A question for Eastern Orthodox Brothers ...

[jason]

I am reading a book on the Eastern Orthodox church from a western perspective.

How do you avoid worshipping icons ?

I don't mean to be crass. The book is talking about it, but I am not sure I could ever venerate an icon without being tempted into idolatry ?

I suspect I would be.

And I don't understand this idea of visual worship. But then again I am certianly a child of the western written tradition.

Anyway, i'm curious ...

Jason

[Tercel]

From dictionary.com:
Venerate: To regard with respect, reverence, or heartfelt deference

Do you respect the Bible? Do you treat God's word with reverence? Do you heartfelty defer to it? Then you venerate the Bible. So I'll turn the question around and ask how do Protestants manage to venerate the Bible without worshipping it? Put that way it seems a silly question in some regards doesn't it? Every protestant in the world would probably be affronted at the suggestion that they actually WORSHIPPED the bible.

Actually I think Protestants come a heck of a lot closer to worshipping the Bible than the Orthodox do images - Protestants very often call the Bible the "Word of God" (a divine title - namely that of Jesus), remind themselves of its inerrant truth (a property of God), and complete and absolute God-inspiration. I've often got annoyed that Biblical-Protestant churches end up saying "We believe in the Bible" rather than "we believe in God" to the point where if a street-preacher asked me in real life if I "believe in the Bible" I'd probably snap back with a "no, I believe in God".

If you've been to the Passion you've seen images of Jesus... how did you avoid worshipping those images? I think it's not a sensible question - of course you knew that the images are not the reality, and that you worship the reality, not the depiction of the reality.

Back in the dark ages where society was uneducated and the peasants may have mistakenly worshipped the image rather than the reality, you might have been able to convince me that images were a bad thing. But in an age of visual depiction (TV, Movies etc) and education, no one at all ever confuses the reality with the image of the reality and we are used to utilising images to understand a greater truth. Thus when you stick people in an image-less church and try and get them to understand the greater reality while depriving them of one of the senses that they are used to utilising, you're not acheiving anything beneficial.

It is clear there is a distinction between veneration and worship. We venerate the Bible, but do not worship it. We venerate Baptism but do not worship it. We venerate communion/mass but do not worship it. We venerate the elderly but do not worship them. We venerate any human we particular respect - our favourite football player, our favourite movie star, but we do not (hopefully) worship them.

As for your not understanding "visual worship", I don't quite see what there is to not understand. Imagine a person from deepest amazon who upon seeing Christians singing hymns for the first time said "I don't understand oral worship. My people believe God can know the innermost thoughts of the believer, thus we just think about God's greatness when worshipping. Why have singing or oral worship? Is God powerless to know your thoughts?"
My answer to that person would be that we also worship God in our thoughts, but that praising him as well with our mouth adds an additional dimension to it for us - it is not God that gets more out of it, but us who are able to use more of our being to praise God.

And in the same vein, if we use our mouth, why not our eyes? Why not praise God with our art and our artistic talents, and then during worship use our eyes to convey to us more of his glory to stimulate our worship. I have to say that I find an image of Christ far more visually stimulating to help in worship than I find a blank white wall.

[jason]

From dictionary.com:
Venerate: To regard with respect, reverence, or heartfelt deference

Do you respect the Bible? Do you treat God's word with reverence? Do you heartfelty defer to it? Then you venerate the Bible. So I'll turn the question around and ask how do Protestants manage to venerate the Bible without worshipping it? Put that way it seems a silly question in some regards doesn't it? Every protestant in the world would probably be affronted at the suggestion that they actually WORSHIPPED the bible.I wasn't saying you did worship an Icon. I simply said, how do you avoid doing so.

If you've been to the Passion you've seen images of Jesus... how did you avoid worshipping those images? I think it's not a sensible question - of course you knew that the images are not the reality, and that you worship the reality, not the depiction of the reality.Relax bro. I was just wondering. I understand your point.

Thus when you stick people in an image-less church and try and get them to understand the greater reality while depriving them of one of the senses that they are used to utilising, you're not acheiving anything beneficial.You might have a point there.

As for your not understanding "visual worship", I don't quite see what there is to not understand. Imagine a person from deepest amazon who upon seeing Christians singing hymns for the first time said "I don't understand oral worship. My people believe God can know the innermost thoughts of the believer, thus we just think about God's greatness when worshipping. Why have singing or oral worship? Is God powerless to know your thoughts?"Yes I see your point. Am I not allowed to ask these questions ? I am genuinely interested.

