Venerating Images: A Defense of Icon Usage in Christianity

     So we have encountered a subject that is very controversial and is one that was very key to the last ecumenical council agreed upon and adopted by most Christians: Iconoclasm. Iconoclasm is an ancient Christian heresy that essentially affirms not just the rejection of, but the destruction of Christian art, statues and icons. It is rooted in a misunderstanding of the 2nd Commandment in the bible and I will aim to create a defense of the faith of this historic Christian practice to address those who wish to slander icon veneration. While there are some among the low church Protestants who have an issue with icon veneration, you will also find it among some Anglicans who are split about the issue while other Anglicans as well as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do support the use of icons.

    Among the sources I plan to utilize, I aim to argue not just from the Bible, but appeal to an extensive work published by St. Vladimir's Seminary Press which is referred to as the Three Treatises On The Divine Images by St. John of Damascus that was translated by Andrew Louth. Furthermore, my main argument is not about making veneration of icons mandatory, but permissible. I also plan to engage with criticisms of icon veneration and address how they fall short of consistency.

    I shall start by a chief concern with this based on Exodus 20:4-6 as they are a citation of the 2nd Commandment: "You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth.  You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments." Some rightly point out that this passage is a refutation directly against not merely the use of having icons as art, but to have them be used for bowing or veneration. The only problem is in the context of what an idol is.

    An idol is a false god, meaning it is something that is not deserving of worship. Hence why Tertullian in his treatise On Idolatry will say in Chapter 3 that "idolatry is "all attendance and service about every idol."" Idolatry is simply giving every form of service, dedication and attention of your day towards this thing when it only belongs to God. However, this is not the mindset proper when it comes to an icon and if the mindset is like this, then one needs to re-evaluate their view on an icon and what it truly is. If you have an art piece in your home that depicts Christ or if the icon is getting respect for it's qualities, there is not idolatrous about this particular thing.

    However, it is now time for some context into the debate which is going to take us to the 7th and 8th centuries where there was a divide in the church as a heresy named Iconoclasm entered the church. Iconoclasm is defined as "the smashing of icons." Essentially, you had the church divided between the east and the west regarding this matter. Let us take a look from page 7 of the book I mentioned earlier where Andrew Louth gives us an insight into the controversy:

    "In AD 726 the Byzantine Emperor Leo III ordered the destruction of icons, or religious images, throughout the Byzantine Empire. The reasons for this policy are not clear, for lack of firm evidence, though it seems that justification was sought in the allegation that the veneration of icons amounted to idolatry, in contravention of the second commandment. In 730 the Emperor took his policy of iconoclasm still further, issuing a formal edict and, when opposed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, Germanus I, requiring him to resign."

    There was an influence by Islam into the decision of the Iconoclasts in the Christian Church due to Islam's radical monotheism teachings and the forbidding of using images of people in their artwork. This influenced some in the church and especially in Leo III. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Iconoclasm, we read that Leo III "was also suspected of leanings towards Islam. The Khalifa Omar II (717-20) tried to convert him, without success except as far as persuading him that pictures are idols. The Christian enemies of images, notably Constantine of Nacolia, then easily gained his ear. The emperor came to the conclusion that images were the chief hindrance to the conversion of Jews and Moslems, the cause of superstition, weakness, and division in his empire, and opposed to the First Commandment. The campaign against images as part of a general reformation of the Church and State. Leo III's idea was to purify the Church, centralize it as much as possible under the Patriarch of Constantinople, and thereby strengthen and centralize the State of the empire. There was also a strong rationalistic tendency among there Iconoclast emperors, a reaction against the forms of Byzantine piety that became more pronounced each century. This rationalism helps to explain their hatred of monks. Once persuaded, Leo began to enforce his idea ruthlessly."

    So eventually Christians aligning with the ideas of Leo III and the Muslims were joining in the destruction of relics, monasteries and even destroying the corpses of dead saints. Gregory II, the bishop of Rome, explains to Leo that there was a difference between these images and the idols. There was no pushing for a council as Gregory just simply said that "all Leo has to do is to stop disturbing the peace of the Church." However, Leo would not give in and continue his assault on the church. Eventually, we reach to 787 AD for the Second Council of Nicaea where it condemned the Iconoclasm movement as heresy. However, during that gap in years to the council, tons of Christians were being killed over it and even churches were monasteries and artwork was destroyed.

    Now let's discuss the defense of icon usage by first appealing to the Bible. The main defense we appeal to is the distinction of worship vs veneration, which is simply explained in these terms: Veneration is simply respect and admiration, but worship is veneration exclusively for God. So there are times we venerate people, but not in a way where we view them as the ultimate authority or as God. John of Damascus tells us the following in the 14th section of his first treatise on images:

    "Veneration (bowing down) is a symbol of submission and honor. And we know different forms of this. The first is as a form of worship, which we offer to God, alone by nature worthy of veneration. Then there is the veneration offered, on account of God who is naturally venerated, to his friends and servants, as Jesus the son of Nave and Daniel venerated the angel; or to the places of God, as David said, "Let us venerate in the place, where his feet stood" or to things sacred to Him, as Israel venerated the tabernacle and the temple in Jerusalem standing in a circle around it, and then from everywhere bowing in veneration towards it, as they still do now, or to those rulers who had been ordained by Him, as Jacob venerated Esau, made by God the elder-born brother, or Pharaoh, appointed by God his ruler, and his brothers venerated Joseph. And I know that such veneration is offered to others as a mark of honor, as Abraham venerated the sons of Emmor. Either, therefore, reject all veneration or accept all of these forms with its proper reason and manner." (p. 27-28)

    We see a reference to the tabernacle, which leads to our main issue since we need to understand that the Bible does not contain actual contradictions. If you read verses such as Joshua 7:6 and Psalm 99:5 while keeping in mind that the Ark of the Covenant did contain images on it as well as in the tabernacle, we will understand that they bowed or venerated the creation, but not worship it. We also see other cases where people made images by the commands of the prophets. Such as Moses in Numbers 21:8-9 being told by God to make "a poisonous serpent, and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live." Then we read the following in verse 9: "So Moses made a serpent of bronze and put it upon a pole, and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live." The serpent was clearly not God and was also something "in the form of anything that is... on the earth."

    Furthermore, we get a pretty lengthy quote up next from section 9 of the second treatise by John of Damascus. To add context to the quote, John is responding to the objection by appealing to Exodus 20:4-5 where John agrees with the passage, but points out a context that is relevant. However, he also notes an inconsistency in the argument by pointing out the following:

    "But these are the things that God commanded "they should make," it says: "the veil of the tabernacle of witness from aquamarine and porphyry and spun scarlet and twisted flax, woven work of the cherubim," and "they made the mercy seat above the ark and the two cherubim out of pure gold." What are you doing, Moses? You say, "You shall not make for yourself a carved [image] or any likeness, and you fashion the veil, "a woven work of cherubim" and "two cherubim out of pure gold"? But listen, what the servant of God, Moses, answers you in his works. O blind and foolish, understand the power of what is said "and take good heed to your souls.” I said, "that you saw no likeness on the day in which the Lord spoke to you at Horeb on the mountain in the midst of the fire, lest you act lawlessly and make for yourselves a carved likeness, or any image," and "you shall not make for yourselves gods of cast metal." I did not say, You shall not make an image of the cherubim that stand as slaves beside the mercy seat, but “you shall not make for yourself gods of cast metal," and "you shall not make any likeness" as of God, nor shall you worship "the creation instead of the Creator." Therefore I did not make a likeness of God, nor of anything else as God, nor "did I worship the creation instead of the Creator."" (p. 65-66)

    Here we see that, as quoted in order, the verses of Exodus 36:8, 37:6-7; Deuteronomy 4:15-16 and Exodus 34:17 are cited as part of the case where there are examples of things having images made in a way that is pleasing to God without violating the second commandment. Which is showing so far that in light of the Old Testament context, we see various cases where images are able to be made and yet it isn't considered a violation for having them or venerating them. Especially if we go over Exodus 25:17-22 which has Moses being told to "make two cherubim of gold" for the ark of the covenant, which means these golden cherubim would be venerated as they prostrated before the ark in veneration.

    Now for the New Testament case of icon veneration. To be fair, there is not much that can be made here, but I will try my best to at least deal with another portion that is relevant to the controversy of the icons. Before the Incarnation of Christ, we are told about the God who cannot be seen. However, we do see God in the image of Christ. Hence John 1:18 saying "no one has ever seen God. It is the only Son, himself God, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known." So the argument is that, especially as John of Damascus is known for, that because Christ came down as the divine image of God in human form which means that we can venerate images of the divine (Christ) since He is "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15) and the worship of the actual physical God was able to be done.

    Another point is that of the saints, Christians who have passed on from this life and have joined into heaven with God. We affirm the doctrine of sanctification and state we are growing in holiness to God in the process of salvation. However, the question than becomes on what this all entails? Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:18 says that "all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another, for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit." So it says we are being transformed into the "same image" and from one "glory to another." We are essentially receiving the glory of God and adopt that divine glory in the form of sanctification. We are not God and we do not have any divine powers. It is that we are involved in the participation of this glory due to our full sanctification and being around God in heaven, just like when Moses' face was shining due to the glory of God being around him.

    You will find other passages like this such as Romans 8:29 where we as Christians are "predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son" and 1 Corinthians 15:49 says that just as "we have borne the image of the one of dust, we will also bear the image of the one of heaven." Furthermore, 1 John states that when Christ appears to us, "we will be like him, for we will see him as he is."

