The Importance of Prayer and Icons to the Christian Life
Contents
1. The Importance of Prayer in the Christian Life
2. Introduction to The Purpose of this Post
3. Do Icons Violate the Old Testament?
4. A Case for Icons based on the New Testament
5. Icons in the Ancient Church
6. Icons and II Nicaea
7. The Renaissance and Humanism
8. The Protestant Reformation and Icons
9. Conclusion
1. The Importance of Prayer in the Christian Life
Many of us will grow in the faith if we hear good sermons and take the Eucharist at our local parish. But good theology is much more. Loving God means that Christianity is our life, not just what we do on Sundays. Being a true Christian means conforming to the image of Christ. In other words, we ought to be striving to be Christ-like.
In our home, we may not be able to hear a profound sermon or partake in the beautiful Eucharist...but we can pray. In fact, we can always pray. God always allows us the opportunity to pray before him. Whether we are praying the Psalms, praying the words of a written prayer from a past saint, or just speaking what comes to our mind, we settle ourselves most peacefully when our hearts truly confide in God Himself.
Daniel prayed in private. A godly prayer is not necessarily us using beautiful words, but the amount of our heart's desire to experience Christ. Do we care more about the use of beautiful words when we pray in front of other men than what God is doing for us? Are our prayers more pious when we pray in front of others than in private, because we care more about how others perceive us than how God does? If so, is the love of the Father truly in us? Prayer, is not about pride and proving how pious we are, but about trusting in God and pleading for Him that we are conformed to the image of His Son.
Prayer should be as essential, if not more essential to the Christian life than anything else. Contemplative prayer, in which seek our Lord's wisdom and request growing holiness, is one of the most humble acts a Christian will ever do. Praying is not just about worldly success, such as our jobs, education, or money. It is chiefly about us setting our sinful desires aside to enjoy the Lord's presence and beg of Him that we love Him with all our heart soul mind and strength, that we keep His commandments, and that we love our neighbor as our itself. It is more than beautiful words that define a powerful prayer, it is a heart in need of Christ Himself, and a mind that settles upon a desire for Him more than anything in creation.
In Matthew 4: 1-11 Jesus is tempted in the wilderness by the devil, but His fasting aided Him in overcoming all evil. Before His crucifixion, all night, Jesus prayed all night (Mark 6: 46, Luke 6: 12).
James 4:7 tell us to submit ourselves to God, and if we do, the devil will flee us. Indeed, imagine a better world it would be if every Christian thought more of prayer than of worldly success.
A theologian may discuss his views on the Eucharist, predestination, church government, baptism, or eschatology all day, and know his subject well. Yet the man who prays with little theological knowledge is more powerful than the theologian with it.
Christians must pray frequently. While the Bible never specifies how often we should pray, we know that we are prone to many temptations of sins every day. Because of this, we should conclude that we should pray numerous times throughout the day. Where can we go that we concentrate on God alone by forcing upon ourselves to pray, even as we think of other things? Do we concentrate more by praying alone in the car, or while we are exercising, for instance? Do we feel God's presence more when we quietly go alone to be in our closet? Do we focus on God more when we step away from the computer or TV, and no longer think of them while praying? I we listen to Christian music frequently, does it make us think more about praying than when we listen to secular music? What can we do to help not being thinking about anything else but Christ? What can we do to live the contemplative Christian life----which is only possible through prayer?
Many of the greatest Christians in history were known for their prayers. Look for instance, at Saint Francis of Assisi and Saint Catherine of Sienna.
Discussing prayer, sometimes, though not always, when we pray, we pray in a church setting with believers before and behind us and we naturally see the room around us...including its windows and our seats. What is to be said, however, of pictures of Christ or the Virgin Mary? When we pray, for example, can we look at icons? Or, do these pictures violate the Second Commandment, and in general, are they forbidden by Scripture?
In this post, I will set out to prove that icons are not only not contrary to the Second Commandment, but actually fitting for our worship of Christ, and beneficial to sitting our minds to holy things.
2. Introduction to the Purpose of this Post
One of the most controversial disputes in theology is whether or not images of Christ and the saints violate the Second Commandment in the Old Testament. For many Fundamentalists and even some Evangelical Christians, all images of Christ and the saints are condemned by Scripture.
In this post, however, I will seek to prove that images are not only not contrary to the Second Commandment but are actually affirmed in Scripture.
3. Do Icons Violate the Old Testament?
In the Old Testament, the Hebrews were blessed because of Abrahahm's faith. Honoring God through the First Commandment meant not simply loving Him, but putting nothing before Him. The Second Commandment, meanwhile, forbade the Hebrews from worshiping any image itself.
In Exodus 20: 4-6, God commands, ''You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in 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, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to those who keep my commandments (RSVCE.)''
Many have argued that the Second Commandment is literally against all images. Most proponents then argue that we do not have pictures of the crucifix, or Christ as a child, etc.
However, if one really reads the Second Commandment literally, then it would require us not only not to behold pictures of Christ and the saints but all crosses, and even images of our family members. This is the case for the Amish, for instance, who don't believe in having images even of one's family members. Likewise, many of the Puritans rejected even the use of the cross in worship. Nothing in the Second Commandment says anything about only images in a church or tabernacle being forbidden. If we read the Second Commandment literally, then that would mean destroying every image in our house. When the Second Commandment reads, ''You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath...'' it is speaking not just of those in Heaven, but even of pictures of those on earth.
That said, there are good reasons for us not to interpret the Second Commandment this way. The majority of Christendom argues that the Second Commandment does not forbid the presence of images, only the worship of them. For many reasons, this is the most consistent understanding of the Second Commandment.
For example, God told the people to make The Ark of the Covenant, which bore a depiction of two angels on it. The Creator did not see His command as a contradiction of the Second Commandment and nor did the Hebrews: ''Now they shall construct an ark of acacia wood two and a half cubits long, one and a half cubits wide, and one and a half cubits high. You shall overlay it with pure gold, inside and out you shall overlay it, and you shall make a gold molding around it. You shall also cast four gold rings for it and fasten them on its four feet; two rings shall be on one side of it, and two rings on the other side of it (Exodus 25: 10-12, RSVCE).
Now, some will respond, ''true, but we aren't God. If he commanded the Hebrews to make images, that was the exception?''
If this is the case, then God contradicted Himself, which is impossible. Therefore, God did not mean by the Second Commandment that no images should be allowed. Secondly, the fact that God commanded the Hebrews to make images and the fact that He has not explicitly told us to do so, is irrelevant. If the Hebrews making the ark did not contradict the Second Commandment, then neither are we when we make images to observe in Christian worship.
Still, others will say, ''Fine, images may have been allowed in the Old Testament, but they are never found in the New Testament and so their use is wrong and blasphemous.''
In response to this last claim, let us now look at the theology and practice of the first-century church according to the teachings of the New Testament.
4. A Case for Icons Based on the New Testament
In Colossians 1: 15, Paul the Apostle says of Christ, ''He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation...(RSVCE).
In essence, Jesus is our icon---another word for image. Paul affirmed Christ as ''the image of the invisible God.'' Jesus's humanity, His act of incarnation, is itself, an act of love from God towards us.
Icons themselves, are also images of Christ and the saints. Just as Jesus's humanity is a picture to us of who God is, the icons are a picture of the Heavenly Realm that we can experience through Christ.
Can we make images of people? If we affirm that we can, then we can also make images of Christ. Why? Because Jesus Himself was human and a work of art about Him is not of work of art of the unknown invisible God...whom we have not seen. Thus, the Second Commandment cannot be said to condemn pictures of Christ, as Jesus walked among us (John 1: 14).
If we say that the Second Commandment violates all images, then we must be against Christ Himself as Paul teaches in Colossians 1: 15 that Jesus ''is the image of the invisible God.'' Jews, for example, would see Paul's writings as blasphemy for asserting that Christ is God, but for the Christian, there is no reason to believe that the Second Commandment is against images, when Christ's humanity, was an image of God.
