Posted on 08/30/2003 6:54:36 PM PDT by Destro
How an Icon Brought a Calvinist to Orthodoxy
By Robert K. Arakaki
A Journey to Orthodoxy
Conciliar Press - It was my first week at seminary. Walking down the hallway of the main dorm, I saw an icon of Christ on a student’s door. I thought: "An icon in an evangelical seminary?! What’s going on here?" Even more amazing was the fact that Jim’s background was the Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal denomination. When I left Hawaii in 1990 to study at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, I went with the purpose of preparing to become an evangelical seminary professor in a liberal United Church of Christ seminary. The UCC is one of the most liberal denominations, and I wanted to help bring the denomination back to its biblical roots. The last thing I expected was that I would become Orthodox.
Called by an Icon
After my first semester, I flew back to Hawaii for the winter break. While there, I was invited to a Bible study at Ss. Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church. At the Bible study I kept looking across the table to the icons that were for sale. My eyes kept going back to this one particular icon of Christ holding the Bible in His hand. For the next several days I could not get that icon out of my mind.
I went back and bought the icon. When I bought it, I wasn’t thinking of becoming Orthodox. I bought it because I thought it was cool, and as a little gesture of rebellion against the heavily Reformed stance at Gordon-Conwell. However, I also felt a spiritual power in the icon that made me more aware of Christ’s presence in my life.
In my third year at seminary, I wrote a paper entitled, "The Icon and Evangelical Spirituality." In the paper I explored how the visual beauty of icons could enrich evangelical spirituality, which is often quite intellectual and austere. As I did my research, I knew that it was important that I understand the icon from the Orthodox standpoint and not impose a Protestant bias on my subject. Although I remained a Protestant evangelical after I had finished the paper, I now began to comprehend the Orthodox sacramental understanding of reality.
After I graduated from seminary, I went to Berkeley and began doctoral studies in comparative religion. While there, I attended Ss. Kyril and Methodios Bulgarian Orthodox Church, a small parish made up mostly of American converts. It was there that I saw Orthodoxy in action. I was deeply touched by the sight of fathers carrying their babies in their arms to take Holy Communion and fathers holding their children up so they could kiss the icons.
The Biblical Basis for Icons
After several years in Berkeley, I found myself back in Hawaii. Although I was quite interested in Orthodoxy, I also had some major reservations. One was the question: Is there a biblical basis for icons? And doesn’t the Orthodox practice of venerating icons violate the Ten Commandments, which forbid the worship of graven images? The other issue was John Calvin’s opposition to icons. I considered myself to be a Calvinist, and I had a very high regard for Calvin as a theologian and a Bible scholar. I tackled these two problems in the typical fashion of a graduate student: I wrote research papers.
In my research I found that there is indeed a biblical basis for icons. In the Book of Exodus, we find God giving Moses the Ten Commandments, which contain the prohibition against graven images (Exodus 20:4). In that same book, we also find God instructing Moses on the construction of the Tabernacle, including placing the golden cherubim over the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:17–22). Furthermore, we find God instructing Moses to make images of the cherubim on the outer curtains of the Tabernacle and on the inner curtain leading into the Holy of Holies (Exodus 26:1, 31–33).
I found similar biblical precedents for icons in Solomon’s Temple. Images of the cherubim were worked into the Holy of Holies, carved on the two doors leading into the Holy of Holies, as well as on the outer walls around Solomon’s Temple (2 Chronicles 3:14; 1 Kings 6:29, 30, 31–35). What we see here stands in sharp contrast to the stark austerity of many Protestant churches today. Where many Protestant churches have four bare walls, the Old Testament place of worship was full of lavish visual details.
Toward the end of the Book of Ezekiel is a long, elaborate description of the new Temple. Like the Tabernacle of Moses and Solomon’s Temple, the new Temple has wall carvings of cherubim (Ezekiel 41:15–26). More specifically, the carvings of the cherubim had either human faces or the faces of lions. The description of human faces on the temple walls bears a striking resemblance to the icons in Orthodox churches today.