And in the same vein, if we use our mouth, why not our eyes? Why not praise God with our art and our artistic talents, and then during worship use our eyes to convey to us more of his glory to stimulate our worship. I have to say that I find an image of Christ far more visually stimulating to help in worship than I find a blank white wall.Fair enough. As I said, I am trying to understand and this seems like an obvious enough concern.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Jason

[One Bad Pig]

Why not praise God with our art and our artistic talents, and then during worship use our eyes to convey to us more of his glory to stimulate our worship. I have to say that I find an image of Christ far more visually stimulating to help in worship than I find a blank white wall.
Personally, my senses seem to fade when I worship. My surroundings don't matter. I often close my eyes, so I can concentrate more deeply on the act of worship.

[Jezz]

Jason,

You have raised a very valid question that I think many Westerners have about Eastern Christianity. However, the Orthodox have very convincing counter-arguments. I would have to say that, although I originally was wary of the images thing, I eventually came to the conclusion that Orthodoxy has fallen prey to Western propaganda (which had sucked me in), and that really there is nothing wrong with it. I concur with everything that Tercel posted.

I will add this analogy which Tercel didn't mention, which hopefully will make plain it plain that there is nothing wrong with icons.

Suppose that you are married. For some reason (eg, travel), you are separated from your spouse. You may decide to carry a photo with you of your spouse, in order to remind you of them. Sometimes you might even kiss the photo (as the Orthodox do their icons). Is this the kind of thing that your spouse would consider infidelity/being unfaithful? Of course not. Because it is not the photo that you really love, but the person depicted therein.

Icons of the church are the same. Remember in the early years of the church, many were illiterate. The icons were like a "picture book" depiction of the Gospels and church history. Why is it ok to have written depiction, and not a visual depiction?

I think the "picture of a loved one" analogy is a good one too in determining when veneration goes to far and turns into worship. If you gave attention to the photo of your spouse such that your spouse got jealous, then you've crossed that line. You're no longer venerating the object depicted, but the depiction itself.

[jason]

You have raised a very valid question that I think many Westerners have about Eastern Christianity. However, the Orthodox have very convincing counter-arguments.As I have discovered. I was just wondering how they avoided such a temptation.

Do icons have any power as such or are they merely pictures ?

I will add this analogy which Tercel didn't mention, which hopefully will make plain it plain that there is nothing wrong with icons.I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with icons. Although it strikes me as the sort of thing that could be misused.

Icons of the church are the same. Remember in the early years of the church, many were illiterate. The icons were like a "picture book" depiction of the Gospels and church history. Why is it ok to have written depiction, and not a visual depiction?The problem is when it becomes more than a "picture book". I have no problem with icons per se. Just a concern that like a pagan idol they may take on a life of their own.

Look at how some superstitious Roman Catholics treat the bread in the Eucharist. They use it magically to heal sickness and the like. (Funnily enough I reject transubstantiation, although I am not sure if consubstantiation might not be true).

Thanks for the response. BTW do you know of any good solid fathful Orthodox Churches in Sydney Australia ?

Jason

[Jezz]

As I have discovered. I was just wondering how they avoided such a temptation.
Well, if you think back to my "photo of a loved one" example again, I think the answer to this question should present itself rather straightforwardly. If you venerate a photo of your wife, how do you avoid being tempted to be unfaithful to your wife? The question seems a bit silly in this scenario, doesn't it? I'm sorry not trying to be too insulting here, but I think when framed that way it makes it obvious how absurd this objection appears to an Orthodox Christian.

Do icons have any power as such or are they merely pictures ?
I'm fairly new to this Orthodox stuff, so take any answer I give you with a grain of salt. However, my current understanding is: yes and no. Yes - some icons have power of a sort, but no - this power does not come from the icon itself. It comes from that which the icon depicts.

I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with icons. Although it strikes me as the sort of thing that could be misused.

The problem is when it becomes more than a "picture book". I have no problem with icons per se. Just a concern that like a pagan idol they may take on a life of their own.
I think it is good that you are concerned about such things - it shows that your heart is in the right place.

However, if we were truly honest with ourselves, we'd acknowledge that we in our sinful tendencies will find a way to abuse any good thing. This is not a problem that applies uniquely to icons. The doctrine of sola scriptura is an example of an "idol" of many Protestant sects.

