypt, the land the Israelites had just left. The Orthodox note that later in the book of Exodus and other books of the Old Testament God gave instructions for the making of images in the Tabernacle and the Temple, i.e., in the place of worship central to the Jewish life. I wrote an article “The Biblical Basis for Icons” that dealt with this question. I am confident that the majority of Protestant readers will be able to compare the two ways of reading the Old Testament texts and make up their minds.

Strategic Study

For Protestant inquirers who have more time on their hands I would advise them to approach Toby Sumpter’s massive reading list strategically. You don’t have to read everything to find the truth of the matter. If you are a Reformed Christian, read the leading theologian of the Reformed tradition, John Calvin, and his key work, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Then read the two church fathers regarded by the Orthodox as the leading apologists for icons: John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite. In addition to the doctrinal approach, inquirers should examine church history. Which position reflected the general view of the early Church? Was the early Church iconoclastic from the start? Or was there early evidence for images in Christian and Jewish worship? Which church council came to represent the historic Christian position on icon? Then consider the issue from the standpoint of church unity. Have the Orthodox across the various jurisdictions been united in the acceptance of icons? Have the Protestants likewise been united in their opposition to icons? That Lutherans and Anglicans have been open to icons while Reformed Christians have not should make one pause and reconsider. The absence of consensus and historical continuity in iconoclasm are indications that it is not part of historic Christianity.

Closing Thoughts

Don’t let Pastor Sumpter’s long reading list intimidate you. One does not have to become an expert theologian. It is possible for busy lay people to discern the truth about icons and Christianity. Growing numbers of Protestants, lay and clergy, have come to the conclusion that icons are indeed biblical and part of the historic Christian Faith. In accepting icons they encountered the rich heritage of the ancient Church.

Robert K. Arakaki

Additional Readings

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/calvin-versus-the-icon/

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/is-there-a-biblical-basis-for-icons/

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/crossing-the-bosphorus/

The Illogic of Calvin’s Iconoclasm

February 3, 2016 / Robert Arakaki / 17 Comments

John Calvin source

On 23 May 1555, John Calvin preached on Deuteronomy 4:15-20 applying Moses’ admonition against idols to the depicting of Jesus Christ in icons. This sermon is significant for Reformed-Orthodox dialogue because it presents us not only with Calvin’s hermeneutical method but also the theological reasoning underlying his iconoclasm.

In my article, “The Biblical Basis for Icons,” I pointed to the use of images of cherubim on the curtains of Moses’ Tabernacle and images of cherubim carved on the walls of Solomon’s Temple. Then in another article, “Calvin Versus the Icon,” I wondered about Calvin’s failure in his Institutes or his commentaries to address these pro-icon passages. This made me curious about how Calvin would have responded to these passages in the Bible that support images in the church. It turned out that Calvin in his 1555 sermon did address this issue. We are fortunate to have Arthur Golding’s English translation of Calvin’s sermon series on Deuteronomy posted online by the University of Michigan. The reader should keep in mind that Golding (1536-1606) lived in the sixteenth century which accounts for what seems to us peculiar English spelling.

Interior of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 6)

And whereas the alledge that there were Cherubins painted vppon the vaile of the Temple,* and that two likewise did couer the Arke: it serueth to con∣demne them the more. When the Papistes pre∣tend that men may make any manner of image: What, say they? Hath not God permitted it? No: but the imagerie that was set there, serued to put the Iewes in minde that they ought to abstaine [30] from all counterfeiting of God, insomuch that it was a meane to confirme them the better, that it was not lawfull for them to represent Gods Maiestie, or to make any resemblance thereof. For there was a vaile that serued to couer the great Sanctuarie, and againe there were two Cherubins that couered the Arke of y^e couenant. Whereto commeth all this, and what is ment by it, but that when the case concerneth our going vnto God, we must shut our eyes and not preace [40] any neerer him, than he guideth vs by his word? Then let vs hearken to that which he teacheth, and therewithall let vs bee sober, so as our wits bee not ticklish, nor our eyes open to imagine or conceiue any shape. (Emphases added.)

Calvin’s reasoning here is a curious one. He argues the cherubim were depicted in the Temple: (1) to condemn the Israelites and (2) to remind them to abstain from making idols. It is as logical as a teetotaler parent’s taking a drink in order to teach his children to abstain from alcohol, or a college professor copying another professor’s work in order to teach his students the wrongfulness of plagiarism. In my earlier assessment of Calvin I took an irenic stance by titling the sub-section “The Logic of Calvin’s Iconoclasm.” However, Calvin’s peculiar exegesis in this sermon leads me to a quite different conclusion: “The Illogic of Calvin’s Iconoclasm.”

When reading the Old Testament it is important for Christians to interpret the text in light of the coming of Christ. In his sermon, Calvin applies Deuteronomy against the Roman Catholics as if they were living in the Old Testament dispensation. Calvin here seems to have skipped over the Incarnation. This is a huge omission because the early Church Fathers saw the Incarnation as a “game changer.” Prior to the coming of Christ humanity was estranged from God and pagans sought to worship God in the light of their understanding of him. This led to all sorts of pagan rituals and idols, and erroneous beliefs about his character. God’s meeting with Moses on Mt. Sinai marked the beginning of the restoration of the true knowledge of God which would culminate in the coming of Christ. John of Damascus explained how the Incarnation was a game changer.

