Iconoclastic Controversy
A controversy in the 8th century erupted over icons in the church. On one side that included the Emperor Leo III, icons and images only spawned idolatry. His concern wasn’t without merit, for there were Christians, especially in the East who saw icons as “channels through which Christ was speaking to them and through which God was blessing them.” It’s almost as if such things had become sacramental to those seeking connection with the Divine.
But not everyone saw it this way, including the theologian named John of Damascus. John saw value in images and pictures to serve as a visual book for the laity, especially the illiterate. Pictures could serve a purpose in depicting biblical stories and events. He also saw a distinction between “veneration” and “worship” alongside the difference between the likeness of an object and saying it’s the equivalent. Similitude and equality aren’t the same thing, argued John. The Second Council of Nicaea would convene to handle the controversy and eventually sided with John on the matter, carefully delineating between venerating an object depicting Christ and serving as a reminder of His Gospel testified in the Bible and the actual worshiping of an object as something divine in some perverse sacramental manner.
This distinction affirmed by the Second Council of Nicaea is still sound and helpful. Images, icons, and statues can certainly depict and remind us of our Lord’s work, such as the beautiful crucifix calling to mind Jesus’ suffering and death as testified in the Bible. It’s important to note images and icons exist in the Church where the Word is front and center, never to be replaced by statues and images. Stained glass, beautiful paraments with biblical iconography, the children’s book full of detailed pictures reflecting a bible story: these things have a place upon the foundation of the written and proclaimed Word of God. Without question worshiping any image or statue, making it something God never promised is the idolatry the Iconoclasts were concerned about.
Today many churches have worship spaces that appear more like auditoriums or fancy meeting rooms minus any allusion to Christ crucified. Images, crucifixes, and stained glass almost seem taboo in these places. Part of this could be an aversion to God working through creation. Such churches also deny the efficacy of the sacraments, God working through bread, water, and wine in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. This theology visualizes itself in sanctuaries giving no impression of the Divine being amongst congregants when, to the contrary, He certainly is when His Name is spoken. Our task as Christians is to take idolatry seriously, not dismissing the concern of the Iconoclasts, but also appreciating and reflecting upon the wise council of those theologians like John of Damascus who saw benefit in those pictures of Christ and other biblical events. Finally, we can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. It’s true God doesn’t work through statutes to communicate Himself—there’s no such promise in Scripture. Still, we find such promises in particular places decreed by Him, in the bread, water, and wine of those Sacraments Jesus has instituted and to which He still bids us to look for true consolation and peace.
Rev. Ryan J. Ogrodowicz
Grace Lutheran Church - Brenham, Texas
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
Comments