 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/26/2004 3:10 PM (GMT -6) |   | This is unbelievably short and to the point. It's on the website of Ss. Peter and Paul Parish (Orthodox Church in America).
www.sspeterpaul.org/iconography.htm
It begins with "Orthodox Iconography has three basic functions."
What are they? | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/26/2004 5:58 PM (GMT -6) | | ICONS
- 1. Pedagogical functions: in lines and color, depict what scriptures and other writings of the Church say with words.
- 2. Help effect the function of true worship for the Christian: coordinating eye and mind, draw the worshipper past pictoral representation to what is represented.
- 3. Sacramentally "symbolic" in the sense that it is a place where Divine reality and created reality meet. (The Greek word symballein means to "throw together or unite").
Importantly: "The icons are pledges of the coming victory of a redeemed creation over the fallen one." (Nicholas Zernov)
And: "Icons are the present visual manifestation of that restored creation which was manifested by Christ in His transfiguration, and which will be with God at the end of time. . . . disclosure of God's presence in our midst . . . the Kingdom of Heaven...is present at each point where time meets eternity." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/27/2004 2:36 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
The Reformed Tradition really did a lot of damage when they overreacted against Icons in the name of preserving God's "transcendence".
The simple fact is, WE NEED TRUTH TO BE EMBODIED.
You are right about that!
.
quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
You know, cataphatic prayer strongly endorsed the use of Icons as aids to the imagination.
But there you are off track.
Icons do NOT involve the imagination. Far from it. Icons involve neither the imagination of the artist nor the worshiper.
That is your dependence on the mysticism of the RCC tradition. (judging from your sources)
Icons involve neither the imagination of the artist nor the worshiper.
But, again, you are right about the need to incarnate the Gospel of the Incarnation. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/27/2004 3:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Icons are HIGHLY conservative. As mentioned (drawn from the SS.Pter&Paul website) they depict what scriptures and other writings of the Church say with words. The role of Scripture is mega-important in icons.
This imagination therapy has its place. But there are also 'places' that it probably shouldn't go. Significantly, its NOT REVELATION. Likewise the book "The Message" by Eugene Peterson is not scripture. Its a DRAMATIZATION.
As a dramatization it has its place. But it does not replace scripture. Silent before scripture it may take a long time for our lives to begin to reflect its revelation. But that is not scriptures fault, but the fault of the stiffness in us. (Before God's light we may be more like clay that hardens than wax that softens -- as Maximus wrote. So, imagination --as therapy, and as dramatization, has its place. But it takes a back seat to revelation!
A significant thing about ICONS is that they do not exist by themselves. They are TIED to the liturgies that go with them. IMAGE AND WORD TOGETHER. Again, they are highly conservative.
A similar thing can be said about Scripture. Scripture reading individually has a huge place in the life of the Christian. But it does not only exist there. Scripture was also born out of the assembly. Its reading in the congregation completes it full circle, and confessing it together reveals its meaning in us in a way that is possible individually--for sure--but maybe not as easy when not all are prepared for it. Teamwork, group effort, corporate contribution, etc. are part of the church. We share our faith.
Icon's are not a matter of "what did you get out of it." An icon of the Nativity has many things that are not in scripture -- like the resemblance of the crib to a coffen. But their dependence on scripture are easily evident. (Like the washing after birth foreshaddows Christ's bapstism, and our own into Him.)
If we look at an icon and wonder "what would it have been like to be there (as did Giotto and Rembrandt) that is a "dramatizing" activity. That's fine. But it is not the use of an icon. Similarly, the popularity of dramatizing portions of scripture in church as a lead in to the sermon is fine. But it is a dramatization. It should not replace the reading of scripture AS THE WORD OF GOD DIRECTLY TO US. (For which the sermon is an assistant and not the main thing itself.
We need to recover, within Evangelical Protestant circles, and appreciation that the Word of God, read, IS AN ICON OF GOD. When we read it, let us recover the response, "The Word of the Lord" followed by the congregations 'amen' as "Thanks be to God." (Not thanks to the preacher.)
