Icons versus religious art

[Anthony]

When i looked into orthodoxy and catholicism, i got the impression that the “church approved” icons and art are automatically not idolatry. Any other art/icon is blasphemy. I never got the impression preventing idolatry was a serious concern.

Anyway I think icons are great, somehow all religious art ive ever seen that wasnt an icon seemed extremely corny and in bad taste. Id elevate icons beyond “religious art” into its own special category. The orthodox call it a “spiritual window” or something like that. That makes sense to me.

Most interactions with icons are borderline idolatry imo. Kissing icons, covering your church in them, and saying prayers to the saints depicted is about as close you can get to outright worship.

[Valerie]

When i looked into orthodoxy and catholicism, i got the impression that the “church approved” icons and art are automatically not idolatry. Any other art/icon is blasphemy. I never got the impression preventing idolatry was a serious concern.

Anyway I think icons are great, somehow all religious art ive ever seen that wasnt an icon seemed extremely corny and in bad taste. Id elevate icons beyond “religious art” into its own special category. The orthodox call it a “spiritual window” or something like that. That makes sense to me.

Most interactions with icons are borderline idolatry imo. Kissing icons, covering your church in them, and saying prayers to the saints depicted is about as close you can get to outright worship.

This is where actually being an Orthodox Christian helps.
To an Irthodox the kissing is not attributing dirty to the icon but that it is the holy kiss to the saint in heaven the icon represents. Having them around the Church is the idea of the great cloud of witnesses as the saints now in heaven and parishes are all part of “the Church”. That’s not the same thing as kissing some idol as Scripture forbids worship of. The kiss is “passed on” so to speak.

[Anthony]

When i looked into orthodoxy and catholicism, i got the impression that the “church approved” icons and art are automatically not idolatry. Any other art/icon is blasphemy. I never got the impression preventing idolatry was a serious concern.

Anyway I think icons are great, somehow all religious art ive ever seen that wasnt an icon seemed extremely corny and in bad taste. Id elevate icons beyond “religious art” into its own special category. The orthodox call it a “spiritual window” or something like that. That makes sense to me.

Most interactions with icons are borderline idolatry imo. Kissing icons, covering your church in them, and saying prayers to the saints depicted is about as close you can get to outright worship.

This is where actually being an Orthodox Christian helps.
To an Irthodox the kissing is not attributing dirty to the icon but that it is the holy kiss to the saint in heaven the icon represents. Having them around the Church is the idea of the great cloud of witnesses as the saints now in heaven and parishes are all part of “the Church”. That’s not the same thing as kissing some idol as Scripture forbids worship of. The kiss is “passed on” so to speak.

Im familiar with the orthodox justification. I just find it a stretch as im literally kissing a religious object with a spiritual, prayerful intent in my heart. I cannot imagine a more clear definiton of idolatry than what the orthodox do. Catholics have a less intense version of this, where they mentally ask for intercession. I think this is permissable. But some orthodox literally cross themselves, weep in the presence of icons, kiss, and have hymns/chants dedicated to the people presented in the icons.

I never found it to be a serious stumbling block to me when looking into orthodoxy, but ill have to admit this particular practice is suspect if I look at the bible plainly and its commandmants against idolatry.

[Valerie]

Honestly, I’m terribly uncomfortable with some of the Baptist churches and how they obsess over the cross. It’s like the epitome of missing it to focus so heavily on two pieces of wood and completely missed the point of cross bearing.
I feel like it borders on idolatry.

In non-Anabaptist churches, the Cross is extremely important for “all” it represents- God was truly recommending symbols to “help” us- I believe that is the intention. Nothing idolatrous when you’re going to these churches.

[JohnH]

The EO practice with icons is bizarre and strikes me as the result of some kind of syncretism along the way. I find the Catholic practices to make a lot more sense to me.

[Soloist]

In non-Anabaptist churches, the Cross is extremely important for “all” it represents- God was truly recommending symbols to “help” us- I believe that is the intention. Nothing idolatrous when you’re going to these churches.

You realize I converted as an adult right? Baptist churches make up the majority of my childhood and several years of my adult life. I know how it is in some Baptist churches.

[JayP]

Peter asked, so I think I owe him an answer. Yes, I think religious art is a very different category from icons. Art is still art, when of a religious theme the artist may vary on what he tries to emphasize, make us think about, etc. there is much more freedom in a sense, and for me, the artistic skill is no less important in religious art than non religious. I can appreciate Tanner’s Annunciation on many levels. Icons, particularly as presented in Orthodox settings are often not as purely pleasing on artistic merits but still (to me) valuable in many ways. I appreciate the consistency and traditions that go into icons. Fully used icons are considered windows to the divine,not simply thought provoking or mood setting the way art is.

I am sure many here find (along with many Catholic or Orthodox practices) icons to be idolatry.

[R7ehr]

Peter asked, so I think I owe him an answer. Yes, I think religious art is a very different category from icons. Art is still art, when of a religious theme the artist may vary on what he tries to emphasize, make us think about, etc. there is much more freedom in a sense, and for me, the artistic skill is no less important in religious art than non religious. I can appreciate Tanner’s Annunciation on many levels. Icons, particularly as presented in Orthodox settings are often not as purely pleasing on artistic merits but still (to me) valuable in many ways. I appreciate the consistency and traditions that go into icons. Fully used icons are considered windows to the divine,not simply thought provoking or mood setting the way art is.

I am sure many here find (along with many Catholic or Orthodox practices) icons to be idolatry.

What is the “consistency and traditions that go into icons”?
And what is a “fully used icon”?

[Anthony]

Peter asked, so I think I owe him an answer. Yes, I think religious art is a very different category from icons. Art is still art, when of a religious theme the artist may vary on what he tries to emphasize, make us think about, etc. there is much more freedom in a sense, and for me, the artistic skill is no less important in religious art than non religious. I can appreciate Tanner’s Annunciation on many levels. Icons, particularly as presented in Orthodox settings are often not as purely pleasing on artistic merits but still (to me) valuable in many ways. I appreciate the consistency and traditions that go into icons. Fully used icons are considered windows to the divine,not simply thought provoking or mood setting the way art is.

I am sure many here find (along with many Catholic or Orthodox practices) icons to be idolatry.

What is the “consistency and traditions that go into icons”?
And what is a “fully used icon”?

You asked JayP, but ill give my interpretation cause its an interesting question

Consistency and tradition is the fact that icons have been essentially the same for 1000+ years, and the church has sanctioned that particular art style as holy. The iconmakers i believe almost have to be pre-approved.

Fully used is prayed over, kissed, fully interacted with and taken seriously as a window into heaven. Icons are also paraded around during special occasions

[barnhart]

In non-Anabaptist churches, the Cross is extremely important for “all” it represents- God was truly recommending symbols to “help” us- I believe that is the intention. Nothing idolatrous when you’re going to these churches.

The church house I grew up in had no crosses at all and our present church house has one that is about 10 inches tall. It's a meaningful symbol but it represents the sanctification portion of salvation and has little to say about sanctification or the walk God calls his people into and seems backward focused on what God has done in the past. I'm not very familiar with the practice of icons but it suspect the images they present give a fuller picture of salvation than the single image of a cross.

I'm not technically offended by the presence of either crosses or icons but I might be suspicious how people relate to them if they treat them as having mystical power to reach into the unknown. If I were choosing a single image to represent Jesus it might be the wounded lamb wearing a crown.