Thanks for your reply. I will agree with you that it definitely is a difference in mindset.
Yes, I think that's most of what we're dealing with.
On the subject of "implicit denial" I will just say that it is not possible to implicitly deny something while simultaneously explicitly affirming it. If you think otherwise, I would appreciate an example that does not employ divine knowledge (e.g. "They honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me").
Regarding your example, couldn't it be said that as the scriptures also say "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" , this does not necessitate any divine knowledge? Because I would use a similar sort of example, as when St. Paul says to the Romans (7:22-23)
"For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." This is not so much a specific example of that in action, but an affirmation of the fact that such things can happen: we can know what is right, and act otherwise. We can affirm what is true in our words, but deny it in our actions. The
implicit denial is in the behavior (in this case, iconoclasm), while the explicit affirmation remains. Those who were iconoclasts within the Byzantine Church were fellow Christians, after all. They surely didn't think they were doing anything but prohibiting 'idolatry' or some such explanation, just as the modern iconoclasts have said.
In an attempt to be fair, I know that one of many possible responses to this could be that those who disapprove of the use of icons are not "warring against the law of (their) mind(s)" or anything like that -- they really do not believe that the use of icons is appropriate, and hence there is no internal conflict of this kind. The issue is, however, with this difference of mindset we agree is there, because for the iconophilic traditions, this is a way by which we affirm the incarnation, making it not so much a matter of preference, but a matter of theology. Thus it can be fairly said, in this context, that if you will not venerate icons, your theology is at least somewhat suspect. Compare, for the sake of illustration, Nestorius' use of "Christotokos" in place of "Theotokos" -- there could conceivably be some circumstance in which "Christotokos" as a Christological title is appropriate and orthodox, but the reluctance to affirm the common term, which had been in use by that point for about 180 years (first appearing in the hymn "Beneath Thy Protection", attested to from c. 250 AD in a manuscript of the Coptic Nativity liturgy) is cause for concern, and upon pressing him to defend himself at Ephesus in 431, the fathers there found in him a lack of firm conviction in the core Christological truths which are expressed via the use of the term Theotokos (namely, the union of the natures and the eternity of Christ in His divinity; Nestorius once said that he refused to worship a God who was once an infant, implying a radical disjunction between "Jesus the person" and "Christ as God").
This is, I believe, a similar sort of case, and may explain why the OP or the subsequent posts seem inflammatory. The theology of the icon is such that rejecting icons
period is a sign of deep theological problems. That said, I would like to apologize if any of that falls on me, but I also want to emphasize how serious this matter is for the iconophilic traditions. I'm sorry if you anyone here felt personally attacked or slandered by anything I have written. In this case, I can't back away from it, but I can promise to listen and consider things from other viewpoints. There are what I have called "aiconic" (so not anti-iconic/iconoclastic, just not really using them) traditions, such as the Church of the East I previously mentioned, and at least in my own communion it has been said (somewhat wrongly, though I can see why they'd think that) that the Armenians make far less use of icons than others, because with the exception of some churches in Armenia proper and Iran, Armenian churches usually aren't covered in icons as a Greek Orthodox or other Eastern Orthodox Church might be. The reasons for this are are at least partly historical (again, the Oriental Orthodox communion was long out of the picture by the time of the Chalcedonians' 7th ecumenical council in the 8th century, and we never had major outbreaks of iconoclasm as the Byzantine church did), but also seemingly due to development in other areas. No other church, for instance, developed such a tradition of incredibly fine stonework in making huge crosses (called
Khachkars in Armenian) as the Armenians did:
(Khachkar outside of Goshavank monastery in N. Armenia, 13th century)
And anyway, there are Armenian churches that are covered in icons, or at least artistic depictions of Biblical scenes (not sure where the line is with Armenian iconography, but these look very Western to me; nice, but obviously not in line with what you'll find in
earlier Armenian illustrated manuscripts, another thing they absolutely excelled at and the place where you're more likely to find Armenian iconography on display):
Vank Cathedral, New Julfa district in Isfahan, Iran (completed 1664)
The point of all this is that it's not inherently wrong to have variation in the type or 'frequency' of iconography, but the theological principles that underlie whatever it is we do (not just in choosing to use/not use icons) must be sound. This is why I wrote in one of my other posts that if all people can say about icons is something about what the
Jews were allowed or not allowed, then I don't think the anti-icon side has any real claim to the Christian religion. (Yes, I am being serious.) The line between incorporating Jewish practices or theology (not all of which were aiconic or anti-iconic to begin with; note again the Dura-Europos synagogue paintings) was settled long before any whispers of iconoclasm
or iconophilia, and to the extent that some Christians did express what would've later been called iconoclastic tendencies -- e.g., the Council of Elvira, c. 305 -- the consensus of the particular churches concerned with said canons (in the case of Elvira, the Roman/Latin/Western Church) was apparently to let them fall by the wayside, as obviously Roman/Latin churches have iconography in them, as Romans are, like the Orthodox, strong iconophiles. Only the Protestants (and then only some of them) went backwards in time to find justification to attempt to undo what had been accepted in the Church by great struggle
due to its theological significance.
I enjoy the back and forth, but the way the topic was framed is possibly unnecessarily inflammatory.
