Thursday, October 28, 2004

role of images

4-5 years ago, i read a convincing chapter about idols in J.I. Packer's book Knowing God. Packer took the second commandment and formed an argument against forming any image of God, both physical or mental. the argument made complete sense to me and i adopted that perspective since that time. the part that resonated the most with me was how easily we can create a mental image of God that fits our desires or our self-justifications. for example, i have heard the description "the God i worship is a God of love, he would never judge anyone's sin" and that is the only example i needed to prove that forming a mental image is wrong.

however, i just read Three Treatises On The Divine Images by John of Damascus. John was a Christian monk who lived in the 8th century in Muslim lands and he defended the use of icons in the church for Christian worship. there was a massive dispute regarding icons that threatened to further split the church at that time.

John's main point was the icons could and should be used in Christian worship. he weaved three themes to make his case. the first theme was that we could venerate icons without worshipping the icon itself. in other words, we could honor the subject of the icon without making the icon out to be a god. his next theme was that we can create an icon of Christ because Christ, in the incarnation, was the image of the invisible God. in short, because Christ was visible, then we can make an icon of Him while the invisible God should not be made into an icon. he drew attention to the fact that the OT law was written before God became man in order to guard against making an image for the invisible (i.e. the golden calf). lastly, John stated that the images and places in the OT were a shadow of the future. icons are valid if they serve the same role in pointing us to the future or, again, to the object of veneration. for example, the hand-crafted cherubim in the tabernacle were an image of something in heaven but the purpose of the cherubim there was to point to the future. he used other examples of entities that foreshadowed coming realities.

these points challenged my view of icons in the church. his point regarding the OT law guarding people against making images of the invisible God resonates with me as does his point of Jesus being the visible incarnation of the invisible God. he also tripped me up with his examples of heavenly entities being rendered (as commanded by God) as icons in the tabernacle and temple as pointers to the future. however, his points do not answer the problems of an individual's interpretation of the target of his veneration. in other words, my view of Christ, though he was visible at the time, influences my rendering of Christ. this is evidenced in all of the different pictures of Jesus throughout church history. i remember my Sunday school room featuring a tanned southern-California Jesus picture. this plays out in a variety of ways.

overall, i still do not trust a person's potential (or most likely) self-centered approach to an icon creation (whether conscious or unconscious). on the other hand, i do not agree with the complete removal of icons. like all other matters of worship and spiritual disciplines, i believe that a Christian must apply a godly maturity to the handling of these undefined issues. an icon can exist in a way to venerate a saint or Christ, but each person should hold fast to God in prayer for how they interact with this image. running away from a potential problem is not the right answer, especially when there is a potential blessing in the same exact target of affection.

i have witnessed the removal of all icons in the 'modern' church. the main purpose for this removal was to create a safe environment for seekers and/or post-Christians who were burned by church experiences in the past. the worship of the images did not seem to play a role in the removal.

what are the purposes of these icons and images? do they break the 2nd commandment in that we should not make an image of anything in heaven?

i have lived on both sides from reading J.I. Packer's chapter on idols and John of Damascus' three treatises on the divine images. i encourage you to read them on as well and enter into the dialog of the 8th century iconoclasts (icon smashers) and iconophiles (icon lovers).
as you can, i have...

No comments: