January 11: Iconoclasm vs Iconodulism, throughout history

People like making something to represent something else. A very good modern example is emojis. Many people use emojis to convey what they want to say. For example, they can use the prayer hands emoji to represent thankfulness. They can represent the heart emoji to represent wholesomeness. People like using these representatives - icons. Linguistics is the study of languages. Since icons are things that show something else, and languages are about conveying a message by using icons, especially words, it is considered linguistics. In linguistics, if you say the word "icon", you mean "a sign whose form directly reflects the thing it signifies". This is a signifier, the image of something. This word derived from the greek word eikon, meaning likeness or image. We probably use this word not so often, but definitely sometimes. Although nowadays everyone has used an icon, Christians also have some problems with these: icons. 

In fact, there is a 1300 year old debate about icons in Christianity, so big that an ecunenical council, one of the most serious and gigantic Christian events, was all about it. Certainly, this is a relevant issue. However, why? How can just an icon, practically a sign of something else, spark such an issue? First, we need to understand: what are icons in Christianity? Although it has a meaning akin to the one in linguistics, we need to understand its relevance in Christianity.

The word "icon" in Christianity is a painting or some kind of artwork that resembles or signifies Jesus Christ or any other religious figure. Typically, these are traditional. But how the issue sprung up was 1300 years ago. An example of an icon are the sculptures meant to represent the Trinity found everywhere, but one example is in the Netherlands. Yesterday I watched a documentary about Dutch-Indonesian cultural exchange and there was one time where the film referenced the sculptures of a Sundanese sculptor meant to represent the Trinity. This is an example. Now, let's venture through history.

Leo III was a very successful king. Who was he? King over what nation? When did he live? Constantine converted  the Roman empire into Christianity. Other than that, one of Constantine's greatest achievements was building a new city in modern day Turkey: Constantinople. It became the new capital of the huge Roman Empire. Constantinople is  now called Istanbul.. In 395, about sixty years after Constantine died, another emperor, called Theodosius, separated the empire into two halves - east and west. After Theodosius died in the same year, his two sons took each half of the empire. The western empire collapsed only after 80 years, but the east persisted and survived. The east had a very strong capital - Constantinople. We will refer to the Eastern half of the Roman Empire as the Byzantine Empire. We know that Theodosius' grandson, Theodosius II had an assistant that constructed the Theodosian walls that were extremely powerful, almost invincible. These walls had 3 levels: a short wall, a taller wall, and a very strong one. There was also a moat. This wall could persist attacks and the city was completely undisturbed and never under foreign occupation for around 900 years - from Constantine's time to 1204, when finally it fell for the first time. Actually, the city used to be called Byzantium, and that was under Roman occupation since around 100 BC, so then the Romans controlled the city for 1300 years. That is around same amount of time between Moses and Jesus.However, when Islam formed, the Arabs were united and they easily destroyed the Byzantine Empire's main rival, Persia. The Arabs also attacked the Byzantine Empire, and only after 80 years from Islam's beginning, the Arab armies besieged and surrounded Constantinople in 717 AD. The Byzantine Empire had declined by then, because they had lost a large part of their economy due to many wsrs against Persia. However, Leo III defeated the attack because he had a smart device called Greek Fire, which let his ships spew out fire into the Arab ships.  This was a very great victory, especially because the Arabs outnumbered them greatly. Leo III was militaristically successful, and he also established the Isaurian dynasty, which means he also had political success, which lasted 100 years, since the Isaurians would continue to rule for another century. But these were not the only well known things he did. Yes, he also set a new fundamental lawcode, the Ecloga, which set new laws in his empire. But outside of military and law, he had some religious policies different from that of his predecessors. These religious policies were quite new in the world. Although other parts of his reign were less controversial, these policies and changes paints a more controversial light on the figure. 

