Iconoclasm should not be tolerable

David Cabrera said:

Why? Because they are images or because they would be worshipped as gods?

Click to expand...

No, because Exodus 20:4-5 specifically forbids bowing down to carved images or manufactured likenesses.

David Cabrera said:

We can see here a Jewish synagogue with images.
View attachment 250922

Click to expand...

What I'm seeing there is religious artwork on the walls. In my view, that's fine if people are not bowing down to them.

As a side issue, how do you feel about veneration of three-dimensional statues?

Ing Bee said:

How so?

Click to expand...

Images are a reflection of the Incarnate God who loves us, became visible, and died for us, and of the love through which He unites souls to Himself (the Saints). There is great meaning in beauty, and beautiful Christian religious art can bring souls to Christ, and the knowlege of Christ to souls.

Thank you for beating me to the point about the ancient Jews covering their synagogues with art, David. I was just typing up a big post about the Doura-Europos synagogue's paintings. Whew! Great pagan minds think alike, no?

Anyway, it is totally, totally wrong to claim that the early Church didn't have icons (post #54). I know a lot depends on how you define the "early church", but if we go by a relatively standard (though Western-biased) definition of "Early Church Fathers" as ending by 700 AD (as Wikipedia does, though you'll note that as of this posting that date carries a "citation needed" tag), then we at least have a boundary by which we can work.

And there are tons and tons of icons from before that time, from all over the world. Some of the earliest that have still been preserved come from the catacombs of Rome:



Christ as Alpha and Omega, 4th century (pre-380), Catacomb of Commodilla


St. Apollo and St. Bamun, Egypt, 7th century


The Ascension as depicted in the Rabbula Gospel, 6th century


Coptic icon of Christ and St. Mina, 6th century

Etc., etc.

It should be noted for the sake of objectivity that the understanding that is popular in the Orthodox Church now is itself a later development out of the cult of relics -- or at least that's what those who look at things in a scholarly fashion apparently say. It is interesting to me as a member of the Egyptian Church that the author notes that icons 'filtered into the mainstream church' from places where Christianity existed and co-mingled with the fringes of dying paganism, because according to authorities on history within my own Church (such as the father of modern Coptology Aziz Suriyal Atiya, in his lecture The Copts and Christian Civilization in the 1970s), that describes the first two centuries of Egyptian Christianity pretty dang well (Atiya says in that lecture that there was "constant admixture" of Christianity and paganism in those centuries, because of course pagans were converting into Christianity in that time at a steady pace).

I guess this doesn't bother me because I am not one of those "Pagan Hunter"-type Christians (which makes my selection of St. Shenouda the Archimandrite as my baptismal saint very odd, but anyway...) who is always looking for the 'pagan origins' of this or that, because I trust that the Church -- which is Christ's body and the true Israel of God -- has baptized into itself that which can be baptized from the outside, and cast away the rest. The historical record shows that this was the early Church's attitude, as well, as some of our earliest apologists like St. Justin Martyr (in the 2nd century) saw "seeds of the Word" in pre-Christian religions, and even some of our common/cross-communal saints like St. Basil of Caesarea wrote on the edifying use of pagan literature by properly disposed Christians (in the 4th century). They were not afraid to test all things and hold to that which is good, or to become a Jew to the Jews.

That's what this all comes down to, really: Do you trust the Christian Church to have historically made the correct decisions/established proper boundaries between itself and outside religions (most definitely including Judaism, FYI), or do you think that having icons (or whatever other thing we could be talking about) is wrong?

When the basis for declaring something which has been established for at least 1,176 years (or much longer if you're Oriental Orthodox, like me! ) is "but the Jews did/didn't XYZ", it seems that the error is compounded with the even more ancient heresy of Judaizing, to which I have said and will always say: You guys (Judaizers) lost at the Council of Jerusalem, which is described in the Bible itself (in the book of Acts). That was circa AD 50. You can't get more "early Church" than that. Please do catch up if you are going to call yourselves Christians.

