Blessed is the Kingdom

Seeking The Kingdom In All Things

Leaving Room for Light

Often when I have spent a week writing an icon I have written posts about the process in order to share the spiritual dimension of iconography. This week I chose to allow my keyboard to be silent so as to enter more fully into the process. There is still one day remaining in the writing of this icon of St. Mary Magdalene, but I wanted to take the time for a short reflection on one of my friend Irene’s many words of wisdom that was shared today.

I have written before on this blog about what we call “floating” in the process of iconography. This method of egg tempura uses a process of placing highlights and then covering them with a wash that brings out the colors hidden beneath. Many people refer to the floats as the bearers of mercy because they cover many of the mistakes made when placing the highlights. They also help one to avoid pride as they also cover over the places on the board that we think are most excellent. Today, however, I was struck by one of the things Irene said as she was describing the process. She noted that sometimes we can make the float too dark and it covers all or most of our light. When that happens we have to go back and replace the light. She described it as having too much penance, so much so that all the light has vanished.

Being penitent in the face of our sins is at the heart of the Christian life, but it is possible to focus too much on penance and as a result to allow the light that God has placed within us to be diminished to the point that it is impossible to see. The result of entering into penance should always have the aim of restoring the light which God has given to us and if we focus too heavily on our sins without also focusing on God’s mercy, that light can easily be obscured.

I am happy that my floats have not obscured the light on this latest icon. There are dark and chaotic layers that can still be seen beneath the light, but the light is beginning to shine forth more brightly. I pray that tomorrow’s work will bring it more clearly into focus.

Related Posts:

Tags: , , , , , ,


This entry was posted by on Friday, May 6th, 2011 at 5:56 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

About The Author

Fr. Christian is the pastor of St. Thomas the Apostle Church in Lenoir City, TN.

Comments

  • Sparky

    Thanks for such a nice and educational article.

  • Skippymucker

    You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, …

  • http://www.blessedisthekingdom.com Fr. Christian Mathis

    This is a very common response Skippy, but quoting one verse from Scripture does not tell the whole story of our Christian tradition. The passage from Exodus you quote is very much a part of our tradition and one that reminds us that God is the Lord alone and that we should not worship false gods. But there is also this passage, also from Exodus, where God commands the Israelites to make graven images for the ark of the covenant.

    “Make two cherubim of beaten gold for the two ends of the propitiatory, fastening them so that one cherub springs direct from each end. The cherubim shall have their wings spread out above, covering the propitiatory with them; they shall be turned toward each other, but with their faces looking toward the propitiatory.” (Exodus 25:17-20)

    If you have spent any time at this blog, you know that I am a proponent of reading the entire Bible and with the lens of Christ as our primary tool for interpretation.

    When the book of Exodus was written, no one had ever seen God. This is why there was a prohibition of making an image of Him. When the Word was made flesh and Jesus became a man, this changed. People actually saw and touched God in the flesh. Since God Himself chose to be robed in flesh, we were then able to portray His image.

    What is portrayed in iconography and other holy images are not idols, but images that point to the true God who is alone to be worshipped.

  • Skippy

    It’s ironic that you attempt to use the example of the Ark of the Covenant as a justification for iconography. The Ark of the Covenant was intended solely to house the tablets containing the very Law of God prohibiting idolatry. The Ark, itself, was not intended to be an object of veneration or worship as you imply. Rather, scripture makes clear that many restrictions were put upon how the people were to relate to the Ark, including not making it an idol. However, icons, by contrast, are clearly made for the specific purpose of venation and therefore violate, in no uncertain terms, the First Commandment. Surely you do not deny that such a tradition of veneration exists with regard to icons. One can play many word games making minute distinctions between reverence, veneration and worship. But the fact remains that items such as relics and icons are given a respect that should be reserved for God alone. That makes them idols by definition. The same holds true for the misguided Catholic concept of Eucharist as well. Ask yourself this. Would any reasonable and rational person really believe that God intended us to sit and offer worship to a piece of bread? Did Christ in his wisdom really intend for us to save our highest worship and reverence, not for Him, not for love of neighbor, but for a communion wafer or cup of wine? Was that the point of the his sacrifice on the cross, to leave us with objects to venerate? All such theological fixation upon objects accomplishes little except to widen the gap between the Gospel of Christ and the lives of the people who follow him. Are such things not really a distraction towards idolatry intended to satisfy those unable or unwilling to see with eyes of faith? It’s been said that Christians are sometimes guilty of putting God in a box. But unfortuately, Catholics do it literally.