Thirteen years after his great success in battle against the Arabs, he began to set some religious policies. He was a popular emperor, especially among the army since he had many military victories. This made him have the confidence to create religious policies. The Byzantine Empire is still the remnant of the empire Constantine ruled, and the Christianity persisted. Byzantine Christianity is most comparable to modern day Eastern Orthodoxy, though they were not truly Eastern Orthodox until 300 years later. Leo III was born in Northern Syria, not Constantinople or Greece, which is the center of his empire. Northern Syria must've been full of Muslims, and this will be influential later. Leo III decided that the Byzantine empire worshipped idols, not God, and thus he started a new iconoclast policy. This included an order to remove and destroy every icon, which he saw as idols found everywhere in the empire. However, many disagreed with him and some rebelled, including the Pope in Italy, which began some tension. This iconoclasm was particularly strict, because there was harsh punishment. Possibly, his background as a North Syrian influenced him, since Muslims are very strictly iconoclast. When Leo died in 741, his son continued the iconoclast policy. Like his father, he had military and cultural success. Constantine V, Leo's son, tried to declare iconoclasm as ecunemically true in 754, but he failed. This failure to globally declare iconoclasm is very interesting. Constantine V called for a "seventh ecunemical council" that refuted icons. However, this Council, known as the council of Hieria, was found ilegitimate and not ecunemical. Still, icons were banned in his own empire, but nowhere else. Constantine V had a son called Leo IV who tried to mediate iconoclasts and icomodules. He died, and his son became emperor, though Leo IV's wife, Irene, was really ruling. In 787, the last ecunemical council took place, the Second Council of Nicaea, which restored the veneration and worship of icons.

This is the end of the historical part of this post. We know how iconoclasm formed as a large scale ideas as a protest against the dominant icons. So, actually, iconoclasm started and continues to be more of a minority. But what is the truth? This next segment will explore that question and see whether the minority iconoclasts or the majority iconodules are in the right.

First, let's understand the theology behind worshipping icons. The general idea of iconodules is that, according to them, we can worship God through something physical, often an artwork like a sculpture or painting. A key word in this sentence is through. They believe we can worship an icon, and that icon is like a middleman between a worshipper and God. Imagine someone wants to pass something, imagine a gift, over to someone else, but in the middle there is someone who looks like the one you want to pass your gift to. According to iconodules, you practically give the gift over to the middleman and the middleman passes it over to God. This is the idea of iconodule theology. We also need to clear up what "iconoclast" means. There can really be two meanings when the word iconoclast or iconoclasm is brought up. It can refer to destructive iconoclasm - the destruction of icons - and also theological iconoclasm - which is a belief I will explain. These are two kinds of iconoclasm that are slightly different, though destructive iconoclasm springs up from theological iconoclasm. Usually, when I say "iconoclasm", I'm not referring to the active destruction of icons but the belief. So what do iconoclasts - people who believe in iconoclasm - believe? Theological iconoclasm is the belief that God cannot be worshipped through physical things. That is the simple definition of what iconoclasm is, though there are other interesting details. Fast forward seven hundred years after the Byzantine iconoclasm of the 8th century and the Catholic church is being challenged by all the reformers that want to fix the issues. The first of the prominent reformers is Martin Luther. Martin Luther actually disagreed with iconoclasm. He was iconodule, saying that our mental picturing of Christ is similar to artistic rendering. Meanwhile, the Reformed leaders had a different approach on worship. They were iconoclastic. John Calvin believed that icons representing Christ leads to idolatry. But what is the truth? Catholics argue against Calvinists by saying that this iconoclasm is heretical since it denies Christ's christological abillity to take physical form. While this argument might seem convincing, remember that we are the builders of this icon, while God sent himself to the world. Humans did not help God take human, physical form. But if we are to make icons, humans, according to Catholics, help God take physical form for us to worship. Humans, at all, cannot help God. 

Furthermore, God is all transcendental. What I mean is that he transcends all kind of dimension, all kind of restriction, all kind of bound. He has no bounds, and He is infinite, He is Almighty, the Unrestricted. If we worship God as an icon, we are implying he is being restricted by the dimension of space. And since icons are destructible, we are implying he is being restricted by the dimension of time. However, this explanation sounds too un-biblebased. It sounds this is all theologoumenon. Isaiah 57:15, however, tells of God's transcendence above space and time, his non spatio temporality. It says He lives forever, signifying His superiority over time, and lives in a high and holy place, which does not imply he is physically in somewhere but rather he is spatially different from everything else, he is non spatial. This is the first, philosophical explanation. 