We venerate the image because we love those depicted. Just as we might kiss a beloved and precious photograph of a family member who we love very much, we show our love of the Triune God and the Saints by honoring, venerating, and using the images to pray.

We do not assume that plaster, paper, wood, or ink has created us. But we honor God who became visible through the artwork that reflects something of His glory, love, and holiness.

Radagast said:

Iconoclasm began in Constantinople in the early 8th century. I don't think it was the result of Islamic influence.

Click to expand...

As I understand it:

Not necessarily directly, but there was an indirect influence. Muslims had been gaining territory, pushing Byantines out of traditional Roman territory in the East. At the time Islam was still thought of as a Christian heresy, not a new religion. There were some, such as the emperor, who thought the biggest difference between was that Muslims forbade all images, and seemed to reckon that God was favoring the Muslims over the Romans for this reason. Remove images then regain divine support, and win back the loss of territory.

Iconoclasm was a reaction toward what appeared to be God favoring another political power over Rome, and thus in order to regain God's political favor one needed to do away with the images to be more like the guys who were winning.

Politicians aren't theologians, and so the politics of Iconoclasm were never going to fly with orthodox Christology, and that is why the Iconodules fought hard to proclaim the importance of right theology, and--in the end--the Second Council of Nicea ruled in favor of the Iconodule position and against the Iconoclast position as heretical.

The real problem with Iconoclasm isn't that they don't like sacred images or art; the real problem with Iconoclasm is what it says about Christ and God's own engagement with the world.

Does God work through material, tangible, physical means--as the entire witness of Christian orthodoxy has always maintained; or is God's work always esoteric, immaterial, etc as so many heretics have said since the days of the Gnostics.

Icons matter, the Sacraments matter, the visible forms and functions of the Christian faith all matter because of the Incarnation: God became man.

-CryptoLutheran

Axios! He who has eyes, let him read. ^

dzheremi said:

I have a question for all of the iconoclasts in this thread: Do you have some kind of objection to the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the Word of God? Because scripture literally calls Him "The image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15), and in the original it is using the same word from which we get the English word 'icon' (εἰκὼν eikon) to signify that.

Click to expand...

There's a logic problem in your example above, a fallacy known as equivocation. You are employing an etymological version of it. You seem to be saying that since our modern word "icon" is derived from the greek eikon, then they must be the same thing. If you do a quick word study on eikon it simply means "image", including coins ( Matthew 22:20) and idols (Romans 1:23), as well as Christians conforming to Christ (1 Corinthians 15:49), and even the statue of "the Beast" which, if you're counting, has a whopping 10 usages of the word almost half of the total times the lexeme appears in the New Testament (Revelation 13:14).

In the passage you sight from Colossians 1, Christ is identified the "exact representation", meaning he is God. The point Paul is making is not that he is an image, but that, like a coin made from an impression, he has the full value of the coin.

dzheremi said:

If it is wrong to 'worship' images ... and Christ is literally the image of the invisible God, is it wrong to worship Christ? Is it wrong that Christ is visible?

Click to expand...

You've employed another logical fallacy here: a loaded question. Of course, the issue "iconoclasts" take is not with worshipping Christ or that he is visible. No Christian debates that Christ came in the flesh, that's the spirit of the anti-Christ according to 2 John 1:17. The question would be better stated: is it better to worship the actual Jesus who, as God, is everywhere present and always available to worship directly or to direct your attention to a statue/icon/etc. that is neither a photograph or a live-feed from heaven.

As you know, Jesus -an actual person who is alive and ruling and has always been the Son of God - is not an image made by human hands. Paul used figurative language to make the point. He was making sure everyone knew Jesus was God, not reducing him to a carved image.

dzheremi said:

I'm going to assume that the answer to both of those is no, it is not wrong, and furthermore Christ is God, so the comparison does not hold. That's just it, though: icons are a testament to Christ's incarnation -- His literal, fleshly reality; that He was truly incarnate as an actually-existing man, in the real world in which we all live. And so to be against icons is at least an implicit denial of His incarnation.

Click to expand...