Drama is good. Therapy is good. But they are no replacement. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/27/2004 5:07 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
Perhaps you're equating "Imagination" with "creative make believe." A common modernist mistake. If THAT is what you mean by denying the function of the imagination in creating and utilizing icons, alright. But this is not how anyone prior to the scientific revolution viewed imagination.
GREG: "Perhaps you're equating "Imagination" with "creative make believe." A common modernist mistake. If THAT is what you mean by denying the function of the imagination in creating and utilizing icons, alright."
BINGO!
And from that last line, it looks like we are agreeing.
Just make certain that your readers know the difference. Alright?
So, we can dump the part where you suggested that all sculpting has to use "imagination" (as I was refering to what the people who walk into bookstores now days think it means -- and high school and college drawing texts in this new-age era!). And where I refered to the mysticism in RCC see this: www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/st_francis_st_seraphim.htm#n1 If I mistook your sources, then say so. But mysticism is different than spirituality. Perhaps and I hope that we agree.
But let me give a gentle answer to this one...
quote:
POW: Icons involve neither the imagination of the artist nor the worshiper.
Greg: Tell that one to Ignatius of Loyola. Seriously POW, as you contemplate an icon, or any religious symbol, what do you DO IN YOUR head unless it involves seeing or hearing something in response ot the icon?
Using your definition, of "creative make believe" (though that isn't the only thing), of course venerating an icon does not involve "creative make believe." But more -- and I only have slight experience -- our brethren in the East point out that worship in church, as a whole, is not the place for individual devotion. THAT BELONGS BEFORE THE SERVICE. Church worship is a joining of those assembled with a "SERVICE ALREADY IN PROGRESS!" The CORPORATE unity in worship, praise, prayer is evident in their liturgies. The person is a person by virtue of participation in the community. There are certain parts that are intensly personal (Vouchsafe, oh Lord, to keep us this night without sin...), but even there the whole body has prepared in the work of worship to the prepared point of all addressing that need together. Confession is best done individually. But church worship is intended and
designed for the team. And that "already-in-progress" part of the team is the Church Victorious.
You ask: "what do you DO IN YOUR head unless it involves seeing or hearing something in response ot the icon?" (THAT SOUNDS A BIT LIKE CREATIVE IMAGINATION.) But, to answer your question, what I've heard is the LITURGY. And what I've seen is the context in the liturgy where the icons are venerated.
Do you know that every Christian is an ICON? Remember (I'm about two weeks older than you.) in the seventies when the charismatic meetings (I'm thinking of St. Chris' in Roseville.) when the Baptist Charismatics were first introduced to the "Exchange of the Peace?" Now days in seeker friendly churches THAT has been reduced down to shaking the hand of those in front of an behind you. But even in the church-basement circle-of-folding-chairs meetings the ICONIC aspect was there, a bit. And in the Liturgy it is obvious. In order to love God we must love each other. So, the Divine Liturgy says:
quote:
"Let us love one another that with one accord we may confess: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Trinity, One in essence and Undivided."
Without that communion is impossible. SO......what do we "see" when we venerate each other as ICONS of Christ. And what do we "hear" when we venerate each other as ICONS of Christ. Worship, song, breathing, hands and heads and shoulders... We see REALITY. And in the Love one for each other... in that "realistic symbolism" we see the TRUE-IST REALITY. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 6/27/2004 5:10 PM (GMT -6) | | ACtually, POW, The Message is not a dramatization. It is one man's interpretation of scripture. There is a difference. Peterson translated into words he believed the writers would use. There is a difference.
Icons don't involve the imagination of the worshiper....when you write like that, I can hear the sound of your mind closing to other people's views (assertions about how wrong others are...BIG OLE
CAPITALS!!!). Apparently icons don't involve anyone, so why use them (the word "use" here is very important). | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/27/2004 5:37 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/27/2004 6:14 PM (GMT -6) | | feelinhole...
