Christine L
The iconoclastic controversy took place between 726 and 843 primarily within the Byzantine church. The Eastern Christians saw icons as links between the physical and spiritual worlds. When Emperor Leo III declared in 726 that icons were idols and must be destroyed, the arguments began. John of Damascus was a great proponent of icons as well as the leading Byzantine theologian during this period. After writing the treatise in defense of icons, John of Damascus became a monk at Mar Saba.
Volz states on page 66, “Radbertus also taught that the Virgin Mary, in order to preserve her perpetual virginity, gave birth to Christ clauso utero (the womb was not opened in giving birth). This notion, however, had no future in the church.” It is easy to see some of these Medieval Christian notions through the lens of psychology or anthropology. They seem to be products of the normal processes of human logic. Similar to the above attempt at making sense of virgin birth, the church in the East was striving to make sense of the relationship between earthly possessions and the divine. Can an icon possess the divine presence itself? The threat of saying yes is the possibility of maximizing the human side of Christ thereby denying his complete divinity. The notion of God is complex and it is natural to investigate the point or points at which the divine comes in contact with (or becomes one with) earthy things. This is of central interest to all religions. God can be put anywhere on the spectrum from completely one with tangible reality to completely intangible and distinct from all matter.
John of Damascus places him on the side of the intangible by writing, “I believe in one God, the source of all things, without beginning, uncreated, immortal, everlasting, incomprehensible, bodiless, invisible, uncircumscribed, without form” (Rosenwein 78). John argues that iconodules do not threaten devotion to the one true God. To the contrary, they are helpful. He points out that context is extremely important but it has been overlooked in this argument. He argues that those who attack the use of icons do not know the Scriptures. John states, “These injunctions were given to the Jews on account of their proneness to idolatry. Now we, on the contrary, are no longer in toddler harnesses. Speaking theologically, it is given to us to avoid superstitious error…” (78). He uses the plans for building a house as an example of how “visible things are images of invisible and intangible things, on which they throw a faint light” (79). John explains that we are imbedded in a material existence and because we are human, we must do our best to experience God in a fully human way; through our senses which includes sight. We live in matter and we are matter. These things cannot and should not be denied. Those who try to throw out the use of images and icons are hampering believers’ ability to worship God.
The iconoclastic controversy took place between 726 and 843 primarily within the Byzantine church. The Eastern Christians saw icons as links between the physical and spiritual worlds. When Emperor Leo III declared in 726 that icons were idols and must be destroyed, the arguments began. John of Damascus was a great proponent of icons as well as the leading Byzantine theologian during this period. After writing the treatise in defense of icons, John of Damascus became a monk at Mar Saba.
Volz states on page 66, “Radbertus also taught that the Virgin Mary, in order to preserve her perpetual virginity, gave birth to Christ clauso utero (the womb was not opened in giving birth). This notion, however, had no future in the church.” It is easy to see some of these Medieval Christian notions through the lens of psychology or anthropology. They seem to be products of the normal processes of human logic. Similar to the above attempt at making sense of virgin birth, the church in the East was striving to make sense of the relationship between earthly possessions and the divine. Can an icon possess the divine presence itself? The threat of saying yes is the possibility of maximizing the human side of Christ thereby denying his complete divinity. The notion of God is complex and it is natural to investigate the point or points at which the divine comes in contact with (or becomes one with) earthy things. This is of central interest to all religions. God can be put anywhere on the spectrum from completely one with tangible reality to completely intangible and distinct from all matter.
John of Damascus places him on the side of the intangible by writing, “I believe in one God, the source of all things, without beginning, uncreated, immortal, everlasting, incomprehensible, bodiless, invisible, uncircumscribed, without form” (Rosenwein 78). John argues that iconodules do not threaten devotion to the one true God. To the contrary, they are helpful. He points out that context is extremely important but it has been overlooked in this argument. He argues that those who attack the use of icons do not know the Scriptures. John states, “These injunctions were given to the Jews on account of their proneness to idolatry. Now we, on the contrary, are no longer in toddler harnesses. Speaking theologically, it is given to us to avoid superstitious error…” (78). He uses the plans for building a house as an example of how “visible things are images of invisible and intangible things, on which they throw a faint light” (79). John explains that we are imbedded in a material existence and because we are human, we must do our best to experience God in a fully human way; through our senses which includes sight. We live in matter and we are matter. These things cannot and should not be denied. Those who try to throw out the use of images and icons are hampering believers’ ability to worship God.