“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” [Matthew 6:24]
“Nothing has a stronger influence psychologically on their environment and especially on their children than the unlived life of the parent.” [Carl Jung]
“… a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.” [2 Pet 2:19]
Having just read Peter Rollins’ brilliant “How (not) to speak of God“, and learned a little about his community IKON, I have been made aware of a fascinating duality. I speak of idols and icons, more generally put the iconic and the idolotrous. IKON presents itsself as having 5 significant facets: iconic, apocalyptic, heretical, emerging and failing. Regarding the duality we are discussing here, this is how they view it:
“Idolatry can be understood as the sin of viewing something as that which renders God’s very essence visible to human experience [...] either aesthetic (like the Golden Calf mentioned in the book of Exodus) or conceptual. In the later we make God intelligible by constructing a doctrinal image which we view as a manifestation of Gods essence.
To treat something as an icon is to see it as that which draws us into a deep contemplation of that which cannot be reduced to words, images or experience.”
So an Idol is a created thing usurping the place of the creator. An Icon is a created thing mediating between created and creator. Although it initially appears clear cut, the line between them is surprisingly hard to define once one starts to explore it.
One main point in “How (not) to speak of God” is that of the nature of the idol: idols are traditionally thought of as statues or things but can be conceptual. This can mean any ideology, such as Consumerism, Materialism, Unfettered Industrial Progress or Militarism, but as it turns out, is very often Theology. The very thing we think of as sacred, as the opposite of these human, fallen thoughts can turn out to be an idol. What I term “Biblism”, a combination of literalism, superstition and piety, is an example of this close to home.
Here is the problem: If we refuse to examine this, and therefore tacitly accept our adopted, underlying, and default myths, we can never be sure of what we are worshiping. For example to deny that our theology might be our relativistic view of truth rather than THE absolute truth, opens us to idolatry. Socrates famously said that the unexamined life was not worth living. But more than that, the unexamined life may in fact be our ticket to destruction.
What we will not countenance will master us. It’s only in facing our deeply held myths that we either “prove” them or dispel them. This is why fundamentalism is so toxic. It prevents the healer from accessing the true problem by denying that the problem exists. If we misdiagnose our ills, they will probably kill us.
I have been discussing issues of inclusivity in Towards radical inclusion, and I mentioned the paradox “not with me is against me – not against you is for you”; I quote once again here from Luke 11:
“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters. When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first.”
Adding to these thoughts, the “exclusion” hinted at in Luke 11:23 is an unwillingness to actively and continuously follow Jesus. Many people come to faith / join a church / theological tradition and then adopt an “arrival” mentality. They feel that they have “crossed the line”, are justified by faith, confession or membership, and become passive. The culture and assumptions of the organisation they find themselves in probably contribute handsomely to this false sense of security, due to its questionable assumptions about what constitutes being included and where the line of salvation is drawn.
So what happens to the apathetic believer? Jesus suggests that whatever idols / demons / wrong views of G-d and the cosmos were dispelled upon repentance will return sevenfold. The state of an apathetic, conservative, non-thinking orthodoxy is many times worse than the “pre-Christian” one.
I really detest the macabre Charismatic fear-mongering view that emphasizes the dangers of demonic possession in this text (although I’m not discounting this entirely), because the underlying “dangers” of apostasy (here’s another word that due to be taken to the cleaners) are not simply evil spirits, but anything idolatrous.
I am aware that the tone of this post is rather negative and critical. But what really excites me is the exploration of the iconic. I want no more to be an idol destroyer than an idol erector. Idols are boring. The desire for life draws me in the direction of icons – questions of mediation, imagemaking, inventive theology, the creation of icons, and new liturgies remain upmost in my mind.
Tim Victor said
Nic,
I like the tension presented between the terms “icon” and “idol” and remembering that icons can turn into idols and that the process of crossing that line is often unconscious – few would deliberately cross that line; most won’t accept an accusation that they have done so.
For me an icon can be anything that facilitates worship and reflection on God/-ess and hence includes all the trappings of the evangelical church in addition to those in the orthodox churches. I’m sure most evangelicals feel that they don’t have icons (read idols) and, in the classical sense they may not. For me an icon frames something of God/-ess, bringing something of the One who is so diverse and intransient into focus and thereby serves as a bridge enabling us to move deeper toward God/-ess. An idol, on the other hand is something that seeks to contain God/-ess within itself. For some that can be the Bible and for others what lies in their head and yet others the dolls they feed and bathe and clothe. Something becomes an idol when it is the end point of our devotion; something becomes an icon when it is a bridge, vehicle or perhaps point of origin wherefrom we can enter into devotion together.
With a current move toward the experiential as primary (rather than the modernist Christian view of the intellectual as primary) the importance of community along with its icons emerges as important. What people experience each other and God/-ess around is an important issue requiring much further exploration.
Tim Victor
Nic Paton said
Tim
I like the way you have spun the thought out. That is iconic in itself – growing, changing, expanding, contextualising the basic proposition.
To view the experimental as primary is a view I can fully expouse. Somehow we allow for some experiment and see it as an abberation on the way towards arrival, whereas in fact we are called to a certain restlessness.
Icon as bridge – this is good. Can we then say that the celtic idea of the “Thin Place” (celebrated at the liminal times eg. autumn/spring/beltane/samhain/Halloween) is an icon?
Don R said
” The unexamined life was not worth living”. In the last three years, this has become my credo. My regret……that it wasn’t my credo the other 59 years. In my years as an educator, trudged unconsciously through the study of icons and idols. you have awakened me to bring the old consciousness of my previous years into the “new” consciousness of the last three. Thank you!