Additionally, the New Testament nowhere specified the use of icons in worship, but it nowhere specified the songs that were sung in the local churches either. In fact, nowhere in Paul's writings are there even descriptions of sermons or if we should pray with our eyes closed. Likewise, there aren't even examples of sermons in the New Testament besides those in Jewish Synagogues, in the open air, etc. If we are to base our reasons for retaining sermons in the church based on what happened in Jewish synagogues, however, we should also seek to imitate the Jewish temple in making images of Christ, the angels, and saints.
Jesus nowhere condemned the use of icons. Nor did Paul. In fact, we have good reason to believe that the Early Church of the Apostles used icons.
One of the reasons to believe in icons is because the Christians on Earth and the Christians in Heaven both worship the one true God. Furthermore, the saints in Heaven pray for those on earth as recorded in the Book of Revelation (Revelation 5: 8). As a result, when we surround ourselves with images, it can keep us focused that the saints in Heaven are praying on our behalf. They are interceding for us, so that we do not fall into the ways of the devil.
In 2 Thessalonians 2: 15-17, Paul told the Thessalonians Church to pass down the traditions that they had received whether by word of mouth or by a letter from us. This demonstrates that Paul understood not all church traditions as written in the Scriptures. Indeed, in this passage, he distinguished the traditions written in the letter (the writings of the New Testament) from traditions that the Thessalonians Church had received from the Apostles outside of Scripture.
Although some have claimed that we can't know what those traditions were, we actually can, by appealing to those who lived closest to the time of Christ and the apostles. Sermons in churches are a tradition that has been passed down and cannot be found in one single New Testament Text. Thus, if we are consistent, we won't accept sermons because when are no explicit cases of sermons in the New Testament but then reject icons because they are nowhere mentioned in the New Testament. Both sermons and icons, however, have their origins in the Jewish Temple and Synagogues, and the New Testament nowhere claimed that these practices have suddenly been rescinded.
Ignatius of Antioch was the student of the apostle John, as well as Polycarp. Thus, when we read the fathers of the church (especially those in the first and early second centuries) then we learn that they knew the apostles and we have much more reason to follow their lead than those who came centuries or thousands of years later.
5. Icons in the Ancient Church
Church tradition historically holds that Saint Luke the Evangelist, the author of the Gospel of Luke, painted icons. Whether or not this is true, may be hard to prove. However, the argument behind Luke being the painter of icons (at least the ones now claimed to have been drawn by him) is weak, as none of them resemble first-century art. If Luke did paint icons, such works are no longer in existence. The idea that Luke made an icon of the Virgin Mary, derived only as late as anywhere from the sixth through the eighth century during some of the great controversies over icons.
This does not mean that Luke did not paint icons, though. It may just mean that it is hard to prove historically that Luke was a painter of icons. Nevertheless, several Eastern theologians in the second half of the first millennium did think that Luke was a painter. Could it be that the history of Luke as the first painter of icons was held for centuries beforehand, just not yet written down? Or was this a later innovation in church history? Regardless, of whether or not Luke painted icons, we can point to practices of icons in the days of the ancient church.
Those who lived closest to Christ generally did not see all artwork of Christ and the saints as violating the Second Commandment. I think that this says something alone. The same early Christians who compiled our canon of the New Testament were many of the same Early Christians who embraced the use of icons in the context of Christian worship.
It's actually quite fascinating to see Early Christian artwork. We have early Christian artwork, much of it on catacombs, going back to the second through fourth centuries. Although the style of these works of art was more basic and vague than those of icons, they do represent archeological evidence that the early Christians did not believe that it was wrong to paint or draw pictures of themselves or Christ. Indeed, the practices of observing and honoring tombs, relics, and pictures of past Christians go back long before the Protestant Reformation...and were practiced historically by both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The ''Alexamenous graffiti (first to third century AD),'' the ''good Shepherd (third century),'' the ''adoration of the Magi (third century), '' the ''healing of the Paralytic (third century)'' are at least four cases of Christ being depicted in ancient work long before Emperor Constantine I and the legalization of Christianity in the fourth century. Most of the Early Christian works of Christ were vague, did not depict him in detail, and hardly imagined Him in any real sense.
While it is indeed true that several ancient bishops and church leaders opposed the use of images, not only did the majority accept the presence of icons, but the fact that there was no church council condemning the growing acceptance of images across Christian Churches also demonstrates that most Christians did not see the images as violating the Second Commandment.