The second explanation for iconoclasm can be found in Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 4:16 says we should not make an idol of any man or woman, in any shape. However, even for me, this explanation feels insufficient to prove for certain iconoclasm, because it does not implicitly say we should not make an icon of God. 

The third explanation is taken from Hebrews 1, so read Hebrews 1:3. I will read it, but also take attention yourself. This explanation is more abstract. It says Christ is supreme over all things, but also but emphasizes how the Son is the radiande of God's glory and the exact representation of his being. This mesns Christ exactly himself, not anything else, is the radiance of God's glory. When we are worshipping icons, we are not worshipping the exact Christ, so there is a lack of glory.

Ultimately, iconoclasm is correct. In Exodus 20:4: it says we cannot make an image in the form of anytning in heaven above. Thus, we are to agree with iconoclasm, supposedly. But to what extent? There is another debate.

This second debate is between two different kinds of iconoclasts: Mild and Extreme iconoclasts. Note that this terminography is my invention, so it is made up. Mild iconoclasts believe we shan't worship through icons, but icons is still OK to be made and shown in general. On the other hand, extreme iconoclasts believe we both shan't worship through icons and use them in any form in any way. Mild iconoclasts cannot result in what is known as destructive iconoclasm. Only extreme iconoclasts can result in destructive iconoclasm, because mild iconoclasm implies that icons are tolerable, it is only the worship of it that is bad, and thus there is no real reason to destroy icons. Specifically extreme iconoclasts are the ones who destroy icons. Basically, mild iconoclasts are more reserved with iconoclasm, while extreme iconoclasts are more definite and confident. So which kind is in the right?

The first explanation from before says that God is transcendent, which includes He His disabillity to be properly displayed with anything physical. Thus, the first explanation applies also to argue for extreme iconoclasm. This is why I believe that, biblically, extreme iconoclasm is the correct extent at which we should be iconoclast. And there lies yet another motion for debate: should we destroy icons? This separates extreme iconoclasm again into two categories: Destructive extreme iconoclasm and passive extreme iconoclasm. I did not consider that mild iconoclasm is able to be destructive, because this motion is even more extreme than before. The Bible speaks of the smashing of idols, such as the Asherah poles. But what about Christian icons? Idols is an image of a false god, and I believe that since the iconodule theology is wrong, they have a very slightly different god, which means I do think we should remove icons.

But its not only that. Protestants like using other symbols instead to convey messages, such as the cross, chi rho, christogram and Jesus fish. The Lord's Supper applies the same, it is a sign of Christ but also completely representative prupose. Are these tolerable, especially becaise they are meant to represent Christ in some way? I think they are, because these do not bear any likeness or is not an image that tries to represent Christ by trying to make up His likeness and appearance. Rather, these are completely representative, and Protestants do not worship these symbols.

Now, I want to compare the Second Council of Nicaea to the recently said statements. The Second Council of Nicaea in 787 was the last ecunemical council and one against iconoclasm. This council had 7 sessions. After the seven sessions, the bishops declared the following, which is according to the council:

"As  the sacred and life-giving cross is everywhere set up as a symbol, so also should the images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the holy angels, as well as those of the saints and other pious and holy men  be embodied in the manufacture of sacred vessels, tapestries, vestments, etc., and exhibited on the walls of churches, in the homes, and in all conspicuous places, by the roadside and everywhere, to be revered by all who might see them. For the more they are contemplated, the more they move to fervent memory of their prototypes. Therefore, it s proper to accord them a fervent and reverent veneration, not, however, the veritable adoration, which, according to our faith, belongs to the Divine Being alone-for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever venerate the image venerate in it the realitt of what is there represented." 

Practically, what this creed says is that  images are tolerated and should be put not only in the church, but everywhere. According to the creed, we can worship the icon, and our veneration passes onto God. "Prototypes" often mean the thing they represent;signify. I disagree with the first sentence because of Jesus Christ's representation as an icon. Yes, they can give a memory of their prototype, but won't it give a wrong connotation as it is physical and Jesus Christ is, currently, not?  In the end, we cannot make idols signifying anything in heaven.