  • http://www.blessedisthekingdom.com Fr. Christian Mathis

    Skippy,

    I am not implying at all that people were told to worship the Ark of the Covenant. Its purpose was to contain the tablets of the law, the rod of Aaron, and some of the manna sent by God from heaven. Eventually it would be housed within the Holy of Holies which was so special to the people that only certain people could enter at certain times. This is mirrored today in Eastern Christianity by the three things that are always on the altar behind the iconostasis—those being the gifts of bread and wine that are reserved for the sick, the book of Scriptures and the cross. My point is with the ark is simply this, if God meant literally no images at all, why would he command images to be placed on the ark?

    We do not as Catholics worship religious images, but we do honor what they represent. We do indeed worship Christ in a physical way through the consecrated bread and wine of the Eucharist. This is something taught and commanded by Christ himself and it has been handed down through the centuries. This is where it seems we disagree. If Christ is not truly present under the elements of bread and wine, then what we are doing is idolatry, but if he is really present, then it is not a distraction, but true worship. This does not in any way take away the duty Christians have to love and serve their neighbor but in the best sense should feed our desire to do so.

    I appreciate your comments, but I am not sure that we are going to come to an agreement on this issue. There has been over time quite a chasm created between the more ancient forms of Christianity and those that have stemmed from the Reformation times a few hundred years ago. My hope is that one day there will be a reunited Christianity, but it is sadly not yet here.

    If you are interested in a more detailed conversation on this topic and my responses there, along with more detailed critique by those who share your concerns, you might wish to check the comments on a previous post on this blog that can be found through the link listed below.

    http://www.blessedisthekingdom.com/2010/02/04/evangelical-is-not-enough-spirit-and-flesh/

  • Skippy

     You are bit presumptuous and it seems that you’ve put me in a neat, little box. Just so you know, most people do not like being categorized and stereotyped in such a way. You clearly believe that I am a Fundamentalist Protestant who interprets the Bible in piecemeal fashion and literally. But you could not be farther from the truth. Do not forget that we are now living in an age where organized religions are losing their moral and cultural relevance. Now, because of this, many consider themselves spiritual but not religious.   It does seem that we agree on one point. If the bread and wine are not transformed into the body and blood of Christ, then you are indeed engaging in idolatry each time you offer mass. So, “Father,” I suppose you had better be absolutely sure of that if you are going to practice such a ritual. So, you decide. As for the matter of icons we discussed, you are also right. We are not going to agree.  If I could guess, I suspect your interest in icons is actually more therapeutic than theological. Perhaps it is an outlet for you which helps you cope with the stress and loneliness of the expectation of celibacy. Perhaps it’s a sublimation of sorts for you. Perhaps this blog serves the same purpose.  I suppose we would not agree on many other issues such the farce of the lie of priestly celibacy, the egregious culpability of Catholic Clergy committing and in covering up thousands of acts of child sexual abuse, and the ongoing moral and financial corruption within the Catholic hierarchy.  If you are interested, these grievances stem not from my religious background but from the common decency, rationality and sense of justice which all human beings possess. It is gravely offended by the ongoing hypocrisy, misguided practices, and the long, dark history of your institution.  Like many, I long for the day when it is completely brought to its knees before the judgment of secular society and history. Surely you can see the signs that this has already begun. As the Lord once said: “The truth will set you free.”     So, I doubt we have anything further to discuss. Ta, Ta.

  • http://www.blessedisthekingdom.com Fr. Christian Mathis

    It is true that most people don’t like it when out of presumption they are placed in a neat little box, kind of like the one you seem to want to put me in with your comments here. 

    It is very true that Catholic clergy have committed crimes, as have members of many other groups. It is also true that many Catholic clergy have led lives of heroic virtue and there are many who continue to do so at great personal cost. 

    I will claim a place among neither, but will defend the ideals that are put forth by the church and will stand with those who attempt to live out those ideals as best I can. 

    I also would encourage those who live out similar ideals, but who do not belong to the institutional church. The truth will indeed set you free.

  • http://ifnecessary--usewords.blogspot.com/ Ashley Siferd

    Well, Skippy, since you’re condemning the Catholic Church, don’t forget to go across the board and include athletic coaches, the police, and other religious ministers of EVERY faith.

  • Skippy

    I don’t recall any of those people claiming to act “In persona Christi.” Such vile acts against children certainly bring doubt to that claim. Does it not?   

    If you are condemned, then you condemn yourselves. And, God let’s you.

  • http://www.blessedisthekingdom.com Fr. Christian Mathis

     Most of the police I know claim that they are out to protect and serve. Some break that promise, it doesn’t cause me to doubt the majority who mean it. 

    Most schools are committed, along with their coaches to do their best to act in loca parentis. Because some have abused children and in doing so, their responsibility does not make me think all schools should be abolished. 