Yes, and again I am sympathetic to that in the sense that if I viewed things as a matter of choice, aesthetics, or 'guarding against idolatry' (which I obviously don't, hence the scare quotes), I would think this reaction to be entirely inappropriate, over the top, and frankly pretty rude. That I don't view it that way at all, but instead view the opposition as suspect at best (being rooted in very Jewish concerns, rather than uniquely Christian theology as the iconophiles are), is a clear sign of the great difference in mindset on this topic.
I suppose I just don't understand how someone (not you specifically, but literally anyone, as I've heard variations on this argument for years) can claim to affirm the incarnation, and love Christ, and love His saints, and all this, and yet back away when worship involves veneration of people and places that He has especially blessed in a manner that is altogether too
physical for some. After all, if we were to simply sing a hymn or a praise song saying
"Thank you God for giving us such fine examples to live by as the apostles who brought us Your word throughout the ages", most likely the Protestants would all shout
"Alleluia!", as it contains nothing that would offend them on a theological level. It is bland and safe enough (and indeed is something we could say). But if we sing
"The exposition of your name is in the mouth of all the believers; All of them proclaim, 'O God of St. ______, help us all!'"*, it is likely to become some kind of big problem, because woahhhh there...that's
to a saint/in the name of a saint, and so it is verboten. Nevermind the part where it is
literally to God ("O God
of the saint, help us all!"), we must wonder if the incarnation is truly affirmed, then where is the holiness to be found in believers such that we can call upon one another in times of stress, joy, etc., confident that we are one body in Christ and the bond of faith is not broken by departure from this life to the next? Is that not, after all, the ultimate point of the Lord's coming and His sacrifice upon the holy wood of the cross? You know, "that whoever believes in Him shall
not die, but have eternal life"?
Again, the point is to see the theology in action. If you back away when it becomes 'too much about other people' or some such (even though everything is constantly about what
God has done through them, which is entirely scriptural, cf. Philippians 1:6 and others), we wonder if Christ's coming was about serving and transforming the creation, where is the accompanying theology? "Oh no, God alone, God alone", as one of the
Solas would have it (though I do wonder if they were meant to be taken that way)...yes, you are leaving God alone! He came
to us and said that wherever
two or three are gathered in His name, He is there among them (in a verse alluding to the rendering of verdicts in the context of Church discipline, cf. Deuteronomy 17 and 19, which this saying clearly alludes to; I hope its clear now why I placed much importance on the Council of Jerusalem earlier, and why all traditional Christians accept at least some ecumenical councils). This not only indicates His divine presence among the leaders of His Church, but also in a more general sense that Christianity is not meant to be the religion of the individual meeting God (though that obviously does happen), because it's not about the individual, but about
God. We didn't come to God (we couldn't; we were dead in our sins) -- He came to us. As Moses in the old times was told upon seeing the burning bush, "Remove your sandals, for you are standing on holy ground", we must also recognize that we do not come to God on our own terms. And with the incarnation of Christ,
all ground is holy ground, such that it is meet and right that we should be rooted in this very bridge between the heavens and the earth created with the incarnation, until such time as He comes again and there is no longer a need for it. One of our bishops, HG Bishop Moussa, has said that a great joy of heaven will be that all of the saints we were asking for intercession while on earth will be there with us. "We called upon Mari Mina, and there he is! We called upon St. George, and there he is! We called upon the most holy Theotokos, and there she is!"
Will it be wrong to worship in prayer with them
then? No, right? Surely all praise in heaven itself is directed only to God, and at that point there will be no separation between us and them as we stand side by side, praising endlessly before the throne of God. So there go the "it distracts from God" or "it's wrong to contact the dead" kinds of objections. And then what is left? Something about the laws the Jews were given? If the law was fulfilled on Earth by Christ (which it was), then it's not going to be back in force in heaven of all places!
What we say with icons is not only that it will not be wrong then, but that it is in fact not wrong
now, either, as there is no separation between the faithful in Christ. Not even in death. We even say in the Coptic funerary rites "for there is no death for Your servants, but a departure".
There is no death. That is the reality of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection (His victory over death) affirmed in the intercession of saints, just as the reality of His incarnation is affirmed in the icon. As all these things are tightly connected in this way, people coming along however many centuries later to say
no, the Bible says XYZ, therefore none of that is real/should be engaged in is not just a misreading of the scriptures, but a denial of the history we've
already lived that has shown to us since the time of St. Mark (in the case of my own Church; others have different apostolic founders) what is within the bounds of the true faith and what is not. That is generally really unappreciated, just as you guys do not like this thread that has been boiled down by others to "Why doesn't everyone become Eastern Orthodox" (I don't read it that way, but of course I agree with the OP on this topic, so...) due to its presupposition that everyone should already be doing as they do. Is it inflammatory that you should stick by your convictions in this (in saying that no, you don't need to adopt Eastern Orthodox practices, even if that's not what the OP actually meant)? No.
Well I fail to see how the iconophile is really doing anything all that different, at this level.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion. Sorry again if at any point my reply is a bit too strong. I mean nothing personal by way of spiritual judgment against anyone, as that is left up to God.
* This is the standard closing stanza for all Arabic-language Coptic Orthodox glorification hymns for any saint; the use of the word 'exposition' (for Arabic
tafsir, which is what we might call "exegesis") makes it sound a bit awkward in English, perhaps, but it works well with the Arabic, both in meter and in meaning,