But what about the worship's passing over to God? What's the response to that? Simply, like many other ideas in theology, there is no biblical backup for that. Furthermore, isn't it confusing if an inanimate image can pass on a spiritual feeling and exaltation to God? Simply, the Bible never says that if we worship icons that worship and veneration will pass through the icon, which is practically a middleman, and into God. Thus, this ecunemical council is very noticably flawed. 

Is there any other conclusion we can make outside of what doctrine is correct? Yes, there are other conclusions. First, God is supreme, and we cannot shrink His glory with our actions. I am not implying that God's glory can be decreased through our actions, but maybe a better way to phrase it is "We cannot have the wrong perception of God". Making icons does give us trhe wrong perception and undervalue who He is. Knowing who God is is important, we cannot truly worship Him without knowing Him. Second, worship should be done properly. This sentence sounds applicable to instances where people mess around terribly, but worshipping improperly also includes worshipping theough icons, since it is unbiblical. Our praise must be  built within the Bible, not exceeding it. If we know and understand who God is, we know He is great and worthy of worship, and this worship to He who is grest mudt he done properly. Third, do not compromise the Scripture. What I believe to be the reason people worship through icons is it makes things simpler and lets them imagine easier. However, we cannot make it easier for ourself if what we do compromises the true Scripture. 

Note that, although we mustn't make icons and compromise the Scriptures, we cannot become political like the nations of the 8th century and beyond. Ravenna is a city in the Italian peninsula, in the northern half. This city is quite important, and it is near modern Venice. Nowadays, tourists go to the city, predominantly because of the mosaics and icons it has. Howveer, during the Byzantine iconoclasm, it was a part of the Byzantine empire and known as the Exarchate of Ravenna. An "exarch" is a governor, so basically it is a province or territory. During the iconoclasm, Ravenna rebelled to keep its icons. We cannot be like this, we cannot turn our beliefs into political chaos, especially because Leo III sent an army to Ravenna, although it failed. Yes, Ravenna was iconodule and we are iconoclast, but the same applies, we cannot turn these beliefs into politics and potentially war. 

The last thing I want to say is that iconodules are not saved. We are saved through faith to God, which includes faith toward the right God, which includes a correct theology. If we have the wrong theology, we have a slightly different God. This is how important correct theology and doctrine is. I have written this reality in one of my writings regarding fideism and argumentalism.

But are less extreme iconoclasts, such as mild iconoclasts and passive iconoclasts saved? We learned how correct theology is importtant, but, although they might have slightly different views, are they saved? 

First, let's evaluate mild icomoclasts. Mild iconoclasts say icons can still be used in other ways. Certainly, icons can be used in multiple ways, such as being a teaching aid for children. However, I think it is a sin to portray God wrongly, so I dtill think mild iconoclasm isn't the precise truth. Still, I think the difference is small enough for them to be saved, especially if they still have the understanding that these portrayals of God is wrong. What about extreme iconoclasts who decide to be passive instead of destructive? Again, I think the precise truth is that we should remove icons because they might flare up wrong perceptions, but this time I think the difference is small enough for them to be saved. With mild iconoclasm, I think it is acceptable only if they remember that the icon is not a good portrayal of God.

 We need to survey everything we hear, how universally accepted it is. Let’s recap first before finishing the sermon. There are only five main points to summarize the entire post:

First, there are two main sides of belief when it comes to icons in Christianity. That is iconoclast and iconodule. Iconoclast and iconodule theology has had some conflict for around 1300 years. Iconoclasts do not worship God through icons. Iconodules believe we can.

Second, God is transcendental above space and time. He is nonspatiotemporal, which then implies that it is impossible for him to be contained in space and time. Icons are contained in space and time, and thus they falsely represent God and twist the truth. Due to this, iconoclasm is correct.

Third, the extent we must take as iconoclasts is quite extreme. This means we mustn’t use icons, even if we don’t worship it, and it is better remove icons from churches.

Fourth, icons are idols because iconodule theology is slightly different from the true God, and thus to an extent they have a different God, and thus are not saved, and thus icons are idols. 

Fifth, what we should do is to remember God's transcendent glory that is not bound by anything, worship God properly, and remember the importance of theology within salvation.

That concludes the post. Let's pray.