Lutheran perspectives on iconography

2009-12-09T10:07:00.000-08:00

I was emailed this and thought it was interesting enough to post. not sur eabout the author if anybody knows please send it to us. It is by a pastor

I have a wall in my house that I continue to cover with icons. In addition to liking the art, I find them to be very helpful to me in prayer. I think though that it is more than a little ironic that a denomination that by and large prefers white-washed walls and has an open, almost hostile suspicion of art, that at Christmas (and perhaps Easter) we too roll out our icons. We roll them out not because of our theology, but rather because of our sentimentality.

Out comes the Blessed Theotokos-who despite protestations to the contrary-was blessed among women and did bear God in her womb; out comes Joseph, the wise men, the perfunctory angel with star, AND, the animals. Now there we’ve surpassed Orthodoxy and iconography with the inclusion of animals—St. Bovine? I suppose one could argue that at the pagan “feast” of Thanksgiving, the cornucopia resplendent with canned green beans vomiting down the stairs of the altar, also has an iconic flair to it. Easter too is not to be overlooked with its insect iconography: caterpillar to butterfly amidst hymns of “Christ the Lord is Risen Today…”

Whatever may be said about the East and her icons, at a minimum her theology supports their use, as opposed to a church driven by popular sentiment. Mangers at Christmas are not a hill I’m willing to die on. Given the choice I would not “decorate” the church seasonally; art would either be part and parcel of worship or not. It’s the hypocrisy that I find interesting. To argue for example that Lutheranism doesn’t have icons would be a lie; the only difference is that tradition and not wanting to piss anyone off drives our usage.

Finally a word or two about the Blessed Theotokos. In many ways this season is very much about Mary. It was Mary-not Ruth, or Sue, or Cindy, or Vivian-that was asked to bear Christ. Out of all the women in history and in the world, it was Mary. Let us also remember that Mary was not “ordered” to be the mother of God; she was asked. She also took time to consider her decision, and while it seems improbable to us, free will being what it is, she could have refused.

Mary also presents us-whether we admit it or not-with a lesson in synergia (with + work or effort; syn + ergon); that is, her cooperation with Divine will, in this case, the Holy Spirit. If she didn’t refuse, then she must have cooperated, allowing the Spirit to enter her body. How was it that Mary did this if not by cooperation? I don’t think it can be explained away, neatly anyway.

That being said, Mary isn’t someone we give a great deal of thought to, and in fact if we’re honest, we’d rather just treat her as a gloss, an “incidental.” I think that Mary models in many ways the relationship between God and man-and let’s be clear and say that Mary in no way contributed to anyone’s salvation by her ‘work’-she did however work with God and the proof of that cooperation is Christ.

It’s very easy to focus our eyes solely on Christ to the exclusion of his saints, and their record exists for a reason: they serve as models of imperfect lives, made perfect in Christ. Shepherds, tax collectors, fishermen, tent makers, adolescent girls, older men, whores—all entrusted with the Gospel of Christ, all of their flesh worn by Christ and perfected

2009-09-15T09:17:00.000-07:00

Visit Orthodox Christianity on the web

Byzantine Iconography

Lutheran perspectives on iconography