It is clearly a prohibition against 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, become 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, 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 (in Ouspensky 1978:44).

As a result of the Incarnation the life of Christ takes on a revelatory character. We come to know God’s character not just through the teachings and sayings of Christ but also through his actions. The Orthodox Church sees the Trinity being revealed in Christ’s baptism in the Jordan and his transfiguration on Mt. Tabor.

John’s First Epistle likewise makes the case that in the Incarnation God the Son became visible and tangible.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched…. (1 John 1:1; emphases added)

Calvin’s polemic against images makes sense if God was up in heaven far beyond human knowing and comprehension. In the Old Testament times it was impossible for man to ascend up to the heavens by his own power to behold God. Knowledge of God was only possible if God condescended to come down from heaven and showed himself to the patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or on Mt. Sinai as he did with Moses or through the prophets like Isaiah or Jeremiah. God’s condescension culminated in his taking on human flesh and dying on the Cross (Philippians 2:5-11).

Are Icons Nestorian?

Calvin makes another argument against depicting Christ in images. He argues that to depict Christ in images is a form of the Nestorian heresy.

Beholde, they paint and portray Iesus Christ, who (as wee knowe) is not onely man,* but also God manifested in the flesh: and what a representation is that? Hee is Gods eternall sonne, in whom dwelleth the fulnesse of the Godhead, yea euen substantially. Seeing it is said, substantially, should wee haue portraitures and images whereby the onely flesh may bee re∣presented? Is it not a wyping away of that which is chiefest in our Lorde Iesus Christ, that is to wit, of his diuine Maiestie? (Emphases added.)

In this passage Calvin makes two arguments. First, he affirms the two natures of Christ: human and divine. Second, he argues that because only the human nature can be depicted in a painting the result is a Nestorian heresy in which Christ’s humanity is separated from his divinity.

Christ the Pantocrator (The Almighty)

Orthodoxy has two responses to this. One, the icon depicts the Person of Christ. This can be seen in the prominence of the face in icons. Therefore, when Orthodox Christians venerate an icon of Christ their devotion is directed to the Person of Christ, not to his physical nature or the colored paint on the wooden board. The Person of Christ encompasses both his divine and his human natures. Two, Orthodox icons of Christ have symbolic references to Christ’s divinity. Typically, in the Pantocrator icon we see Christ’s red tunic overlaid with the blue mantle. The underlying red symbolizes Christ’s essential divine nature whereas the blue symbolizes his taking on human nature as an act of grace.

The visual depiction of Christ’s humanity is accompanied by symbolic references to his divine nature. We see inscribed on the Pantocrator icon the Greek phrase “Ο ΩΝ” which means “He Who Is.” This is taken from the book of Revelation:

Holy, holy, holy

Is the Lord God Almighty,

Who was, and is, and is to come.

(Revelation 4:8)

For the Orthodox Calvin’s theological critique of icons is fundamentally flawed. His ignorance of the principle that icons depict the person leads him to a Nestorian understanding of icons. In other words it is Calvin who is committing the heresy of Nestorianism, not the pro-icon Orthodox! We don’t know what kind of images Calvin saw in the Roman Catholic churches of his time but in Orthodox iconography there are safeguards in place to guard against Nestorian heresy that viewed his humanity as separate from his divinity.

Conclusion

For an Orthodox Christian, Calvin’s sermon against images is seriously flawed. One, Calvin’s neglecting to interpret Deuteronomy in the light of the Gospels, i.e., the Incarnation of the Word, results in anachronistic hermeneutics. He criticizes the use of images in Roman Catholic churches as if they were living in Old Testament times. Two, Calvin’s reading of Old Testament passages where God instructed Moses to have images of the cherubim woven into the Tabernacle curtains as being iconoclastic in intent make no sense whatsoever. Three, Calvin’s accusation of the implicit Nestorian nature of icons shows a fundamental misunderstanding of icons in Orthodoxy. Calvin’s accusation of Nestorianism holds up if evidence can be shown that the Church Fathers or Ecumenical Councils understood icons as depicting only Christ’s human nature. Four, Calvin’s failure to see icons depicting the Person of Christ leads him to an inadvertent Nestorian heresy.

Orthodox Crossing Themselves

If a Reformed Christian visiting an Orthodox Liturgy were to observe an Orthodox Christian venerating an icon of Christ they should refrain from jumping to the conclusion that the Orthodox parishioner is worshiping the painting of Christ or his physical nature. When an Orthodox Christian venerates an icon he or she is showing love and respect to the Person who came down from heaven and died on the Cross for their sins.