Don R said
The “apathetic believer”. What an appropriate description of me in my previous “incarnation”. I feel more alive than ever (even at my age!), because I am questioning everything. God leads the honest questioner to more than he can assimilate in our short allotment of days here.
Nic Paton said
Don – I am deeply honoured if these thoughts lead you to life.
I wouldn’t be hard on yourself regarding age or regret; it seems to be the way of things that you only get to a certain view after lots of water has run under the bridge. Having said that, Peter Rollins is aparently only in his late 20’s so for every rule there is an exception. I’d love to find out how you view his book.
It’s worth re-emphasising, that holding the Hope of Inclusion and the Reintergration of All has a lot to do with the freedom you and I discuss.
Simon said
Nic,
This question speaks to me in a particular way, being an Armenian from Cappadocia, where the madness of iconoclasm can be seen to this day. Likewise, when iconoclasm turns its destructive eyes towards “intellectualism”, which is how I understand the passage you site about conceptual idols, are we invariably seeing the premises of a cultish mind set – the opposite of an inquisitive mind. I may be over-interpreting or misunderstanding Peter Rollins though…
I find that the accepted (orthodox, catholic?) definition of “icon” (image, in Greek) says it beautifully: an icon is a visible trace of the Invisible.
The emphasis is on “invisible”. Idolatry starts when the emphasis shifts to “visible”.
Nic Paton said
Simon
wiki – “Iconoclasm is the deliberate destruction within a culture of the culture’s own religious icons and other symbols or monuments.”
I’m so glad you brought this up; I was wanting to do so now you have. I think iconoclasm is at the opposite end of the line from idolotory, almost a reverse idolotory:
idol – make the invisible Visible
icon – a visible trace of the Invisible
iconoclast – make the visible Invisible
The iconoclast is reacting against their own perception (their unconscious / unlived / unwitting idol) of a cherished truth, and instead of seeing the icon as salvific, mistakes the icon for an opposing, mirror image idol.
Icons help us apprehend truth, and both idolotors and iconoclasts miss the point.
Tim Victor said
Simon, I really like the way you put it and how and how you distinguish that from the dangers of iconoclasticism/iconoclasm. Can you give us some thoughs on the dangers in your experience and how we may healthily include icons in our praxis?
Nic, yes I think that due to The Fall we’re definately cut off from the spiritual, just as we’re cut off from the unconscious, and that we can deliberately draw near and so live closer to what lies on the other side. Icons and ambassadors and spiritual disciplines all bring us to the veil which is actually thin, more especially so through the Spirit, and thinner sometimes than other times.
Simon said
Nic – Nice way of putting it. Yet again, the Greek origins of these words is helpful: icon, from eikon, “image”; idol, from eidolon, “appearance, or form” (though admittedly, it’s hard to translate connotations from one language to the other).
Tim – That’s really hard to put into words, isn’t it. I find that a Holy Icon is like a guide or a ladder, that allows the soul to reach out to the true contemplation of divine Beauty. The beauty of the support (wood and paint) must speak to your heart, not to your mind. That is, I think, why one cannot ’study’ Icons without desecrating them, imo. Thus, Icons are not portraits, nor art, unless you capitalise the first letter. An Icon should make you cry, not because of what it is, but because of what it is the trace of. I also believe that an icon should be personal, it must speak to you, and be blessed for you. An Icon can also help focus your intention during prayer.
I wrote a little article about Gregory Palamas’ view of the second commandment: ““You shall not make an image of anything in the heavens above, or in the earth below, or in the sea” to which St Gregory Palamas adds: in such a way that you worship these things and glorify them as gods. ”
(http://homepage.mac.com/s.babayan/Apokatastasis/Blog/files/New_testament_decalogue-2.html)
Simon said
oops, that url was truncated. Here it is, snipped – sorry:
http://snipurl.com/1sa04
Steve said
Nic,
If you haven’t read these, you might find them useful:
Lossky, Vladimir. 1973. The mystical theology of the Eastern
Church. Cambridge: James Clarke.
ISBN: 0-227-67536
Describes the hesychast apophatic approach to
knowing God – the negative way.
Lossky, Vladimir. 1974. In the image and likeness of God.
Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
Dewey: 230.19 LOSS
Ikons and idols « Khanya said
[...] and idols Jump to Comments Nic Paton contemplates ikons and idols in a recent blog [...]
liquidlight said
hi all.
a wonderful blog entry Nic, followed up by plenty of thoughtful responses. i look forward to continuing my reading of Rollins’ book, when we’ve completed the house move. i remember how in my early evangelical charismatic days, i was so sure that the greek orthodox & roman catholic’s were devilishly idolatrous for using religious icons – only years later did it occur to me that i myself was bowing to my own relativistic view of G-d and reading of scripture.
within the vastness of spacetime, we live as flickers of light, part of a larger luminous pattern. it’s so easy to slip from the iconic into the idolatrous and maybe the secret lies in becoming more and more aware of this tension, the thirst for mystery vs the desire for the concrete & the certain.
one day we will be gone and so like lights on a hill, lets make sure we shone, with our own peculiar hue & colour.
thanks for your words Nic – as ever, they reflect your characteristic curiosity, passion & generosity.
Russ.
p.s. as a parent, the Carl Jung quote you cited at the beginning was a chilling reminder of how vital reflection is, not only for ourselves but those who follow.
The shamanic shadow in the 3rd millennium « Sound and Silence said
[...] are a replacement for G-d, while icons draw us towards G-d. (I have explored this in a essay idol-icon). Determining whether something is idolatrous or iconic is as difficult as discerning the contents [...]