Iconoclasm, Yesterday and Today
For centuries the Church has debated the use of icons in worship. Proponents who champion the use of icons believe that they are teaching tools and enhance the act of worship. Opponents make note of the fact that icons are often venerated if not worshipped. Many of the denominations that were born in the Reformation of the sixteenth century opposed the use of icons in worship for these very reasons. Despite their heritage, icons have begun to creep back into mainstream Traditional Evangelical worship [1]. This is a disconcerting trend considering the reasons for opposing them so strenuously only five centuries ago.
Icons and Art
Art is a wonderful form of expression and although it has an appropriate place in Christianity, the worship service is not it. Icons are usually symbolic images of Jesus, biblical characters, or people of church history [2]. They come in a variety of forms, from a common stained glass window image to a rare sandstone relief depicting Jesus sitting on a rainbow with a sword running out the left side of His mouth and a lily running out the right [3]. These images were originally works of art.
However, over time they became increasingly central in sanctuaries throughout the Roman Catholic and Byzantine Churches. They began as teaching tools but became invested with powers and qualities that were supernatural. This veneration was led by superstition among the laity, and though priests thought it sinful to worship these images, they taught that they should be held on par with the Bible in importance [4].
Historical Iconolatry and Iconoclasm
During the seventh century, the Byzantine Church began to ascribe power to the images in their sanctuaries [5]. However, because there were some priests who taught against such iconolatry there was a violent backlash beginning in 726 AD which was led by Emperor Leo III (Leo the Iconoclast) of the Byzantine Empire [6]. This violent form of Iconoclasm [7], continued into the early ninth century [8].
The Roman Catholic Church also had its bouts with iconoclasm which fulminated during the Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church’s view of icons was based primarily on Pope Gregory the Great’s belief that “images are the books of the laity” [9]. Ulrich Zwingli and Andreas Karlstadt were the two major iconoclasts during this period [10]. They believed that God had spoken to this issue in the first and second commandments given to the children of Israel on Mount Sinai (see Exod. 20:3-6). They found that Scripture and the Roman Catholic Church were at odds on the use of icons for worship.
Martin Luther differed from Zwingli and Karlstadt, for he saw this as an insignificant matter [11]. Since the Reformation had grown in unexpected ways, Luther reasoned it was more important for the public to make an unperturbed transition from one form of worship to the other than to have every minute doctrinal detail in order [12].
Luther’s approach is understandable, if not preferable. Due to the iconoclasm of Zwingli and Karlstadt, many people broke into churches and stole, denigrated, or destroyed many of the wonderful works of art. Also, many people were persecuted and martyred for their position concerning icons during this period. There were two reasons for such passionate iconoclasm: first, during the sixteenth century matters of doctrine were paramount to nearly everyone; and second, this was part of a push against the Roman Catholic Church.
Doctrine was of utmost importance to the laity of the Reformation. It was discussed in homes, inns and streets. Doctrine was a premier topic in most conversations. This arose from a new-found intimacy with the Scriptures that had not been available to any previous generation, and an increasingly literate laity. In the Old Testament the Law and the Prophets were kept in the Temple. During the time of the early Church the Gospels and epistles were limited to one or two copies per church. During the height of the Roman Catholic Church, the Holy Scriptures had been confined to the priesthood and had remained in dead languages. Due to Johannes Guttenberg’s printing press, for the first time Scripture was being printed in comparatively mass quantity and in the language of the masses.
The repudiation of the Roman traditions also caused vehement iconoclasm. As often occurs when ideas swing in a different direction, there was a measure of overkill and the methods of the Reformation iconoclasts were certainly excessive.
Modern Reemergence of Icons
Though Reformation iconoclasm caused many Evangelical churches to abandon the use of icons, modern Traditional Evangelical Churches have seen a slow reemergence of them. For nearly five centuries there were no images to be found in an evangelical church. However, in the last century crosses have been placed in sanctuaries and banners bearing images and words have been raised.
Images are placed in stained glass windows, harkening back to the Roman Catholic cathedrals; and with the advent of technology, the projector does all this and more. The use of video clips for worship services over the last decade has increased almost exponentially [13]. In the vast majority of these cases, those who have decided to use one or more of these items probably never considered the doctrinal implications, merely décor. However, this is a serious matter and it is worth our consideration, for our Protestant heritage and the Bible itself prescribes an alternative.