It may be that Calvin’s iconoclasm was the result of his being embroiled in the heated Protestant versus Roman Catholic polemic of the time. Reformed Christians today are fortunate to have the opportunity to engage in dialogue with Orthodox Christians who are familiar with both the Reformed and the Orthodox theological traditions. [I am grateful for the grounding in Reformed theology that I received at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary prior to my becoming Orthodox.] Icons have been a longstanding stumbling block between the two traditions. If it can be shown that Calvin’s iconoclasm is based on a flawed understanding of icons and that the Orthodox pro-icon position is grounded in Scripture then the possibility emerges for a rapprochement between the two traditions.

Robert Arakaki

See also:

“Are Images of Jesus Idolatrous?” by Jason Goroncy in Per Crucem ad Lucem.

“What is Calvin’s Take on Images of Jesus?” by Eric Parker in The Calvinist International.

“Are icons Nestorian?” in Wicket’s Take.

Theology of the Icon by Leonid Ouspensky, Volume I (1978).

Can Icons Become Idols?

November 14, 2015 / Robert Arakaki / 4 Comments

Icon Corner — Source

Question: The point that you made, Robert, about the use of icons in liturgy was understood. However, what might it look like for icons in an individual’s home? Where are the warning against idolatry in that context? How would one know if an icon was being used as an idol away from the context of a Church service?

Answer: Interesting question! What are some possible deviant/idolatrous practices? One possibility is someone buying a New Age icon of Christ, e.g., a Navajo Christ. I’ve seen that in a Roman Catholic bookstore! Another possibility is for someone to have only an icon of Mary in an icon corner and direct most of his/her prayers to the Virgin Mary. Or the Archangel Michael as one’s guardian angel and no icon of Christ. An icon corner without the Pantocrator icon of Christ is unbalanced and not Orthodox. Fundamentally, Orthodox prayer is Trinitarian and Christ centered. We pray with the saints to God. The saints are our prayer partners, Christ is our Mediator with the Father. Jesus Christ is the Way to God the Father.

Icons are aids to the worship of the one true God and for that reason are not idols. The purpose of icons are to draw us closer to God. They are “windows to heaven.” They make visible the invisible reality of heaven. Icons manifest Jesus Christ the eternal Word who took on human flesh for our salvation (1 John 1:1-3). Icons also manifest the great cloud of witnesses (saints) that surround us (Hebrews 12:1). Icons help lift our minds from earthly things to the things above (Colossians 3:2).

There is a sobriety in Orthodox prayer that contrasts with the emotionalism of Pentecostalism. The icon of Christ serves as an aid for the focusing of our attention while praying but one cannot manipulate God by praying loudly and fervently to the icon of Christ. Another possible abuse is placing food before an icon. I haven’t heard of this happening but it is a possibility in non-Western cultures. If this happens it is the responsibility of the local clergy to restore proper order.

Icon — Christ the Pantocrator

Anyone who wishes to construct an Orthodox icon corner should consult with their local priest. Most likely the priest will instruct the new believer to buy a Pantocrator (Christ the all ruling One) then an icon of the Theotokos (the Virgin Mary). After that it’s good to get an icon of one’s patron saint. My advice is that from here on out you add icons of saints that you feel an affinity for. But the icons should not be viewed as decorations but aids to one’s personal devotion.

Besides the various icons, many Orthodox icon corners have a wall cross, a vigil lamp, an incense burner, and a prayer book. Some people like to have a prayer rope nearby.

Like Railway Tracks

So just as important as icon for an Orthodox personal devotion is an Orthodox prayer book. The Morning and Evening Prayers and the other prayers found in an Orthodox prayer book provide as it were the rails for one’s personal prayers. Prayer in Orthodoxy is like a railroad track, it is not like a trail one can wander off and on as one chooses. It’s okay to make up one’s personal prayer requests but it is important to let one’s personal prayer life be shaped by the Church. Just as the Liturgy frames our corporate worship so the prayer book frames our personal devotional life. If one participates regularly in the liturgical life of the Orthodox Church and submits to the local priest your concern about turning icons into idols will be taken care of. There’s a little helpful acronym in Orthodox circles: AYP – Ask Your Priest! The icon along with the Liturgy, the prayer book and the pastoral care of the priest all form part of the matrix known as Holy Tradition. The purpose of capital “T” Tradition is Orthodoxy: that is, right belief about God and right worship of God.

If you are an inquirer, I would advise you to take all this slowly. Think of it like learning classical music. Sometimes it’s better to first listen to the music, get the sense of the music before picking up an instrument and attempt to play the score. I have advised other inquirers to read and analyze the prayers in Orthodox prayer books before saying the prayers. There are some prayers that non-Orthodox Christians are not ready to pray, e.g., prayers to the Theotokos (Mary). The Orthodox rule of prayer is one that one grows into. And it helps to have the help of others! So icons may look dangerous to a Protestant inquirer but there are a multitude of safeguards in place in the Orthodox Church. Come and see!

Robert Arakaki

A child venerating icons. Source

Bright corner aka icon corner. Source

A spiritual center for the family. Source

Category: Icons (Page 6 of 12)

Do Your Homework?

A Response to Pastor Toby Sumpter

The Illogic of Calvin’s Iconoclasm

Can Icons Become Idols?

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives