so back to the image you condemn, it is the image of the Father through the image of Jesus, it is the image of the Holy Spirit through the image of Christ and the image as Christ as Christ himself differentiated by the symbols they bear. Is this in line with scripture? why would you condemn this representation over the myriad of old man images out there? It would seem this image tries to stay away from stereotypes and extra-biblical images depictions of God the Father almost to awkward levels.
I could have just as easily used
this image to indicate one that is problematic. It's not depicting the Father as looking like Jesus that I was saying was problematic, it's the intent to give form to the invisible Father itself. When we behold an image of Christ, we are seeing a representation of Christ, the Son, through whom we also behold the Father. That is a different matter. The Father in His Hypostasis cannot be depicted, instead we see the Father in the Hypostasis of the Son. It may sound like mere semantics, but it's a very important theological distinction to be made.
Also to me implicit in the image of the arm or hand of God is the body and face of God. It may be a widely accept symbol but I don't think it is very responsible if the goal is not to depict the Father in image but rather in symbol. I know it is traditionally endorsed so there is no changing it but I would think there are better ways to do this than a hand coming out of a cloud which just reinforces all kinds of stereotypes.
Perhaps, but there is biblical precedent in that kind of figurative language to speak of God. At that point one could also argue that imagery of the "Ancient of Days" could be acceptable on a similar basis, via the 7th chapter of Daniel. I acknowledge the matter is grey rather than black and white. Ultimately, for me, the question is how we are communicating our theology here. Is there a danger in the "Ancient of Days" imagery that might lead to errant ideas where God is "a bearded old man with a robe", and if so does that itself warrant a very cautious use of it? Whereas I think the symbols such as the eye or hand of providence is more easily recognizeable for their symbolism rather than as direct representation.
I'd argue that we shouldn't use direct representation, indirect symbols are more acceptable.
Of course the Father can never be truly be captured in image. Christ is the image of the invisible God but I think this is more to do with the incarnation than anything else. Scripturally we made in the image of God too but we understand this more abstractly than our physical characteristics. Violated the 2nd commandment has a lot of intent in it and a statue or painting is not inherently the problem. The post-exodus Israelites were somewhat predisposed to idolatry and the 2nd commandment was made under this context. Although I can't speak to the early church but today modern western civilization is pretty abstract and our spiritual battles tend not to be about wooden or stone idols any more so I can't see an image or carving of God the Father really in violation of the 2nd commandment because it's not relevant to us anymore. We look at it as art and really nothing more... however there are religious trappings that still capture this predisposition and value power in "things" which can be harmful when projected to images of saints or of God. We still need to be careful but I certainly is less of an issue and this is only for western thought... there still are other cultures where these values to abstain from these images would still be wise.
I don't think images that show the Father are idolatrous. I don't want it to be seen as though that has been my position. My position has been that it is theologically errant/problematic. I'm not worried about idolatry here, my concern is that we are conveying bad theology in doing so. I consider myself an Iconodule, Iconoclasm is heretical; but I also think there are good reasons why there have been certain rules surrounding icons and other sacred images. Because icons are supposed to draw us into what they convey, and thus icons, like any other form of theological communication, should have some rigor to its language.
-CryptoLutheran