Since your case thus far is standing on two logical fallacies, in this paragraph you kind of sweep your own legs (sKarate Kid reference), by saying your comparison doesn't hold. But then, magically, your denial of your own comparison is grounds ("That's just it, though...") why icons are a testament to Christ's incarnation. They are not literally his flesh (or anyone else's, hopefully) so they are not incarnations (carne meaning "flesh"). A statue of Mickey Mouse does not bear witness that there is an actual Mickey Mouse who appeared in real time.

dzheremi said:

And so to be against icons is at least an implicit denial of His incarnation.

Click to expand...

Come on, it's just too silly! There is no statue of my wife, yet I believe she is real. I've never seen the Jefferson Memorial, but I am confident that since I live in a country he helped to found, he really existed. His writings, his home, and family members are ample testament to that. The real evidence that Christ is in the world and has been in the world, is you, me and everyone else who knows him as Lord, Savior, Teacher, Friend, High Priest, etc.

dzheremi said:

And if you for some reason would therefore not be against icons of Christ, but instead be against icons of any of the saints, the same is applicable because to deny proper veneration to those people, places, and things that He has personally resided within is to likewise deny His actual existing and effective working within the world. He is then a kind of phantasm, perhaps existing, yes, but having no true effect. If no saint is to be venerated because they are but sinful human beings (which, again, no one who venerates a saint whether using an icon or not would deny, but anyway...), then no one is truly Christ-like, as Christ's coming did not actually transform and redeem mankind, but perhaps only open the door that it may be done in the future (say on the last day or in the afterlife or whatever). There is a way in which we (Orthodox Christians) can agree with this, in that the process of Theosis is eternal and continues on into eternity, but even then it begins here, in the holy saints who have pleased God since the beginning, and in all of us likewise who have put on Christ in baptism.

Click to expand...

This paragraph is yet another logical fallacy: a slippery slope.
Here's the slope:

• Even if you are not against icons' of Christ but are against icons of the saints,
• denying "proper" veneration (isn't that the point were discussing though) to them denies they existed
• Jesus then becomes a phantasm, having no true effect
• If he has no true effect, then we ourselves are not effected and no one is Christ-like

To summarize the argument: If you don't make and venerate statues of people then Jesus didn't exist and had no effect on anyone.

By the way, what "places and things" has he resided in? Jesus never promised the Holy Spirit would inhabit non-humans or locations.

dzheremi said:

So you see how iconoclasm touches so many other central points of the Christian life beyond whether or not any individual is personally comfortable with or preferring this type of material worship over some other type. Surely God could have saved us by whatever means He saw fit, and yet the means He actually chose and underwent of His own will (to take the form of a servant and come to us on earth) are not arbitrary nor up to us to reject because we have different ideas of what monotheism is than God does based on whatever (our individualistic readings of the OT or NT, our personal sense of what 'idolatry' is, etc).

Click to expand...

You conclude with one more fallacy, the always popular "straw man". You've set up your summary so that a denial of icons is a denial of the incarnation. Since no Christian denies that Christ came in the flesh this paragraph is incoherent.

Here are just a few reasons why icons are unnecessary:

• through the Spirit, we are connected to the very life of God (Ephesians 1:13-14).
• In the past, Yahweh revealed himself through the prophets, but his final word was His Son, who perfectly represented the Father (Hebrews 1:-2).
• The full measure of God's agape love was made visible on the cross (Romans 5:8) so we never have to wonder about it ever again.
• In Christ we have every blessing we need to live in fellowship with God (Ephesians 1:3-14).
• We are so closely connected to Jesus through the Spirit that we have his mind (1 Corinthians 2:16).
• Rather than look to images of wood or stone, we can recall who he is, what he said, and what he did by reading and reflecting on the biblical record. (Hebrews 12:2)
• It's great to read about Christian brothers and sisters of the past too, as well as looking to actually living brothers and sisters who are showing the life of Jesus everyday (Philippians 3:17)
• Jesus is alive and is currently mediating for me directly (1 Timothy 2:5-6)
• Because he is a faithful high priest, I can enter the throne of grace boldly (Hebrews 4:14-16)

Do I mind Michelangelo's Pieta? Of course not. Am I going to campaign for another "Bonfire of the Vanities"? I've got better things to do...like hear from Jesus in his word and behold him (Hebrews 2:9). There are so many living humans who have met him and are being transformed into his likeness. I can't wait to hear more from them because I see Jesus in their lives!