    Now what this shows is at least a biblical case for why one would want to use icons for either prayer or even times at worship depending. It is time now for me to point out an appeal to practical reasons why one should use an icon and focus on what can be biblically permissible. I will get rid of one thing and that is that WE SHOULD NOT PRAY TO AN ICON. Icons are not meant to be prayed to and honestly, that loses the actual intended function that they have.

    The one thing that an icon is good for teaching certain biblical lessons and even sharing the gospel with those who have yet to read the Bible or may even be illiterate. The images in icons are usually full of so much symbolism that they will help teach core elements of the Gospel. It was even used along with a cross that was carried to England during the arrival of St. Augustine of Canterbury's mission where he helped to even convert the king of England to Christianity. We can find that the beauty of the art does more than simply have a good appearance, but to even have a good teaching of the gospel for evangelism.

    Another useful point for the icon is in the use of worship. One Anglican website known as Anglican Compass has made the following good point: "In worship icons and visual depictions are mostly stationary and are not usually bowed to or kissed, etc. If a person does bow before a depiction, they are to be bowing in prayer to God, not to the depiction itself... This is good because human beings need symbols, images, and icons. We live in a world of texture, color, visual stimulation and dimensional reality. We love beauty and we are calmed and emotionally salved by it. As James K.A. Smith has pointed out, if we remove Christian symbolism and iconography, it will merely be replaced with secular or alternative religious iconography."

    When it comes to being a personal prayer tool at home for something like a prayer corner, you will find tons of beneficial usage here. When it comes to private prayer, the images are ways to help focus on God, especially with the icon of Christ. Even more so with other saints who we are inspired by such as some who are praying for humility may be reminded if they look at an icon of Peter or perhaps wanting to be brave by looking at an icon of Paul. There is all types of icons and even ones based on events and not people, which can really help for prayer during a particular season in the liturgical calendar.

    Icons also serve a purpose of art work that also shows the history of the church by showing all the different saints that exist and what their story is. Some aren't even written about that much and the main story we have is through oral tradition and the depiction of their story in an icon. This helps to keep the memories and legacy of the early ancestors of the Christian faith alive by pointing out their contributions to the history of Christendom.

    Now I shall address some common criticisms against the usage of icons that I hear often and respond to them using the proper means of scripture, tradition and reason. My main issue is not about if one needs to have an icon in their house or venerate them, but my issue is with those who utilize the Iconoclasm heresy in wishing to destroy the icons or have them be forbidden from the usage of Christians in both the church and at home. Each of the criticisms will be in italics.

    The icons are idols. They are only idols if you treat them as such by praying to the icon or expecting the icon itself to do something. However, we do not do this. Furthermore, if simply having them around is an idol, then we would have to accuse Moses of idolatry that God commanded of him in Numbers 21 regarding the serpent. Furthermore, the main issue with this objection is that it simply has the view that an object alone is an idol instead of the treatment on what idolatry means proper. It is moreso about how we view the object of our veneration and if it equals worship.

    Icons are unnecessary. This is such a bad objection for obvious reasons. Which is necessary to pray? By going to your closet in secret (Matthew 6:6) or is it good to pray out in the open for saying grace for meals at restaurants? Furthermore, do we pray by prostrating as Jesus did (Matthew 26:39) or is it by looking up to heaven as Jesus did (John 17:1)? Which of these are necessary? If either is able to be okay, then the same should be granted to the usage of icons as long as they are being used for the glory of God.

    Only the Lord deserves attention in devotion, not men. The issue here comes in allowing us to ignore understanding any good men of Christendom. After all, if we were to be consistent, we would have to stop relying on bible commentaries as well as to stop reading about important Christians in history like Augustine of Hippo, Charles Spurgeon, John Wesley, Thomas Cranmer, etc. as we would not want to risk giving any devotion or respect towards important people in the faith. It is also important to learn from these figures since we also learn about prophets and apostles apart from God in the scriptures as well as those who weren't prophets and apostles.

    Icon veneration is silly and the icons cannot help you. Icons themselves do not have any properties to reach out and help us, but they can help us in the same way that a person's own words in a sermon can help us or perhaps even the way a Christian movie can help us. The movies do not have any divine properties, but they do contain teachings of God's word and even lessons which we can gather. Plus, when praying, they can guide us in what we can focus on. An example is the icon known as The Resurrection of Christ by Georgi Chimev, where Christ is depicted with divine glory on the gates of hades, where he is seen pulling at the Old Testament saints to bring with them in heaven where there are two angels seen holding a cross as a sign of victory over death. That sounds like a great way to teach the message of Easter to children.

    To conclude, I will point to the icons as being things which are beneficial and they can be very much a helpful tool for Christians in the utilization of the spreading of the Gospel, the adding of beauty (not object of) in our worship services and even powerful tools to aid us in our prayers by keeping our minds focused on what is God like and the heavens. May we avoid forbidding the use of icons and images, lest we be guilty of the heresy of Iconoclasm and indirectly adopt a faulty Christology. Let us instead use them or at least appreciate the beauty and sanctifying benefits they can bring about for the Christian. Amen.