Among some of the ancient church fathers who most defended the use of icons in church services, was John of Damascus and Theodore, the Studite. Many of those who defended the presence of icons of Christ in Christian worship saw these images as evidence that He too is the image of God to us.
There are many great examples of church fathers who supported icons, and some examples of church fathers who opposed them. This post's purpose, however, is not to share every church father's view on the subject (which I encourage the reader to research).
In general, while several church fathers did condemn icons, most of them embraced them. The Orthodox Catholic Church upheld historical Christian teachings on this issue at the eighth-century church Council, Nicaea II.
6. Icons and II Nicaea
Iconoclasm, or the destruction of icons, began largely with the rise of Islam in the sixth century. It rose largely outside the Byzantine Empire and became a major controversy of the church in the events leading up to the last of the seven ecumenical councils. The Islamic Iconoclasm rejected not only all images of religious subjects but even of all people and animals.
Leo III was an eighth-century Byzantine emperor who opposed the use of icons, as did his son, Constantine V. Today, there is debate about why Leo opposed icons. Some have suggested that because Leo was raised in Syria, he had been impacted by the Muslims' opposition to icons. Regardless, Irene of Athens and her son, Constantine VI, later summoned a new church council in the city of Nicaea, where a famous previous council of the fourth century had once defended the doctrine of the Trinity. Now, they along with the bishops of the church, established icons as dogma.
During the eighth century, some questioned the use of icons but II Nicaea had rejected the rejection of icons as heresy. Ultimately, the authority of an ecumenical church Council in which both the church leaders of both West and East ratify its documents, such as those of II Nicaea, is more important than the views of an individual father. Although some individual fathers did oppose icons and images, II Nicaea affirmed them as not only good to use but as actually helpful.
This church council is often widely regarded as the last ecumenical council of the church (by most Eastern Orthodox, Byzantyine Catholics, Anglo-Catholics, and Old Catholics). The reason for this is that most other church councils that followed it received only ratification from either the bishop of Rome or the bishops of the East. Thus, Nicaea represents a still unified church before the unfortunate great schism and it carries more heavy weight than that of the local council, as it represents the views of the church at large.
The authority of an ecumenical council also carries more weight than the individual views of a pope, bishop, or pastor. Christ promised that his church would never be overtaken by the powers of hell (Matthew 16). Whether or not church councils, though, are infallible, is another topic that time allows here. Nevertheless, whether one believes that an ecumenical council is infallible or not, II Niceae should carry heavy weight towards every Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christian, as this was the last council in church history to receive universal support from patriarchs both East and West (with the possible exception of Ferrara-Florence).
7. The Renaissance and Humanism
In the Middle Ages, there were few significant controversies over icons throughout Christendom. As Islam spread in the seventh century, many Muslims broke all images in their pathway as they saw such images as violations of God Himself.
Then came Humanism. Humanism was a broad movement in terms of philosophy, theology, art, and literature. However, when it comes to art specifically, many of the humanists in the Renaissance era, began to focus more on the humanity of Christ and the saints rather than their divinity. The new artwork became not only more realistic but sometimes took the focus off of the Heavenly Spere and transferred the attention to the people looking physically beautiful. The old early Christian artwork of Jesus, which was vague and much undefined, now became increasingly concerning Jesus as a profound philopher among men.
It is no surprise that some of the most beautiful works of art of history were made during the Renaissance, but that is not the point here. The focus of worship now became different as humanism impacted even the images and statues in some of the churches.
Despite having practiced the use of icons for centuries, some in the Roman Catholic Church began to adapt to other works of art during the Renaissance. At first, this was controversial as some Catholics objected to the depiction of nude people in church artwork. Michelangelo's artwork, for instance, was a significant breach of the traditional artwork that had defined Christian worship.
It is important to understand that by the time of the Protestant Reformation, much of the artwork that the reformers were accustomed to, was not the icons that had historically been used throughout Christendom. Rather, much of the Reformation's reaction concerned how some in the masses were perceiving more realistic pictures of Christ and the Virgin Mary.