ViaCrucis said:

Iconoclasm was a reaction toward what appeared to be God favoring another political power over Rome, and thus in order to regain God's political favor one needed to do away with the images

Click to expand...

Yes.

ViaCrucis said:

to be more like the guys who were winning.

Click to expand...

But was it that, or what was written in the O.T.?

ViaCrucis said:

the Second Council of Nicea ruled in favor of the Iconodule position and against the Iconoclast position as heretical

Click to expand...

The East does seem to still disapprove of the veneration of statues, though.

ViaCrucis said:

the real problem with Iconoclasm is what it says about Christ and God's own engagement with the world.

Does God work through material, tangible, physical means--as the entire witness of Christian orthodoxy has always maintained; or is God's work always esoteric, immaterial, etc as so many heretics have said since the days of the Gnostics.

Click to expand...

False dichotomy. I believe in the Incarnation; I do not believe in idol-worship. I believe that God works through material, tangible, physical means; I do not venerate icons of those means.

ViaCrucis said:

Icons matter, the Sacraments matter

Click to expand...

The Sacraments were explicitly instituted by Jesus.

I look in vain through my New Testament for the verse that says "make to yourselves graven images, and venerate them."

Radagast said:

The East does seem to still disapprove of the veneration of statues, though.

Click to expand...

Yes, and images of the Father and Spirit are still noncanonical. Nicea II was not a fiat declaration that all possible types of images are acceptable; there are guidelines that conform to the historic Christian confession.

I think, as far as appropriate iconography goes, things like Michaelangelo's Creation of Adam has more problems than statues of Virgin and Child. It's certainly beautiful art, but it is entirely inappropriate as sacred imagery as it depicts the Father directly. This is again a matter of good Christology: We already have the Father's sacred image, His Incarnate Son and Word, Jesus Christ. Icons of Christ already give us the Father's image, because the Father's image is found in Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

Gracia Singh said:

Images are a reflection of the Incarnate God who loves us, became visible, and died for us, and of the love through which He unites souls to Himself (the Saints). There is great meaning in beauty, and beautiful Christian religious art can bring souls to Christ, and the knowlege of Christ to souls.

Click to expand...

Hi Gracia,

Thank you for your clarification. I appreciate the importance of aesthetic experience, but God has already provided for that in Creation (Psalm 19) in His Word (Psalm 119) Why do we need a reflection when we have the reality of God's presence in us? ( 1 Cor. 6:19) Each brother or sister in Christ is an incarnation of Christ. (Matthew 25:40). I appreciate the artistry and beauty of each "new creation" made in the image of Christ in newness of life.

I suppose that in the final analysis, my main objection is that icons are an impoverishment not an enrichment; a mediated experience rather than a direct experience.

By the way, I don't mean that I don't enjoy human craftsmanship and storytelling (art, music, poetry, film, dance, etc.) that seeks to portray and capture aspects of God's goodness. As an artist and musician myself, I am very keen on creative expression as a way to make God's character (which is his beauty) known.

As to your last sentence, while I agree that there is great meaning in beauty, only the Father and Spirit draw souls to Christ (John 6:44, John 16:8-10) and they can use many different means. Maybe as a way to personalize this topic, you could share a specific way that the knowledge of Christ has been made known to you through an icon?

Ing Bee said:

I suppose that in the final analysis, my main objection is that icons are an impoverishment not an enrichment; a mediated experience rather than a direct experience.

Click to expand...

The only experiences of God we have are mediated ones. The alternative would be death, "No one can see Me and live." I mean, if you want to know what a direct, unmediated experience of God is like, just ask the guys who tried to carry the Ark of the Covenant who fell down deader than a doornail.

