Religious Iconoclasts

While the destruction of art is a subject most art historians prefer to ignore, with Peter Morita Pickshaus declaring it a ‘non theme’, it is undeniable that iconoclasm is ‘embedded in the history of Jewish, Christian and Islamic thought and practice’. In an attempt to attain religious purity, iconoclasm (the deliberate destruction of religious icons, usually for religious or political motives ) and aniconism (the absence of material representations) have been adopted. Despite the interrelated approaches being doctrinally justified under the concept of idolatry, John Phillips argues that ‘iconoclasm for the iconoclasts was an act far different from our later understanding of it as vandalism’, so instead of reinstating a traditional and …show more content…
However, the Japanese term ‘honzon’ asserts that there is no distinction between the image and the deity. By destroying images, Byzantine and Reformist iconoclasts were not simply attacking the icons, but instigating a direct attack on Christ Himself. This iconodule belief is supported by Theodore of Studion, who stated that ‘the image refers to a reality that is called into question as soon as the image is rejected. Whoever objects to the possibility of representing Christ indeed doubts the reality of Christ’s life as a human being’. Therefore, the actions of Christian iconoclasts were not just unethical, but blasphemous, whose ‘violence against religious imagery struck at the sacred prototype’. Consequently, iconoclasm based on doctrinal support became invalid when ‘The Word become flesh and dwelt among us’. This Orthodox view was endorsed by Germanus at the beginning of the Byzantine iconoclasm, who proclaimed that to reject icons was to reject the Incarnation. While iconoclasts Origen and Constantine V declared that ‘he who circumscribes that person has plainly circumscribed the divine nature which is incapable of being circumscribed’, iconodules argued that in becoming flesh, the Word has circumscribed itself. This answers the iconoclastic argument of how can the invisible God can be …show more content…
Despite Calvin’s claim that ‘God does not teach through simulacra (images) but through His own Word’ because people should be able to form a relationship God without the aid of objects, the issue remains of whether it is ethical to destroy those images that enabled people to build their relationship with Christ? Reformist Luther had a more liberal attitude toward images, and maintained that they could be used for ‘educational purposes to reinforce the revelation of the Word’, as for the illiterate, a connection with God would only be achievable through images. By encouraging iconoclasm, Calvin presents an elitist approach to faith by implying that God is only accessible through scripture and to the upper classes that could read and understand the Gospels. In removing objects that help people connect with God, Reformists essentially disenfranchised the poor: an act that contradicts St Paul’s Letter to the Romans: ‘whereof receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God’. Consequently, a more ethical, inclusive approach was the 869 Synod legislation that declared that icons were to be ‘shown the same honour as is accorded the Books of the Gospels’, as opposed to the Byzantine iconoclastic Synod 754 that affirmed that the

Show More

The Gutenberg Bible: A Literary Analysis

Essay on Russian Government Edict

Early Byzantine Era

Icons In The Greek Orthodox Church

Religious Dichotomy

Protestantization Of The English Nation And English Religion In This Period

Study Notes: Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformations Essay

Abraham Heschel Research Paper

Module 8 Essay

Definitions Of Consequentialism