What did I mean about "The Message" being a dramatization? It was a complement. I got that impression that "how" it read to its audience was important from (1) where he changes the pacing for effect (Good art), and from the origin of the idea in how he read to his kids or grandkids. It's good literature.
Where feelinhole objects to explanation that "Icons don't involve the imagination of the worshiper"... lets remember Greg's post that differentiated betwen the the modernist (and new age) definition of "imagination" and the simple functioning of the imaginative powers in thinking! I hope that's covered.
To illustrate, when looking at the Nativity Icon we can "notice" the how the manger resembles a casket. Making such a conection does involve imagination. But it is not "creative make believe."
BTW -- This thread is not about Greg's book. It is about ICONS. I'm interested that we not take ideas that are alien to the iconographic tradition and slap them on top,
superficially.
This does not mean that you can "hear the sound of (my) mind closing to other people's views." Its just that there is something specific on the table.
Let people make comparisons/contrasts if they wish. But let's not cloud the distinctions that make comparing possible. (I think that's wise.
- PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/27/2004 6:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Here's the Orthodox community speaking for itself:
quote:
http://www.arimathea.co.uk/icons.htm
Icons and Imagination
Orthodox tradition is deeply suspicious of any attempt to give the imagination an important role in the spiritual life. This can seem very odd and even unreasonably restrictive to Christians familiar with the Roman Catholic techniques of mental prayer and discursive meditation, which make detailed and systematic use of the imagination -e.g. to imagine specific events in the life of Christ, which then provides the object-matter for meditation. Orthodox spirituality avoids any such practise. We are expected to read the Gospel accounts of the events in the life of Christ, to study the Fathers' commentaries on the Gospel texts, to think about them .... but not to attempt to imagine them in prayer. Using the imagination in prayer can lead to error of the gravest kind, when our own imaginative creations replace the reality, and we can even end up praying to our own mental fantasies.
The central reason for avoiding exercise of the imagination in prayer is theological. God is present everywhere. Christ is present by His Holy Spirit in the depth of the being of every Christian living the reality of Baptism into the death of Christ. If we live our Baptism, sealed with the Seal of the Spirit, then the Risen Christ lives in us, by His Holy Spirit, and we live the Risen life in the Spirit. We do not need to imagine Christ as present: He is present: we need to remind ourselves of His presence.
Icons can be effective in recalling us to the presence of Christ - the icon can serve as a reminder that He truly is here. Each specific icon type carries its own message about Him. The Pantocrator reminds us that the Christ who is present here is the Almighty, the Creator and Sustained of the Universe, the Upholder of All. The icon of Christ the Teacher reminds us that it is He who teaches, through the Gospels, the Church's proclamation of the Good News, through prayer, if our spiritual senses are awake to hear Him, through the people we meet, the situations we face. The icon of the Panteleimon, the All-Merciful, reminds us that nothing we have done is beyond His forgiveness; the Christ Who is present to us offers forgiveness and transformation, if we will accept it. The icon of the Crucified reminds us of the unlimited love of the Son of God who assumes our human nature in order to let us share His divine nature. He has entered into our humanity in its fullness, into our joys and sufferings, even into degradation and death; there is no part of our life where Christ is not. The "Anastasis" reminds us that Christ has descended into death to free the whole of humanity from the entrapping power of death, from the fear of death and from the compulsion to sin.
The iconographer has a grave responsibility to ensure his or her icons are not simply works of imagination. The iconographer exercises an ecclesiastical ministry in making icons. The icon must emerge from the mind and spirit of the Church, and must ensure that new icons truly represent the reality the Church knows, not some individual fantasy. Prayer, scriptural study, study of the Church's iconographical tradition and of the doctrine and canons on icons are as important in preparing oneself to make icons as technical study of the artistic processes involved.
http://www.arimathea.co.uk/icons.htm
Pantocrator
Anastasis | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/27/2004 6:39 PM (GMT -6) | | So............
