Building on an old post from Nov 07 - More on icons

Originally posted here, but relevant to the discussions going on at Triablogue, at TurretinFan's blog, at Defending...Contending, and here with respect to visual depictions of Jesus.

I will post the original and then the further conversations that the email correspondent, who is apparently a friend of TurretinFan, and I had.
His name will not be shared, b/c and only b/c I reserve the right to post names of email correspondents along with their email to me if I choose to do so, but in this case see no reason to.  Of course he may reveal himself as the correspondent if he likes.

-----------------Original post begins-----

I was recently asked by email: I was wondering what you believe concerning "art" that attempts to represent "Christ" and God. Is such art idolatrous?

It depends. Either way, I think the question of icons and art must be parsed carefully.
1) On the one hand we ask whether it's permissible to have icons, even icons in the church but placed outside the sanctuary/room of worship, that do NOT represent Christ or God. Say they represent saints who have gone before. John Chrysostom, Charles Spurgeon, John Calvin, Athanasius, etc. Just by themselves, what would be the problem? I can't see one.

2) What if they're IN the room of worship? Again, I personally don't see a problem. Of course, at some point Roman 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 ('the weaker brother') come into play, but I'm assuming there are none such present.

3) The problem comes when religious practices of devotion and piety are conducted towards said icons. I don't care what our Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends say about not praying TO the icons. When someone lights a candle in front of an icon, kneels before the icon, prostrates himself before the icon, prays to(wards) the icon, how is it not worshipful devotion?

4) The problem is greatly worsened when the wrongheaded and foolish idea of praying to someone other than God is introduced, virtually always in conjunction with the presence of an icon or statue. This is adding a mediator (in RC theology) between man and Jesus and therefore between God and man in violation of 1 Timothy 2:5. And this is where idolatry really comes into play, for religious practices of devotion and piety are given to persons who are not God. God alone deserves such practices; no person does.

5) And remember, these people are DEAD. There are multiple biblical injunctions against calling up the dead, such as Isaiah 8:19-20, Deut 18:10-12, etc. I don't see a problem thinking that the dead can and maybe do pray for us, but it does not follow that we can or should contact them and ask for that. We're not supposed to talk to the dead. Talk to God.

6) Now, the question of having an icon of Christ...you know, I don't see why not (at least right now, but I'm open to convincing the other way), to be honest. He was incarnate in flesh, after all, so He was tangible, visible, etc. What might be wrong with depicting Him in His incarnation?

7) Whether we should have an icon of the Father, I'd have to say no way. Unfortunately, some EOdox and RC icons do represent the Father, which is a huge mistake.

Now, as regards the history of iconoclasts/iconodules, I don't know a ton. I do know that asking an EO about the iconoclastic Council of Hieria of 754 is always a good starting point - why is it not an Ecumenical Council while the iconodule 2nd Council of Constantinople is? The only answer I have seen is "The Church says the former isn't and the latter is", which is highly instructive in and of itself.
An interesting interaction on the topic recently took place here. See this post (where the question is asked), the one right above where it's answered, and this post, where it's gone over again.

Finally, I'll forestall a couple of possible objections.
3) It's not latria, it's dulia.

Here are some instructive articles on the topic.

The long and short of my response:
-In the OT LXX, the phrase "worship and serve" occurs many times, and is translated from "douleo" and "latreuo" (or sthg like that). They are very often in conjunction with each other.
-Sometimes they are even juxtaposed within the same thought, demonstrating that they are similar ideas.
-Thus it is unbiblical to create an artificial distinction between them, even less to ignore biblical revelation for the sake of human traditions (Mark 7:1-13).
-Scenario: an Israelite has been calling up a dead believing ancestor and has been caught and brought before Moses for judgment.
His defense: I was dulia-ing my ancestor, not latria-ing him.
Is it your position that he would be exonerated? Should he be?

4) Are you saying you never ask anyone to pray for you? Wouldn't that be mediation?

-I fail to see how they're the same. In RC doctrine, these mediators dispense grace and merit. My friends don't; they just pray for me.
-They're also seen in many circles as preferable to ask for spiritual help rather than Jesus. Amazing.

5) "God is the god of the living, not the dead". There is but a thin veil between the living and the dead. You ask your living brethren in Christ to intercede for you; why not your dead ones?

