Blessed is the Kingdom

Thanks for commenting Greg! I was wondering if you were going to show up in this conversation and glad you are here.

First of all I probably should apologize to Linda if I came across to strongly in my last comment. Sometimes I can get caught up too much in the details of a disagreement and forget to take the time necessary that keeps one from possibly offending. My strong reaction comes out of our belief as Catholics that the holy images are so closely connected to Christ, that to dishonor the image is to dishonor Him. I would imagine many traditions who don’t share our belief on this would feel the same if someone suggested ripping up a Bible. The Bible is itself not God, but it certainly represents Him.

I will do my best to comment on your five points Greg.

1. While I have seen Catholic Churches that do not have “iconography”, so to speak, I don’t think I have ever seen one without at least a crucifix and most would have some sort of statuary. My own parish in Lenoir City, unitl recently was bare with the exception of the crucifix. We now have also a statue of Mary and Joseph holding the infant Christ. There has also been in our smaller chapel a statue of St. Thomas and an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe. I may call upon s-p to address the Orthodox Church if he is still reading these comments, but it is my understanding that icons would be required in the East. My only thought as to why one would not have them is due to severe poverty. And in that case the image and likeness of God would still be represented in the Christians that gathered.

The reason for putting the emphasis might be better addressed in your second point Greg, but I will try to give a short comment here which may bleed over into the second note. This argument over whether or not images are appropriate for Christ, Mary, the Saints and other events of the Scripture is not a new one, as you may or may not be aware. The last ecumenical council that included both East and West is the seventh one held in Nicea in 787. Christians by that point had already been arguing about this for over 100 years. There were those called iconoclasts who were smashing the icons and those called iconodules who supported their use and veneration. Those gathered at this council of all christians at that time came to this conclusion. “Icons… are to be kept in churches and honored with the same relative veneration as is shown to other material symbols, such as the ‘precious and life-giving Cross’ and the Book of the Gospels.”

2. Let me move into commenting on your second observation. It is closely related to the first. I think we can agree that attempting to depict God the Father would be a mistake, and usually I tend to see Him depicted as an old bearded guy, sitting on a cloud. Seems too much like Zeus to me, and we certainly don’t worship Zeus. The whole key to the icon controversy in the minds of the church community at the time centers on the Incarnation. In my own mind, it is the Incarnation that makes or breaks Christianity which is why getting this right is important. I don’t think we are in disagreement on the importance of Christ.

Going back to the seventh ecumenical council, it might help to point out that the deeper issues that are connected to the use of religious art which are:

-the character of Christ’s human nature
-the Christian attitude toward matter
-the true meaning of Christian redemption and the salvation of the entire material universe

It is in fact Christ’s humanity, his taking on the material, that is part of the redemption of the world. It isn’t only the cross, but his entire life, death and resurrection. It usually brings me to tears to hear the Christmas hymn, Hark the Herald Angels when we sing, “Peace on earth and mercy mild, God and sinners reconciled” At His birth, the redemption has already begun we proclaim each year in song. I understand how one might at first see this as inappropriate but in reality, isn’t this exactly the same “inappropriateness” we see in Christ becoming flesh and what Paul speaks about in his First Letter to the Corinthians when he says “we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to Gentiles..”?

Here is how the council fathers put it back in the 8th century:

“Icons are necessary and essential because they protect the full and proper doctrine of the Incarnation. While God cannot be represented in His eternal nature (“…no man has seen God”, John 1:18), He can be depicted simply because He “became human and took flesh.” Of Him who took a material body, material images can be made. In so taking a material body, God proved that matter can be redeemed. He deified matter, making it spirit-bearing, and so if flesh can be a medium for the Spirit, so can wood or paint, although in a different fashion.”

This to me is one thing we modern Christians have downplayed—that being that Christ came to redeem not only our spirits, but our bodies as well. Our natural state is to be unified, body and spirit to Christ, but sometimes we focus only on our spirits. Paul, again in First Corinthians, puts it well when he says, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body,” (1 Cor. 6:19-20)

3. Most of the depictions of Jesus that I come across look somewhat similar, as you note, though it seems that the modern world likes playing even with that. I don’t have a huge problem with having cultural depictions of Jesus that take on some of the traits of Christians of various cultures. Would any of you Eastern Christians like to comment on this one? I honestly don’t know the position of the Orthodox, though I would suspect tighter restrictions.

Having been recently and currently a student of iconography, I know that there are some pretty strict rules that govern what can be depicted in an icon. This is because ultimately they are, similar to the Bible, a theological representation. They are not meant to be an exact likeness, like a photograph, but rather to do in paint, what the Scriptures do with words. In that sense one does not paint an icon, it is written. I do believe that the similarities in Christ’s images that we see comes from the fact that while we modern Christians never saw Christ, there were people who did and who could have passed that image along over the ages. But again, my experience of icons is that they represent theological truths and in this sense must be read, like a book. Here is probably my favorite part of creating an icon that may illustrate what I mean. This is something that one might not see on the surface, but it is present. In making the halo on an icon—which simply represents holiness—one starts by using red clay which represents the humanity of Christ, but also our own humanity. Next, gold is applied to the clay and the two are infused together. The gold represents the divinity of Christ and also God’s spirit that dwells in us. The way that one gets the gold to stick to the clay, is to breath into the clay to warm and moisten it. It is only in mirroring God’s action of breathing life into humanity that the gold will stick. This is just one way the icons mirror the Scripture.

4. Perhaps here I was not completely clear. Catholics indeed read some parts of Scripture literally, but at you have noted there are other ways of interpretation such as the allegorical and moral sense of the Scriptures. As you say, we would literally believe that Christ was born, called disciples, rose from the dead, etc. What I was attempting to say was that I have encountered many who claim that the only way to encounter the Christian faith is through Scripture alone and to interpret the entire Bible literally. Where Catholic belief is sometimes attacked by other Christians (and I understand that attacked is perhaps too strong of a word) is in our claim that there is a need for someone to interpret the Bible or else one could claim some of the things mentioned in my last comment which obviously no Christians, myself included, would claim. But perhaps this is where I can direct a question your way Greg. How does one from an Evangelical tradition determine which parts are to be taken literally and which are not?
As Catholics we are often told by other Christians that the Bible should be taken literally, but then when we bring up something like John 6 are then told, “well, don’t take that part literally!”

5. I completely agree with you here Greg. If put in proper context, this can be a useful tool for Christians. This harkens back to how one knows the proper context as the Bible itself doesn’t spell that out. This is where we as Catholics rely upon many centuries of tradition to help us. My own observations are that Evangelicals also have a tradition of interpretation, but it is a different method than ours.

6. I know you only made five points, but I wanted to add one more, if you will indulge me a question to you as someone who has ministered in an evangelical community (and quite honorably I must say!) How do you all approach this particular verse of Scripture?

“Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess 2:15)

Thanks again Greg for entering the conversation here. I hope we can keep it up and have a respectful dialogue.

I would welcome other readers’ comments as well, but I hope we can keep this on a respectful level as these are very personal subjects which are being discussed.

Believe me Greg, I understand completely!