    Most ministers of other traditions are worthy of the trust we give them when they say they are about the things of Christ. Some aren’t and those who aren’t should be held accountable. It doesn’t mean their whole organization is bad. 

    All abuse of children by anyone is vile. To only focus our attention on one group of offenders does not serve victims. 

  • Skippy

    Wait. I’m a bit confused. Is it not true that the Catholic Churches official response to the child sexual abuse crisis was to assure the public that it is taking a much closer look at precisely this group, the Catholic Clergy, in order to protect children? But you are saying the opposite. You claim that focusing upon this group does not serve the victims. There is simply no logic to such a statement. You are clearly trying to minimize the issue because you are a priest. But I think I am in the majority when I say that 10,667 allegations of child sexual abuse by Catholic Clergy between 1950 and 2002 in the United States is certainly nothing which should be downplayed or minimized in such a manner. Why not welcome such scrutiny if the goal is truly to root out those Clergy who pose a threat to child safety?

  • http://www.blessedisthekingdom.com Fr. Christian Mathis

    I am posting this as a new thread so that it is readable. Here is your last post Skippy. 

    “Wait. I’m a bit confused. Is it not true that the Catholic Churches official response to the child sexual abuse crisis was to assure the public that it is taking a much closer look at precisely this group, the Catholic Clergy, in order to protect children? But you are saying the opposite. You claim that focusing upon this group does not serve the victims. There is simply no logic to such a statement. You are clearly trying to minimize the issue because you are a priest. But I think I am in the majority when I say that 10,667 allegations of child sexual abuse by Catholic Clergy between 1950 and 2002 in the United States is certainly nothing which should be downplayed or minimized in such a manner. Why not welcome such scrutiny if the goal is truly to root out those Clergy who pose a threat to child safety?”

    In response, it is not true that the official response of the Church is to assure the public that it is taking a look ONLY at Catholic Clergy in order to protect children. The Church has put in place measures to do all that is possible to make sure that NO ONE (clergy included) that serves as either paid employees or volunteers will be able to harm a child. Will this stop 100% of child abuse? Sadly, it is likely that it will not completely eradicate it, but we are now doing more than any other organization I know of. 

    The logic of not focusing simply upon the clergy is that the majority of abuse cases in the United States are not connected to Catholic priests. The numbers that you have quoted match those in the John Jay report that lists 10,667 allegations by Catholic clergy between 1950-2002 and I agree it should not be minimized. The same report gives the overall numbers of substantiated cases of child sexual abuse in the United States in the period from 1992-2002 (a ten year span) as being between 89,335 and 149,800 each year. So let’s just take the minimum number FOR ONE YEAR and that would equal 10 times the total number of cases of sexual abuse among Catholic clergy during the span of 52 years. 

    The logic is that to focus our attention on one group to the exclusion of all other abusers is not sufficient if the goal is to prevent child sexual abuse. 

    The John Jay report also noted that during the time frame of which you speak, 96% of Catholic clergy were not involved in this type of behavior. Your blanket condemnation of an entire group people based upon 4% of it’s population does not seem logical to me. What seems logical in my mind is to be vigilant in protecting children from those who sexually abuse them, whether they be clergy or anything else and to dispense with the stereotyping of any one group, Catholic clergy included.

  • Skippymucker

     In my opinion, the damage done to the public’s image of the Catholic priesthood by the substantiated instances of child sexual abuse is irreparable. I don’t know what your experience is, but I never hear a Catholic priest mentioned these days without the clerical pedophilia being brought up. I’ve even hear people talking about it in the grocery store and the barber shop.  
     
    In a previous post, I listed a virtual litany of problems I have with the institution of the Catholic Church. However, the one issue you chose to single out in your response what the issue of pedophile priests. Cleary this struck a nerve in you far above the other issues I mentioned, even that of a challenge to the validity of the Eucharist. My guess is that you may still have some “bugs” to work out regarding your identity and role as a priest.   
     
    At any rate, since your defensiveness is so palpable, I can see that this conversation only serves to make you very uncomfortable. Therefore, I see no use in continuing it.
     
    Although I disagree theologically with much of what I read on your blog, I do appreciate the obvious work you have put into it and do not which to litter it with an ongoing argument which lacks the necessary honesty and openness to ever reach a resolution.

  • Maurice

    Skippymucker,

    You show up in the blog comments, make ignorant blanket statements about Catholicism and priests, as well as disparaging remarks about Fr. Christian having “issues” and “bugs” to work out? I’m sorry, but I would say that your comments reveal more about you than they do about Fr. Christian, priests in general, or Catholicism.

  • Skippy

     Actually, I thought he was quite gracious about it. I appreciated his listening. You could stand to be a little more sedate though.

«     »