-CryptoLutheran

David Cabrera said:

when you say we do "idol worship" which I told you we don't do.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that.

Ing Bee said:

There's a logic problem in your example above, a fallacy known as equivocation. You are employing an etymological version of it. You seem to be saying that since our modern word "icon" is derived from the greek eikon, then they must be the same thing. If you do a quick word study on eikon it simply means "image", including coins ( Matthew 22:20) and idols (Romans 1:23), as well as Christians conforming to Christ (1 Corinthians 15:49), and even the statue of "the Beast" which, if you're counting, has a whopping 10 usages of the word almost half of the total times the lexeme appears in the New Testament (Revelation 13:14).

Click to expand...

That is precisely the point, my friend: that an icon is just an image. It is not replacing God, or thought of as God, or given worship due to God, or any of this other stuff that occurs in the minds of the iconoclasts and nowhere else (certainly not in reality, where again, it's just an image). So it is not me who is employing this fallacy by pointing that out (though I didn't do so as explicitly as you have, because I figured the point would be understood by looking at the word itself), but the iconoclast who makes of the image so much more than what it is. The properly catechized Christian knows what they are doing and why, and knows the boundaries. (This is not to imply that everyone who venerates an icon is therefore by that act properly catechized, of course, just pointing out that it's not the iconophiles who make icons out to be more than they are.)

In the passage you sight from Colossians 1, Christ is identified the "exact representation", meaning he is God.

Click to expand...

Amen.

The point Paul is making is not that he is an image, but that, like a coin made from an impression, he has the full value of the coin.

Click to expand...

Sure.

You've employed another logical fallacy here: a loaded question.

Click to expand...

Purposely so, yes! It's a common tactic to try to draw people to a particular conclusion, since I want the iconoclasts to see what is truly behind the proper veneration of images: the affirmation of the reality of the incarnation, and hence the proper Christological understanding of what living in a post-incarnational world really means, where we are all preparing to be saints, we have all put on Christ, and so on.

Of course, the issue "iconoclasts" take is not with worshipping Christ or that he is visible. No Christian debates that Christ came in the flesh, that's the spirit of the anti-Christ according to 2 John 1:17.

Click to expand...

Again, I specified that it is an implicit denial. I know that no Christian debates that; plenty just act like they do anyway.

The question would be better stated: is it better to worship the actual Jesus who, as God, is everywhere present and always available to worship directly or to direct your attention to a statue/icon/etc. that is neither a photograph or a live-feed from heaven.

Click to expand...

Why do you introduce this artificial division in the first place? Is that not again the point of the incarnation, at this level of discussion: that Christ our God, the one true God, came down from heaven and was incarnate as a true, living man, in body and with a rational soul and all this? That is "the actual Jesus", that is what He actually did. It's just a fact of history that He was incarnate before a time when there were such things as "live feeds" or photographs, but if it were otherwise we could have just as easily taken a photograph of Him or made a video with Him. Instead we have icons.

Your attempt to introduce an artificial division between heaven and earth does not work with the One who united the two in the first place.

As you know, Jesus -an actual person who is alive and ruling and has always been the Son of God - is not an image made by human hands. Paul used figurative language to make the point. He was making sure everyone knew Jesus was God, not reducing him to a carved image.

Click to expand...

And neither does anyone else.

Since your case thus far is standing on two logical fallacies, in this paragraph you kind of sweep your own legs (sKarate Kid reference), by saying your comparison doesn't hold. But then, magically, your denial of your own comparison is grounds ("That's just it, though...") why icons are a testament to Christ's incarnation. They are not literally his flesh (or anyone else's, hopefully) so they are not incarnations (carne meaning "flesh"). A statue of Mickey Mouse does not bear witness that there is an actual Mickey Mouse who appeared in real time.

Click to expand...