How Shall We Then Worship
Scripture teaches no such use of visual stimuli in the worship of God. Rather, it says to not make any graven image for the use of worship, (see Exod. 20:4-6). This issue was a stumbling block for the Israelites throughout much of their history. They often built idols, not always in repudiation of Yahweh but sometimes to be worshipped in conjunction with Him. Nevertheless, this was an obvious breach of both the first and second commandments (see Exod. 20:3-6, 32:1-35; Num. 25:1-11).
Jesus never instituted the use of images during His time on earth, only the Lord’s Supper, feet washing, and baptism, (see Mt. 28:19-20; Lk. 22:17-20; Jn. 13:12-17). Rather, He insisted, as did the Law and the Prophets, that worship is a matter of the heart not physical sacrifice or physical acts (see Isa. 29:13; Hos. 6:6; Mt. 12:7, 12:35, 15:7-9, 22:37-40; Lk. 16:15; Jn. 3:6, 3:14-15, 4:21-24, 6:47, 7:38). The Mosaic Covenant instituted animal sacrifice and the priesthood in order to point to the Messiah, and now that He has come, the use of physical stimuli for worship is no longer profitable for worship.
Conclusion
Not every artistic item that is placed within a sanctuary fosters iconolatry. However, the use of images within our place of worship draws our attention from the sacred Word of God, which we hold in our hands, read with our eyes, hear with our ears, and speak with our mouths. We already have multi-sensory stimuli. Adding objects to assist our worship seems to say that the Word is not enough. If we say that additional ocular stimulus is needed to worship properly it opens the door to extreme manifestations of worship that could include anything. Art is wonderful in its proper context. However, it should not be used to enhance worship. This is the conviction of the Reformation and the teaching of Scripture.
_______________________________________
[1] Traditional Evangelicals are generally from the line of Baptist, Methodist and Congregational, Low Church Episcopal and Anabaptists. While these denominations have differing forms of worship, they do generally agree that worship should be based solely in Scripture, Christocentric, simple, straight forward and precise.
[2] Symbolic Art portrays people as flat two-dimensional characters who (1) are not proportional to their surroundings, and (2) do not have any connection to the reality of space and the created order.
[3] Sandstone Relief from approximately 1400 at the Wittenberg parish church [Foto Kirsch, Lutherhalle, Wittenberg: via, Carter Lindberg, The European Reformations (Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, 1996), 59]
[4] Bill R. Austin, Austin’s Topical History of Christianity (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1983), 136-137.
[5] The Byzantine Church began during the time of the Byzantine Empire (324AD-1453AD). It was similar to the Roman Catholic Church, yet different in several ways. They both had a highly hierarchal structure which solidified the doctrines they believed should be taught, but tended to squelch ideas that did not originate in the top echelon of leaders. The Byzantine Church often incorporated pieces of the culture in which it was formed. The Byzantine Church is now known as the Eastern Orthodox Church or simply the Orthodox Church.
[6] “Iconolatry: Worship of icons or images.” “Iconoclast: One who destroys sacred religious images.” The American Heritage College Dictionary, Fourth Edition, (Boston-New York, Houghton Mifflin, 2002) 687.
[7] “Iconoclasm: The beliefs, practices or doctrine of an iconoclast.”: Ibid.
[8] Austin, Austin’s Topical History of Christianity, 136.
[9] Lindberg, The European Reformations, 59.
[10] Ulrich Zwingli (1848-1531) was a Swiss Reformer who was based in Zurich during much of the Reformation. Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1480-1541) was a theologian in Wittenberg during the Reformation, he and Luther at different times worked together and against one another.
[11] Martin Luther (1483-1546) was the seminal figure of the European Reformation. He was a Roman Catholic monk in the early sixteenth century. After coming to despair over his personal guilt, he found his solution in Rom. 1:17, “The just shall live by faith” NKJV. After much meditation and study of the Scriptures, he penned his famed Ninety-Five Theses and nailed them to the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church on October 31, 1517. From that act most, if not all, of the Reformation spilled.