8. The Protestant Reformation and Icons
Following II Nicaea, the medievals did not typically see all images as violating the Second Commandment, though some of them did reject images that closely resembled real people (which some of them did see as violating the Second Commandment). In general, icons were generally universally accepted among the theologians of the Medieval Era following the Second Council of Nicaea.
For much of Medieval Times, the icons were observed in the Western Church just as they were in the Eastern Church. Some of this changed with the Renaissance, during which more realistic and humanistic works of art began to gain more acceptance in churches across Western Christendom.
Although many now may see icons as an Eastern Orthodox ''thing'', the icons had been venerated by many in the Western church long before the Renaissance and Reformation. In general, the icons represent more of an established orthodoxy found in Christian worship than were the later paintings of Michelangelo and Leonardo (as beautiful as those Renaissance works be).
However, during the Protestant Reformation, there were actual examples of Roman Catholics worshipping images. In turn, many of the Calvinists gradually rejected the use of artwork in churches altogether. Even many of the Anglicans took all images down in the parishes of the Church of England during the reign of Edward VI (though some images were kept in some of the Anglican Churches). Among the Protestants, generally, only the Lutherans kept the use of images in Christian worship.
Concerning John Calvin himself, it is debated whether or not he believed all images are wrong. Some claim that Calvin was only against the abuse of images (and not images themselves). Others, though, claim that Calvin was against all images.
It is interesting to think about how Eastern Orthodoxy, which used icons, did not face the ''reformation of artwork'' that Western Christianity did. Had the West kept icons in worship, would there have ever been a controversy about the use of images in Christian worship?
I'm not claiming that Renaissance art's presence in a local church makes it wrong. Like many other lovers of art, I enjoy the paintings of Raphael, for instance. Nevertheless, for Scriptural and historical reasons, the icons, in my personal opinion, are better in the context of Christian worship than those of the Renaissance. We can enjoy Michalegool's artwork in a museum, but the icons direct us to think about Heaven itself.
In the modern age of film, Jesus's face was not even shown in most films as the directors were careful about portraying Christ in a humanistic sense. Christ's face was never shown in cinematic history until the 1960s film, King of Kings.
9. Conclusion
In this post, I have demonstrated that there is nothing Biblically wrong with images. Using the case of abuse of images is not a good reason not to use them. If this were the case, then we should not preach about Peter the Apostle since some people have taken the papacy to unbiblical grounds, and we shouldn't mention the Virgin Mary since some people have taken veneration towards her to the point of worship, and we shouldn't talk about Paul because some extreme Calvinists have taken his ideas about predestination to justify not evangelizing people at all.
We can't base theology, hover, based on what other people do or what they will abuse. We should call out those who worship images and tell them to repent. Ultimately, though, the fact that some people abuse images does not mean that images are not relevant to the life of the Christian believer.
Some have made the argument that images are not sinful, only distracting from us only focusing on Christ? Really, for millions of Christians across the world, looking at icons of Christ and the saints actually helps them think more about the Heavenly realm and our unity with the Heavenly saints in fighting evil. Furthermore, many of those who say that icons are distracting from worship, don't look at a choir or a minister preaching as distracting from our worship? Why is that? Is the minister more holy than the past Christians? If we can see him when he teaches us truths of the faith, such as the general judgment to come, then we can also look at images and think about the life that awaits us if we persevere until the end (Matthew 24: 13-14).
We aren't held accountable for the choices of other people. If three hundred members of a church grow in grace by turning their minds to Christ and worthily partaking in the Eucharist, and one remembers goes too far, the rest should not lose the ability to venerate icons and think of Christ if one chooses the wrong path.
Some have used Romans 14: 13-23 as evidence against the use of icons. However, in this passage, Paul affirms that we should not do things that cause our brother to stumble. He specifically mentions drink and meat. These cannot be compared to icons as wine and food are not inherently holy. One person may be tempted to get drunk while sitting with another person drinking wine and another may feel inclined to be a glutton while partaking in delicious foods with another.