Recent archaeological excavations uncovered a first-century Jewish synagogue with pictures of biblical scenes on its walls. This means that when Jesus and His disciples attended the synagogue on the Sabbath, they did not see four bare walls, but visual reminders of biblical truths.
I was also struck by the fact that the concept of the image of God is crucial for theology. It is important to the Creation account and critical in understanding human nature (Genesis 1:27). This concept is also critical for the understanding of salvation. God saves us by the restoration of His image within us (Romans 8:29; 1 Corinthians 15:49). These are just a few mentions of the image of God in the Bible. All this led me to the conclusion that there is indeed a biblical basis for icons!
What About Calvin?
But what about John Calvin? I had the greatest respect for Calvin, who is highly regarded among Protestants for his Bible commentaries and is one of the foundational theologians of the Protestant Reformation. I couldn’t lightly dismiss Calvin’s iconoclasm. I needed good reasons, biblical and theological, for rejecting Calvin’s opposition to icons.
My research yielded several surprises. One was the astonishing discovery that nowhere in his Institutes did Calvin deal with verses that describe the use of images in the Old Testament Tabernacle and the new Temple. This is a very significant omission.
Another significant weakness is Calvin’s understanding of church history. Calvin assumed that for the first five hundred years of Christianity, the churches were devoid of images, and that it was only with the decline of doctrinal purity that images began to appear in churches. However, Calvin ignored Eusebius’s History of the Church, written in the fourth century, which mentions colored portraits of Christ and the Apostles (7:18). This, despite the fact that Calvin knew of and even cited Eusebius in his Institutes!
Another weakness is the fact that Calvin nowhere countered the classic theological defense put forward by John of Damascus: The biblical injunction against images was based on the fact that God the Father cannot be depicted in visual form. However, because God the Son took on human nature in His Incarnation, it is possible to depict the Son in icons.
I was surprised to find that Calvin’s arguments were nowhere as strong as I had thought. Calvin did not take into account all the biblical evidence, he got his church history wrong, and he failed to respond to the classical theological defense. In other words, Calvin’s iconoclasm was flawed on biblical, theological, and historical grounds.
In my journey to Orthodoxy, there were other issues I needed to address, but the issue of the icon was the tip of the iceberg. I focused on the icon because I thought that it was the most vulnerable point of Orthodoxy. To my surprise, it was much stronger than I had ever anticipated. My questions about icons were like the Titanic hitting the iceberg. What looked like a tiny piece of ice was much bigger under the surface and quite capable of sinking the big ship. In time my Protestant theology fell apart and I became convinced that the Orthodox Church was right when it claimed to have the fullness of the Faith.
I was received into the Orthodox Church on the Sunday of Orthodoxy in 1999. On this Sunday the Orthodox Church celebrates the restoration of the icons and the defeat of the iconoclasts at the Seventh Ecumenical Council in AD 787. On this day, the faithful proclaim, "This is the faith that has established the universe." It certainly established the faith of this Calvinist, as the result of the powerful witness of one small icon!
Robert Arakaki is currently writing his dissertation on religion and politics in Southeast Asia at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He attends Saints Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Cathedral of the Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii.
This statement is laughable. Ask the Calvinists how may sacraments they have and if they believe the sacraments impart grace.
"Many of the major changes in the Roman Catholic Church initiated by Vatican II were actually modeled after the practice of Eastern Christians: communion under both species, liturgy in the vernacular, permanent deacons, standing while receiving communion, a free-standing altar (apart from the wall), and increased participation by the laity in the Liturgy have all been the norm in Eastern Christianity for two thousand years. The Fathers of Vatican II were consciously borrowing from Eastern Christianity when they mandated these changes."
"It is in the matter of liturgical change that the lack of familiarity with the East is most tragic. In the ongoing liturgy wars occurring in the Roman Church, neither side, whether "progressive" or "traditional," is usually well acquainted with Eastern Christianity. Yet it was largely from the Eastern Christians that the Fathers of Vatican II received their vision for a renewed liturgy."