You are taking good time to talk about my supposed 'fallacies', but what about your own misunderstanding of the icon, or what the word "testament" means? I nowhere claimed (nor would have claimed...yikes) that icons are literally made of Christ's flesh or anyone else's, so this is a bizarre diversion based on I don't know what. Nothing I wrote. Icons being a testament to the reality of the incarnation and Christ's true working in the world in the lives of the saints and His Church don't necessitate or even imply such a thing. We still have icons of those saints whose bodies we have with us which have been buried at various churches or monasteries over the centuries, such as St. Anthony (the Father of the Monks), St. Paul of Temoh, and St. Bishoy.

Come on, it's just too silly! There is no statue of my wife, yet I believe she is real.

Click to expand...

There is no Christological controversy surrounding the reality of your wife, either.

I've never seen the Jefferson Memorial, but I am confident that since I live in a country he helped to found, he really existed. His writings, his home, and family members are ample testament to that. The real evidence that Christ is in the world and has been in the world, is you, me and everyone else who knows him as Lord, Savior, Teacher, Friend, High Priest, etc.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. What are the people of today but the saints of tomorrow? May we all be so recognized by living the lives which bear witness to Him in every age. The point is only that we remember such people, with hymns, icons, naming churches after them, etc. This used to be the common way of keeping our collective memory across the entire Christian world before some of the more radical Protestants came along and developed a view of Christianity that made this some sort of problem, but those people were and are wrong about that. Many of the earliest reformers, in fact, kept the veneration of saints while attempting to prune it in practice of some of its more egregious Roman Catholic errors (as they saw it). I used to live just down the road from an Anglican church dedicated to St. Andrew, for instance, and there was another in the area dedicated to an English martyr whose name I cannot remember (Edward something, I think). It is those who object to these sort of practices that must defend their innovations, rather than pointing outward at everyone else for doing what Christians have already been doing for centuries.

To summarize the argument: If you don't make and venerate statues of people then Jesus didn't exist and had no effect on anyone.

Click to expand...

Errrr...what? No, I'm certainly not arguing that anyone make or venerate statues. Outside of the very limited context in which they have been used in Egyptian monasteries of long ago, I do not believe that the use of statuary ever developed to such an extent in the Eastern churches as it did in the Western churches. I personally would not ever venerate a statue. Coptic iconography goes completely the other way. (I've had some EO tell me that they couldn't venerate it because it wasn't realistic enough, and they tend to pride themselves on the deliberately unrealistic nature of their icons vis-a-vis Western realism.)

The argument is rather that it is an implicit (again, implicit) denial of the reality of the incarnation by behaving as though Christ's incarnation had no true effect on the world. This point was more to the rejection of the veneration of saints which tends to lie behind a certain type of modern iconoclasm than any command to do anything. I don't frankly care if another Christian does not personally use icons (some Christian traditions, like the Church of the East/Persian Church/Nestorian Church, have been effectively aiconic since c. 12th century), but I care very much their reasons for not doing so, if they are going to take what they present as a very principled and Christian stand against the normative practice of the Church for well over a millennia or longer.

By the way, what "places and things" has he resided in? Jesus never promised the Holy Spirit would inhabit non-humans or locations.

Click to expand...

He went to Egypt with His family, for one, as you can read in the Gospel of St. Matthew. You can still visit places where they stayed, like the tree of the Theotokos in El Matareya suburb of Cairo.

Or there's all of the Holy Land: Gethsemane, the Tomb of St. Mary, St. Mark's mother's home where the Last Supper was held, etc.

You conclude with one more fallacy, the always popular "straw man". You've set up your summary so that a denial of icons is a denial of the incarnation. Since no Christian denies that Christ came in the flesh this paragraph is incoherent.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you've just missed the word "implicit" in the original post, but this has been addressed several times by now. What you are apparently responding to is not even something I claimed in the post in question.