We should be sensitive to not use things that cause our brothers and sisters to fall, even from things that are not evil in themselves. However, icons are not food and drink, but directly concern Christ and the Apostles themselves. Food and drink are not necessary for holiness, while images were affiliated with God's holy presence in the Old Testament Tabernacle (Exodus 33: 10, Exodus 25: 40, Exodus 25: 40). Thus, Romans 14: 13-23 does not condemn the use of icons.
In fact, the Hebrews constructed an entire temple in God's honor (1 Kings 8). Nowhere does the New Testament say that it is now wrong for Christians to build church buildings and use holy images when the Jews themselves had in the Old Testament. Some critics of icons will then claim that because images were allowed in the Old Testament Tabernacle, does not mean that they are allowed in the New Testament Church, to which I reply, why do you believe that the New Testament broke from the Old Testament thought? Indeed, everything relevant to the Hebrews in the Old Testament is relevant to us also unless God rescinded something in the Old Testament from being relevant (such as Paul's teachings about the Works of the Law in Romans 3-4 and the Book of Galatians. Since the church is now the Israel of God (Galatians 6), we continue the practices of the Old Testament that do not contradict those of the New (and nothing about icons contradicts New Testament teaching).
Other critics will point to the Tabernacle and say that only images are allowed when God commands them, and yet in 1 Kings 8, we learn that the Hebrews built a temple even during the reign of King Solomon (without the passage ever saying that such architecture was only allowed by the Hebrews). Furthermore, the Old Testament nowhere says that images are forbidden unless God commands them. While some of us may deny having an image of Christ in our heads, is it possible to think of Christ without conveying some sort of image in our heads? By looking at icons, icons themselves are no more condemned than us thinking of Christ within our thoughts...so long as we realize that Christ may not necessarily look like how we think or how the pictures are present.
One of the proposes of icons is to remind us of Christ and the Heavenly Sphere. Imagine a husband whose wife has died. He cannot see her anymore. He may have pictures to look back at her and remember, her though. While his pictures of her are an imperfect picture of who she is, for they cannot recapture the experience he had in knowing her, they give him a sense of satisfaction and remembering his deceased bride. In the same way, icons are not a perfect picture of either Christ or the saints, but they convey to us an image of who they were, and we love Christ, the joyful presence of the angels and archangels that we can someday experience. Obviously, a photograph is more accurate of a person we know than an icon is of Christ, as many of the latter were made centuries after Christ. Still, the concept of an icon, no matter how imperfect it is of the person it concerns, is that we think of that person when we see the image.
The use of images is also not about us having a low view of God. If anything, it would be a lower view of God to not have images at all. If we say that it's a low view of God to look at images, why is not a low view of God to look at the Evangelical pastor or Anglican priest when they preach? People are visual, though, men above all. Looking at images of Christ and the saints will likely help a man not look at pictures of a beautiful woman and lust after her.
One of the great beauties of the icons is that they don't resemble real three-dimensional people. Thus, when believers look at images of Christ or the Virgin Mary, they aren't seeing a real-life man or woman...but a vague picture of Christ and Mary, which focuses more on their Heavenly presence than their humanistic reach (unlike the later artwork of the Renaissance). While the Nudity of David from Renaissance artwork may resemble the figure of a real-life man, this is not the case for the icons at all.
Indeed, the icons were important to both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches for many centuries before the Reformation. During the Renaissance, more Roman Catholics began to adapt to a secular understanding of artwork...one which reflected a humanistic portrayal of people, rather than focusing on the saints' Heavenly communion with God. The Eastern Orthodox Church, however, has remained faithful to Scripture in that the icons in no way break the Second Commandment (even if some of the later Western artwork did).
While Evangelicals have legitimate grounds for abhorring the worship of images, they should be careful not to accuse others of idolatry who are using images to honor God. Ironically, some of the same fundamentalists and Evangelicals who don't use images of Christ and the church in their house will fill their walls with banners of universities and placks of sports teams, often showing which one is actually more important to them.
When we replace Christ with man, then we are actually guilty of idolatry. The Eucharist should not be substituted for a sermon (why not have both?) Likewise, images of Christ and the saints should not be replaced by pictures of the things of this world. should not be substituted for
I agree that icon and images can be very helpful in increasing our faith. Excellent article
ReplyDelete