"Creative make believe"
versus
REMIND/RECALL. . .
...of the REALITY THAT
"God is present everywhere.
Christ is present by His Holy Spirit
in the depth of the being
of every Christian living the reality
of Baptism into the death of Christ."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/27/2004 6:46 PM (GMT -6) | | repeating
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
ICONS
- 1. Pedagogical functions: in lines and color, depict what scriptures and other writings of the Church say with words.
- 2. Help effect the function of true worship for the Christian: coordinating eye and mind, draw the worshipper past pictoral representation to what is represented.
- 3. Sacramentally "symbolic" in the sense that it is a place where Divine reality and created reality meet. (The Greek word symballein means to "throw together or unite").
Importantly: "The icons are pledges of the coming victory of a redeemed creation over the fallen one." (Nicholas Zernov)
And: "Icons are the present visual manifestation of that restored creation which was manifested by Christ in His transfiguration, and which will be with God at the end of time. . . . disclosure of God's presence in our midst . . . the Kingdom of Heaven...is present at each point where time meets eternity."
.
"Windows of heaven...that help REMIND US, and help us to RECALL the Reality that is ours In Christ. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/27/2004 6:58 PM (GMT -6) | | REPEATING WHAT IS ABOVE:
- "...there is no part of our life where Christ is not."
- "The central reason for avoiding exercise of the imagination in prayer is theological. God is present everywhere. Christ is present by His Holy Spirit in the depth of the being of every Christian living the reality of Baptism into the death of Christ."
- "Each specific icon type carries its own message about Him:"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 6/27/2004 7:54 PM (GMT -6) | | I certainly am not for "creating a Christ of our own fantancies." The true Christ is given to us in Scripture and the Holy Spirit, and the job of iconographers is to "embody" this. When we embody truth in pictures, sculpures, etc.... and when we embody truth in our minds, whether with or without the use of icons, our concern must be to re-present truth, not CREATE new truth. So, I think I'm in agreement with our eastern orthodox brothers.
IF it is granted that the re-presentation in the mind IS imagination, not in the sense of "make believe" but in the sense of "embodying truth."
Cabeesh?
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/27/2004 8:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Greg: Cabeesh?
PoW: Cabeesh. So long as the "re-presenting" is .... and not making up or going following the winds of feeling and fashion. REMIND/RECALL is a safer criteria. To think that we can hold the sum of God is too tall an order. To present seems to imply having a handle on something, a control over. RECALLING what makes us bow down in Awe is more within my grasp.
Greg: IF it is granted that the re-presentation in the mind IS imagination, not in the sense of "make believe" but in the sense of "embodying truth."
PoW: I don't know how to call what I'm thinking, doing and seeing "imagination." So, no. That's more than a stretch. What is important to realize is that Icons and Liturgy GO TOGETHER. Liturgy is work that leads us in a path of approach. So, when lead to a point the "inner liturgy" and the "outer liturgy" should about match up. What is seen, heard, done, and lived should all fit together. Ther is _nothing_ imaginary about it. No imagination. Thoughts come from and reenter action. Bowing down meets preparation already existing inside one's self, and is welcomed. Truth is "embodied" but not soley with the mind.
I posted this thread to outline what their tradition is. I think it helful to differentiate. This also helps when seeing commonalities.
SEVERAL things that you seemed to assume were common were distinctly different. (You seem to slide from side-to-side to match the situation.)
If your book goes to a second edition, then you might consider two sections at the end (too late to remember what that's called): (1) One section to mention the various approaces that are floating around that you wish readers NOT to bring to your book (You've identified one); and you could also mention in contradistinction what your want to clarify for those who tend to be misguided. And (2) another section to outline the differences between Eastern and Western, as mentioned in "Orthodox tradition is deeply suspicious of any attempt to give the imagination an important role in the spiritual life. This can seem very odd and even unreasonably restrictive to Christians familiar with the Roman Catholic techniques of mental prayer and discursive meditation, which make detailed and systematic use of the imagination -e.g. to imagine specific events in the life of Christ, which then provides the object-matter for meditation. Orthodox spirituality avoids any such practise." from the website I LINKED to above.