[12] Ronald J. Sider, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt: The Development of His Thought 1517-1525 (Lieden: E. J. Brill, 1974), 196. Via: Lindberg, The European Reformation, 137.
[13] Sally Morgenthaler, “Film & Worship: Windows in Caves & Other Things We Do With Perfectly Good Prisms” inTheology, News & Notes, Vol. 52, No. 2, Spring 2005, p. 15 via Terry Johnson, “The Christian Use of Visual Art in Worship Today”; http://www.the-highway.com/visual-art-in-worship_Johnson.html, 10/8/2010 11:00 AM, p. 1.
April 15, 2011
Interesting note on this; the official Roman Catholic Church Catechism, the second commandments is absorbed into the first. Honestly, they really do just skip over it, to make all ten, they divide coveting into coveting your neighbor’s wife and property. I know you mentioned Christ instituting the Eucharist, Baptism and Washing of the Saints’ Feet; we must understand that these holy rites are God’s gracious condescension to us lowly beings. He knows we need those physical, sensual stimuli and has graciously given us the sacraments to accommodate us. Yes, the signs and symbols of the Old Covenant have passed away, but we’re not without signs and seals of the New Covenant. Also, what are your thoughts on the portraying of Christ through drama? [originally submitted on 12 October 2010]
April 15, 2011
Drama can be a useful tool at appropriate times. I do not believe that it is as overtly visual as icons, considering that words are usually used to convey the main thrust of the message. However, ideally the main worship service should be focused on the preaching, singing, reading, and praying of Scripture, that is, God’s Word. Thus dramatic presentations should probably be relegated to Sunday School, Sunday night meetings, or any other gatherings the church may have. Thank you very much for your insightful question. [originally submitted on 25 October 2010]
March 28, 2013
May all the glory be given to the Holy Trinity, both now, and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen
It was interesting reading the opposing view on icons [from the Greek eikōn „image“.]
At the very moment of using the word λατρεία instead of προσκύνησις in the term iconolatry, I knew that either the misunderstanding of Greek or, the more sound, opposition of icons were the intentions to write this article.
I will introduce myself as a faithful Eastern Christian, who raised in Russian Orthodoxy, have become more knowledgable of Western Christianity, and the complexities that have arisen from protesting the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church. From the early inception of the church that Christ himself instituted, the Greek has been used in divine liturgy to give adoration to the one who deserves all exclusive adoration, our holy father, and through the incarnation of the son, in the manifestation of the holy spirit, we see truth in the holy traditions and scriptures, in which the latter was originally written in Greek. But as we know in history, the early church split in the Great Schism over a few disagreements, which I believe came from the misunderstanding of the Early Church Father’s and the scriptures [as in the filioque controversy.]
The Epistle Saint Paul to the Philippians chapter 2 verses 5 to 11
„Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.“
Nevertheless, throughout the world people of different nations have been professing the faith until death, and adored God alone in different languages than in Greek. I am not stating that it is necessary to serve God in the Greek as it has been in the early church, but merely to have an applicable understanding of how worship was conducted ever since the early church.
Now back to the arguement over the veneration of images. I believe, not as an Orthodox Christian, but as an follower and imitator of the likeness of Jesus Christ, as it is obliged for every Christian to do so: that images shall prevail in the Christian life, for it is a reminder of the likeness of holiness. As God ever done so since the beginning of time, he has created us under his likeliness. Though corruption and imperfections have stained our appearance, it is our duty to view those who are holy. When I see an icon of the Theotokos „Mother of God,“ I see a loving mother who nurtured the early church. As Saint Luke describes in his gospel [chapter 1 verse 48] the Blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of our Lord will be called Blessed from every generation that has followed Christ’s birth. A cross reminds me of the grace of God out of humility of our Lord, became Incarnate to dwell with us in eternity. A holy images of the saints reminds me that out of suffering and perseverance, there comes a great reward in the celestial kingdom, that the great Archangels have interceded for a sinner.
Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
It would be difficult to express my gratitude to the Lord without having first to express how much I adore his likeness. And to address the commandments, as the holy church in imitation of Christ himself have kept, idols are images of FALSE gods. These are gods, created in the human imagination, existing in evil spirits in the sky, in the earth beneath, and in the waters under the earth. They are gods that do not have breath, do not have operating eyes, and do not have a heart to serve humanity. Will you be telling me that Christians have been serving a false god, the same arguement that has exists in every heresy? What more will you be telling me, that the Virgin Mary is not of perpetual virginity, hence denying the Holy Trinity as a whole? For those who deny the Mother, do the same as denying Christ as God; deny not only the Trinity but deny the likeness of the creator!
This surpasses heresy, this constitutes blasphemy. I respect denominations such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, though the intentions might be good at mind, they do not hold the truth as expressed in the Nicene Creed.
This comment is long, please do not disregard it as useless, for I present to you the truth, as it has always been since the beginning of time. The Jews themselves incorporated images to serve God. Now mentioning it, please read the Epistle to the Hebrews. This book is a profound lecture against apostasy, and one that should be taken to advise against any further attack on the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church.
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/312/a-reply-david-bercot-holy-icons/
When I searched for the Son, I was presented to the Mother of all humanity. A mother who loves the Lord with all her heart, with all her mind, and with all her strength. She used her heart to nurture the sinners, she used her mind to speak truth and wisdom, and she used her strength to bring forth the saviour of the world. With perseverance to protect the church from corruption, she who is full of grace raised her hands to the heavens and glorified the great divinity. She who is full of grace gave light to the world, that which is the Logos, saviour of the world.
April 1, 2013
Mister Volkov,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments on this piece. It is true that because of our differing Christian traditions we approach this topic from completely different directions. I am by no means a scholar of the Eastern Orthodox Church. But from what I have gleaned in my reading on the subject of icons, the Eastern Orthodox Church has venerated images for practically its entire history, whereas the Roman Catholic Church slipped into its veneration of images accidentally much later. Additionally I come from a reformational Arminian tradition which rejected the use of any images in worship during the Great Reformation. I feel that our main concerns are outlined in the essay and so I would like to address your three main points.
1. You claim that “images shall prevail in the Christian life, for it is a reminder of the likeness of holiness.” As best as I understand it you believe that the actual visual image of Christ or a saint is a means of grace. That it spurs on the viewer to holiness. My first concern is that nowhere in Scripture is this view propounded. We have the image of God that He stamped in us at creation, but this likeness is contained in personhood and its attending factors. But the actual visual image of a person does not reflect the image of God.
2. Tied into the previous concern is the veneration of the Mary the mother of Jesus and other humans. We do not hold that Mary is a perpetual virgin, principally because Scripture quite clearly states that Jesus had brothers by Mary and Joseph (Mt. 12:46-50, 13:55, Lk. 8:19-21, Jn. 2:12, 7:1-10, Acts 1:14). In Matthew 13:55 they are listed as James, Joses, Simon, and Judas the sons of Mary. The doctrine of the “perpetual” virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus is a tradition of men that does not have a basis in Scripture. She had to be a virgin at the conception and birth of Christ that there would be no question that He was the Son of God. However, after His birth her continued virginity served no purpose. Additionally you seem to be conflating the concept of denying the mother of Jesus and the Father. While Mary’s virginity at the conception and birth of Christ were essential, the wording you use to refer to her is more reminiscent of 1 John 2:22-23. John states that if anyone denies the Father he does not have the Son either, but he says nothing of Mary.
3. But even if we were to limit this discussion to images of Christ, there is no Scriptural backing for this position either. The commandment not to worship any image of anything in creation would also apply to the image of Jesus, as He was part of creation. The Israelites were commanded by God to fashion extremely specific items for worship in the tabernacle and temple, but these were a type of Christ which pointed to the coming Messiah. Any deviation from the prescribed method was met with extreme punishment—Nadab and Abihu come to mind (Lv. 10:1-2). God gave us no such commands for post-Messiah worship except that we now worship in spirit and truth (John 4:23-24). Additionally I find it instructive that out of all the means of communication God could have chosen to use to speak to us and to commend to us He chose the written word and expressly banned images in the Decalogue. Finally, I must clearly state that in no way does Scripture command the use of images in any worship and in fact denounces any such use of images in worship as idolatry.