Look at how some superstitious Roman Catholics treat the bread in the Eucharist. They use it magically to heal sickness and the like. (Funnily enough I reject transubstantiation, although I am not sure if consubstantiation might not be true).
See above for comments on abuse of doctrines.

As for the con vs transubstantiation - that's an interesting one. It was actually this very question that eventually led me down a path which brought me to an Orthodox understanding of theology. The more I looked into it, the more I saw that the difference between con and transubstantiation was all words. I struggled to figure out exactly what the difference was (if any). For perspective, I asked George Blaisdell what the Orthodox belief was - and he just kinda said "I don't know - it's a mystery..." Which is essentially the conclusion that I came to after failing to figure out what the difference was in the Catholic (trans) and Lutheran (con) doctrines.

The best explanation (IMO) that I've seen is an Orthodox one, which likens the true presence in the Eucharist to the incarnation. In the same way that Jesus was fully man at the same time as fully divine, so too is the Eucharist both fully bread and wine while at the same time being Jesus' body and blood.

Thanks for the response.
No problemo!

BTW do you know of any good solid fathful Orthodox Churches in Sydney Australia ?
I'm in Adelaide, so I don't know of any off the top of my head. But when I went looking for an Orthodox church to visit in Adelaide, I found this site (http://www.ministryblue.com/church-orthodox.html) helpful.

[Tercel]

Sorry if I sounded harsh Jason, I really didn't mean to... I was trying to be helpful. It's not a silly question, it was a perfectly good question. My point was simply that after thinking about this question (which I myself, brought up baptist, once had) I have come to believe that it can be very convincingly answered (as I hope I have done). Best of luck in your future enquires and God-Bless.

[jason]

Well, if you think back to my "photo of a loved one" example again, I think the answer to this question should present itself rather straightforwardly. If you venerate a photo of your wife, how do you avoid being tempted to be unfaithful to your wife? The question seems a bit silly in this scenario, doesn't it? I'm sorry not trying to be too insulting here, but I think when framed that way it makes it obvious how absurd this objection appears to an Orthodox Christian.No that really nicely clears it up.

However, my current understanding is: yes and no. Yes - some icons have power of a sort, but no - this power does not come from the icon itself. It comes from that which the icon depicts.What sort of power of a sort ?

However, if we were truly honest with ourselves, we'd acknowledge that we in our sinful tendencies will find a way to abuse any good thing. This is not a problem that applies uniquely to icons. The doctrine of sola scriptura is an example of an "idol" of many Protestant sects.Oh I agree.

As for the con vs transubstantiation - that's an interesting one. It was actually this very question that eventually led me down a path which brought me to an Orthodox understanding of theology. The more I looked into it, the more I saw that the difference between con and transubstantiation was all words. I struggled to figure out exactly what the difference was (if any).There is actually a profound difference. Transubstantiation is built on top of an idea taken from Aristotlelian philiosophy. I was actually thinking of starting a thread on this very topic.

The best explanation (IMO) that I've seen is an Orthodox one, which likens the true presence in the Eucharist to the incarnation. In the same way that Jesus was fully man at the same time as fully divine, so too is the Eucharist both fully bread and wine while at the same time being Jesus' body and blood.Worth keeping in mind that I am an Anglican, and subscribe to the idea of the Eucharist/Mass/Lords Supper as a symbolic meal.

I'm in Adelaide, so I don't know of any off the top of my head. But when I went looking for an Orthodox church to visit in Adelaide, I found this site (http://www.ministryblue.com/church-orthodox.html) helpful.It turns out there is one around the corner. St Andrew's Gladesville. But do you have dodgy Orthodox churches like you have dodgy Protestant churches ?

Jason

[jason]

Sorry if I sounded harsh Jason, I really didn't mean to... I was trying to be helpful. It's not a silly question, it was a perfectly good question. My point was simply that after thinking about this question (which I myself, brought up baptist, once had) I have come to believe that it can be very convincingly answered (as I hope I have done). Best of luck in your future enquires and God-Bless.
Actually upon further reflection I find myself in some way still puzzled.

I understand the analogy of the picture.

But I do not think I venerate the Bible or a cross in such a fashion.

I certianly would never call the bible The Word of God, but only ever the word of God. For it is inspired by The Word, but it is not The Word.

And any particular bible is just a book, that apparently used to make an excellent source of cartridge paper some centuries ago.

I would not destroy one for it is the word after all, but it is still just a book.