-When I ask someone to pray for me who's alive, I ask him.
-When you ask a dead person to pray for you, you light candles, kneel and prostrate yourself before an icon, kiss the icon, burn incense, and pray at the icon. These are worshipful actions.
-Hopefully, you never pray silently and expect them to hear you, lest you think they are endowed upon death with the powers of telepathy.
-I challenge you: next time you want your church family to pray for you, make an icon of them, put it in the church, then do all the things you normally do when you ask St. Athanasius, for example, to intercede for you. But don't TELL them face to face; since your challenge is that it's the same, let it be the same.
-Scenario: an Israelite has been calling up a dead believing ancestor and has been caught and brought before Moses for judgment.
His defense: God is the god of the living, not the dead.
Is it your position that he would be exonerated? Should he be?


7) But the Father was revealed in Christ.

-But I already said that I don't know of a problem (yet) with an icon of Christ, so have an icon of Christ.
-The Father dwells in unapproachable light (1 Timothy 6); there is no way to depict such.

--------------His response begins-------------

I was introduced to your blog after having read your comments @ Jill Martin Rische's blog -- during the Evangelical-Mormon debate -- and Mr. Beckwith's Roman Catholicism...

Most of your points were quite clear -- I think we agree on quite a few of them; however, the main disagreement we have concerns attempted representations of Christ. 

So, concerning attempted representations of Christ: First, Christ is both fully God and fully man. When a person (not God) attempts to represent Christ they are attempting to create an image of God (Christ) -- however, the image is made like unto corruptible man -- this is one of the problems (there were many problems) some people saw with Mel Gibson's Passion movie -- the actor was a corruptible (sinful) man. So, when artists attempt to represent Christ -- his humanity and deity -- they end up creating a false (not true) image -- an image of a corruptible man -- a creature (not the Creator), which attempts to represent Christ; so they exchange the truth of God (as revealed in God's word) for a lie -- a vain image. According to Romans 1:21-23 we shouldn't do this...

Also, Acts 17:29 says that, "[...]we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." The Godhead - the Trinity -- The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit... We ought not even think that the Godhead is like unto art and man's device...

And, one of the reasons I questioned such images was because I'm an art student -- and the Humanist Universities deceive students with idolatrous images (many Roman Catholic images, some "Protestant" images).

I hope I made sense in my e-mail and that I clarified some points -- if I knew Scripture better I would be able to explain things better... "For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light." (Psalm 36:9)

Dunbar's book covers some of the finer points and arguments (for and against -- e.g. the incarnation of Christ). However, perhaps I'm missing, or misunderstanding, something in God's word? The Greek or the Hebrew?

Thanks for removing the person-specific info.

May God's grace be with you,

_________

PS: Also, Deut 4:15-16 is another OT ref.

--------------My response begins-----------

Good talking to you! 
Thanks for your thoughts.
You know, I'm not married to the one view or the other at this point.  I definitely feel you on the wariness of representing God in an image, and I tried to express that in my point on not representing the Father.  Christ took on mortal flesh, as I'm sure you agree, and so He looked like a human, dressed like a human, WAS a human.  I don't know if it's so bad to represent that in an image, but maybe it is.  I'm open to persuasion either way. 

Just curious - what did you think about my points 1 and 2, about representing dead people who weren't Christ?

-----------His response begins------------

---1) On the one hand we ask whether it's permissible to have icons, even icons in the church but placed outside the sanctuary/room of worship, that do NOT represent Christ or God. Say they represent saints who have gone before. John Chrysostom, Charles Spurgeon, John Calvin, Athanasius, etc. Just by themselves, what would be the problem? I can't see one.

I don't see a problem with representing people who have passed away -- hopefully they are still living though -- in Heaven. 

---2) What if they're IN the room of worship? Again, I personally don't see a problem. Of course, at some point Roman 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 ('the weaker brother') come into play, but I'm assuming there are none such present.

There are some potential problems with art in a worship room or house/apartment (many Christians have met in houses -- and still do). The question must come up -- what kind of art? 1.) It shouldn't attempt to represent God. 2.) Some people have used aborted babies in their "art" -- we shouldn't do that. 3.) Also, one should make sure the art wasn't lewd or depraved.

Also, you do mention "the weaker brother" which can be a valid point.

------------My response begins----------------

Agreed on all that. 

Good talking to you.
---------------His response begins------------------
 Oh, and does it glorify God?

--------------My response begins---------------
 Ah, yes.
You know, I really do think that icons of believers who have died can glorify God greatly if understood correctly and if taught correctly by the elders of the church.  That would help avoid the weaker brother thing and would guard against theological/idolatrous error.

If I ever planted a church and had influence in it, I might consider introducing such icons.  One positive reason to do that would be to aid in teaching Church History in the church.  Sadly most Christians believe church history refers to when Billy Graham was a young man, you know?  It would be great to teach the good and the bad about such men as Athanasius and Ignatius, etc.

(To be continued)