Here are just a few reasons why icons are unnecessary:

• through the Spirit, we are connected to the very life of God (Ephesians 1:13-14).
• In the past, Yahweh revealed himself through the prophets, but his final word was His Son, who perfectly represented the Father (Hebrews 1:-2).
• The full measure of God's agape love was made visible on the cross (Romans 5:8) so we never have to wonder about it ever again.
• In Christ we have every blessing we need to live in fellowship with God (Ephesians 1:3-14).
• We are so closely connected to Jesus through the Spirit that we have his mind (1 Corinthians 2:16).
• Rather than look to images of wood or stone, we can recall who he is, what he said, and what he did by reading and reflecting on the biblical record. (Hebrews 12:2)
• It's great to read about Christian brothers and sisters of the past too, as well as looking to actually living brothers and sisters who are showing the life of Jesus everyday (Philippians 3:17)
• Jesus is alive and is currently mediating for me directly (1 Timothy 2:5-6)
• Because he is a faithful high priest, I can enter the throne of grace boldly (Hebrews 4:14-16)

Do I mind Michelangelo's Pieta? Of course not. Am I going to campaign for another "Bonfire of the Vanities"? I've got better things to do...like hear from Jesus in his word and behold him (Hebrews 2:9). There are so many living humans who have met him and are being transformed into his likeness. I can't wait to hear more from them because I see Jesus in their lives!

Click to expand...

This is what I would call a basic difference in what the Greeks call phronema -- something like 'mindset' or 'outlook'. That's a word used by our father the holy St. Paul a few times in the Holy Scriptures (e.g., Romans 8) to differentiate between the different ways we may look at things. Crucially here, the holy saint tells us (verses 9 and 10) "And ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God doth dwell in you; and if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ -- this one is not His; and if Christ [is] in you, the body, indeed, [is] dead because of sin, and the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness."

"if indeed", that we might remember that any good blessing of which you do graciously remind us is in this sense conditional, as everything you have written from the scriptures is true, but the question of whether or not it follows the mind of Christ and His Church is still open, because we cannot say that Christ practiced this kind of minimalism whereby because something is deemed "unnecessary" according to some measure (yours, mine, etc.), therefore we discard it or feel free to stand away from it because we have access to Him in some other way. It is better instead that we bring our first fruits to God. Christ, in fact, told those who criticized the woman for anointing Him with expensive perfume (Mark 14, Matthew 26, Luke 7, John 12) that what she has done is good, because "the poor you will always have with you."

We who always have Christ (or assume we do) ought not to be minimalist with the excuse that this is more in keeping with His mind or what have you. It is not so, as He clearly established a pattern of community that was meant to last until His return (having 12 apostles and the 70, calling all to preach His gospel among the nations, telling the amazed Saul in his vision to go into the city and meet the preexisting Christian community there, etc).

And so if it is true that our life and our death are with our brothers (to quote St. Anthony), then not only can we not be minimalist and say "icons are unnecessary, therefore XYZ (or) because XYZ", but we must actually live and act and worship as though this is the case. That's the entire point of my post: it is the reality of Christ's incarnation and the transformation of the creation in this post-incarnational world that makes icons what they are, not what you or I or anyone can say about all the other ways we can access Christ.

Christ gave us one particular prayer to pray (the 'Our Father'), yet I somehow doubt that you or anyone would say that this is "unnecessary" because look at all the other prayers we could pray instead (~ all the other ways we have to connect with God). Well, by the same token, Christ's incarnation gave us the theology of the icon, which rests upon the reality of His coming and the true effect that it has had on humanity and the whole creation, the saints of all time bearing witness as shown in our liturgies, midnight praises, and the other treasures of the Church. Most definitely including its icons.

If you want to live without all of that, that is up to you, but for traditional Christians, "unnecessary" is not a fit description of icons or even more broadly the approach to the faith. Again, chalk this up to a difference in mindset/outlook.

Thanks for your in-depth reply. I appreciate getting to know why someone would disagree on this topic, since it involves (for us iconodules, anyway) so much basic Christian theology.

David Cabrera said:

#72
"False dichotomy. I believe in the Incarnation; I do not believe in idol-worship"

Click to expand...

I said: "False dichotomy. I believe in the Incarnation; I do not believe in idol-worship. I believe that God works through material, tangible, physical means; I do not venerate icons of those means."

I stand by all five of those statements.