Jason

[Jezz]

No that really nicely clears it up.
:thumb:

What sort of power of a sort ?
Not real sure. Perhaps like when you are struggling with lusting after another woman, you look at a picture of your wife and the temptation passes. Or perhaps something more. Might need to do some more research on this.

There is actually a profound difference [between consubstantiation and transubstantiation].
I used to think so, but the more I tried to pin down the difference, the more I struggled. :shrug:

Transubstantiation is built on top of an idea taken from Aristotlelian philiosophy. I was actually thinking of starting a thread on this very topic.
Hmm, I can see that, but since Aristotlelian theology has passed into the dustbin of scientific history, the meanings of the words used in the phrasing of the "transubstantiation" have diluted so much that it no longer means quite the same thing that it used to. As such, I think the distinction between it and consubstantiation becomes somewhat blurred. But by all means, start a thread on it. I would be interested to know more.

I actually think that "consubstantiation" is not much different from the Orthodox explanation at heart - rather than try to explain it in too much nitty-gritty detail like the Catholics did, they simply said "We eat the body and blood of Jesus when we eat the bread and wine - don't really know how." I think this is the best way to go. As George said to me: "It's a mystery..."

Worth keeping in mind that I am an Anglican, and subscribe to the idea of the Eucharist/Mass/Lords Supper as a symbolic meal.
I was never sure what official Anglican doctrine on the matter was. I was under the impression that they could vary between the extreme that you propose at one end, and either trans or consubstantiation (but not sure which) at the other.

About it being a "symbolic" meal - the Orthodox would actually agree with that. However, they point out (and quite validly, IMO), that to set up "symbolic" in opposition to "real" is to create a false dichotomy. They believe that in the meal we receive the body and blood of Jesus symbolically and in the meal, while symbolic

The reason I believe in some sort of "true presence" doctrine is because that was the universal teaching of the early Church Fathers, and the universal teaching of the Church right up until the Reformation and even beyond.

It turns out there is one around the corner. St Andrew's Gladesville. But do you have dodgy Orthodox churches like you have dodgy Protestant churches ?
I would not recommend presenting yourself for communion at any Orthodox Church if you have not officially converted to Orthodoxy, as they officially practice closed communion. I think that perhaps individual priests might be more or less strict on this, but best to err on the side of respect, I think. But apart from issues of "strictness" like that, I don't think that there's any such thing as a dodgy Orthodox Church, in the same way that you have dodgy Protestant Churches. Their services are fully liturgical and very traditional, and their is simply no room for dodgy doctrines to be expounded or dodgy practices to be adopted. The service I went to used the liturgy of St John Chrysostom, which we also use in the Lutheran Church. I suspect that you'd be familiar with it too in the Anglican Church. The only thing you'll really need to look out for is that the liturgy may not be in English. The one I went to was half Arabic and half English with a sprinkling of Latin! :smile: But even if you can't find an English service, you'll still get something out of the service, I think. I do recommend that you go check it out.

I hope this has been useful.

[Columba]

Actually upon further reflection I find myself in some way still puzzled.

I understand the analogy of the picture.

But I do not think I venerate the Bible or a cross in such a fashion.

I certianly would never call the bible The Word of God, but only ever the word of God. For it is inspired by The Word, but it is not The Word.

And any particular bible is just a book, that apparently used to make an excellent source of cartridge paper some centuries ago.

I would not destroy one for it is the word after all, but it is still just a book.

Jason
Hi there Jason. Your questions are indeed good one. You have good ideas!
Re: the danger of worshipping icons: Firstly, I would say that no one is taught to worship them in the first place, and are taught its proper place in the scheme of things. I don't ever have a fear of "accidentally" worshipping one because its only a thing. Catechumens (inquirers) are taught from the beginning this is a no-no. Children raised in Orthodoxy learn this from babyhood. If you were a convert, the very fact that you're afraid of worshipping them, tells me you never would. People in the east who have grown up around all this, take all this for granted....so you should not feel bad about asking. In the West, idolatry has indeed become a problem . But it is also a problem in the East (Hinduism, and so forth). Orthodox people do understand your feelings.
Just as any particular Bible is just a book, we see icons in the same way: made of fabric or paper, or whatever. If it were destroyed, we would feel a loss, but we would simply Praise God that a real human being wasn't destroyed...and just get another one.

It is what the object means to us. Since we see the Bible as infallible, we are honored to even have it, that it was a beautiful Gift to us from God and we treat it as our most treasured possession. But we don't worship it.
God bless you Jason!
:)

[jason]

thanks guys