"Of course the Eastern Christian tradition has far more to offer the West than a mere model of liturgy. Western Christians could also benefit greatly from exposure to Eastern Christian theology, ecclesiology, spirituality, and culture."
From your western viewpoint I can see why you would think this to be true. But in the Eastern Orthodox Church we have completely different approaches to things than western Christians. Entering the Orthodox church takes you all the way back to ground zero again, as you learn to see and think about things in a completely new way. I am still learning after 7 years...
I have some links/writings on my FR page which discuss some of the differences between east and west.
I am not sure if you use the Beatitudes in your liturgy?, but we do and we also place great emphasis on them.
Thanks for this post. I had forgotten (as most Latin Rite Catholics do) the long-standing Eastern practices (from Apostolic times) which WERE the model for Vatican II liturgical models.
John Paul II is attempting that with his Personalist writings.
Ah, that's different. This is different from the question of whether we Catholics have an epiklesis at all, and perhaps it's the source of the disagreement between Hermann and me. As I've already shown, the Catholic Church retains the epiklesis (we declare that all sacraments have an epiklesis), but in response to the more narrowly-defined question you've proposed, no, we do not maintain that it is necessary to effect the change in the Eucharistic elements. There was no epiklesis at the Last Supper, after all, and in every valid Eucharistic sacrifice since then, the priest operates strictly in persona Christi.
From our view, the liturgy is the work of the people and so is the descent of the Holy Spirit.
This is a generalized explanation of the epiklesis, and in this sense, even the Roman Canon has an epiklesis.
But I doubt it is one that would satisfy our Orthodox friends. After all, when the Roman Canon was reintroduced into their service books by way of the Episcopal converts to the Antochean Orthodox Church, a formal epiklesis was added to it straight out of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, despite the prayer "Quam oblationem" before the consecration, and the prayer "Supplices te rogamus" after the consecration.
It is this formal epiklesis that I am referring to. It asks not merely that the Holy Spirit might "bless" the offerings (as the Roman Canon does), but asks him to "change them".
A comparison is in order.
In the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, this is the text of the Epiklesis:
"Once again we offer to You this spiritual worship without the shedding of blood, and we ask, pray, and entreat You: send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here presented. And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ. Amen. And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Christ. Amen. Changing them by Your Holy Spirit. Amen. Amen. Amen."
In the Offertory and Roman Canon of the Tridentine Rite are these three prayers:
"Come, O Sanctifier, Almighty and Eternal God, and bless, + this sacrifice prepared for the glory of Thy holy Name."
"And do Thou, O God, vouchsafe in all respects to bless, + consecrate, + and approve + this our oblation, to perfect it and to render it well-pleasing to Thyself, so that it may become for us the Body + and the Blood + of Thy most beloved Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord."
"Most humbly we implore Thee, Almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Thy Holy Angel to Thine altar on high, before the face of Thy Divine Majesty; that as many of us as shall receive the most Sacred + Body and + Blood of Thy Son by partaking thereof from this altar, may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen."
I fail to see any comparison between the obvious intent of the prayers of these two rites. The Byzantine prayer is phrased like a consecration (which the Orthodox believe it to be), while the Latin prayer is phrased like a blessing (which we Catholics believe it to be).
They are the Gospel reading for the Feast of All Saints. We should clearly use them more, but that requires somebody of vision at the top - like that Russian Pope I was pestering you about.
In general, the infection of nominalism forced a retreat from the Beatitutdes in the west. While they are central to St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, the sickness of Occam's casuistry in moral theology has no place for them.
I am of a mind that they should be read at every Mass, as the Last Gospel (John 1.1-14) was in the Tridentine Rite.
Thank the Melkite-Greek Patriarch of Anitoch. He was one of the prime influences at Vatican II.
Is that the attitude Christ wants from us?
But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect. [Mat 5:44-48]
That's the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.