For your consideration...  | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 6/28/2004 5:13 AM (GMT -6) | | | POW: I would be interested in you answering Doctor Boyd's question about imagination...(I would assume that you know what I object to about icons because you used your imagination...considering you cannot read my mind...) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/28/2004 5:21 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
POW: I would be interested in you answering Doctor Boyd's question about imagination...(I would assume that you know what I object to about icons because you used your imagination...considering you cannot read my mind...)
I'd love to answer your question, feelinhole. I'm "on" my son's "page" of XP-Professional, and have to get "off." Help me out so that I can answer your question directly and quickly.
Thanks.
PoW
P.S. I'll check back later. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/28/2004 5:51 AM (GMT -6) | | feelinhole,
One thing I recall Greg asking was what "sights" and "sounds" I'd expect to hear. I 'turned' the question by _applying_ it to the instance where the ICON is a fellow believer/worshiper in the congregation. (If an answer is going to work it will work everywhere. And the Christian HAS the work of God within them. And it is THAT work of the Spirit that is venerated. The "little Christ" in them--which is why we are called Christians!) I would "see" them, and hear the liturgy.
For THIS icon (a Cross)  I'd expect to hear something appropriate. Maybe the LENTEN TUNE playing on this (www.arimathea.co.uk/arimathea.htm) website right now: [b]"Before the Cross, we bow down in worship, 0 Master, and Thy holy resurrection, we glorify" [/b](Hymn of Veneration before the Cross). And what we would see would be the congregation using the cross (The church I"m thinking of has a bit of the actual Cross from Calvary; but it could be two popsicle sticks to the same effect!) to (as in the second post of this thread) "Help effect the function of true worship for the Christian: coordinating eye and mind, draw the worshipper past pictoral representation to what is represented." Sight and sound then become "sacramentally 'symbolic' in the sense that it is a place where Divine reality and created reality meet."
While "windows of heaven" is a popular phrase, I think that "become transparent" is a good contemporary equivalent. Like singing "Farest Lord Jesus" before a picture of Christ, for you right now feelinhole, would not stop at the picture but would from the center of your heart be an arrow directed at Christ who lives, icons are that. Your heart's prayer and divotion would no more stop at the picture than they would stop at the music or the hymn's words. They go beyond the tool to their end. And in the action of worship, all is wholistically united. (The Greek word symballein means to "throw together or unite.")
.
I'd like to hear your objection that you have had about icons, feelinhole. I wonder whether we agree on it already! | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/28/2004 5:58 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/28/2004 7:48 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
POW: I would be interested in you answering Doctor Boyd's question about imagination...(I would assume that you know what I object to about icons because you used your imagination...considering you cannot read my mind...)
I'd love to answer your question, feelinhole. I'm "on" my son's "page" of XP-Professional, and have to get "off." Help me out so that I can answer your question directly and quickly.
Thanks.
PoW
P.S. I'll check back later.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 6/28/2004 12:04 PM (GMT -6) | | | I have no objections per se towards icons or any other tool that draws us closer to God...except that I think for many they are idols, like the Virgin Mary is for Catholics. Idol worship is idol worship, whether or not you dress it up and define it differently. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/28/2004 1:23 PM (GMT -6) | | | Icons are "all about" Christ -- about Christology. Anything else is idolotry. An icon of a saint is not a statement that everything they did was perfect, but that "the perfect" was born in them and "showed forth." The gold background indicates "the land of the living." We proclaim the same in many of our hymns, like were we sing "the saints in earth and heav'n" (Recognize this from "O for a Thousand Tongues"). | | Back to Top | | |
| 36 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:51 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|