[Hades] received a body and encountered God. It took earth and came face to face with heaven. It took what it saw and fell by what it could not see. Death, where is your sting? Hades, where is your victory? Christ is risen and you are overthrown. Christ is risen and demons have fallen. Christ is risen and angels rejoice. Christ is risen and life rules. Christ is risen and not one dead remains in the tomb. — Paschal Homily by St. John Chrysostom
3 comments:
Alleluia! He is risen indeed!
Fr Dave, could I ask you a rather technical question about the Orthodox theology of saints and icons? I'm a Protestant, but I'm not asking this as a pretence to prove Orthodoxy wrong or start an argument. I've found a lot of wisdom in Orthodox teachings, which have strengthened my own faith, and I'm genuinely interested in understanding how the Orthodox church thinks about these things. . You were the first person to expose me to Orthodox theology, and I'm hoping you can help me understand this.
Orthodoxy seems to have a high regard for saints and icons, even compared to Catholicism. This seems to me to be a natural consequence of the Orthodox emphasis on theosis - if "God became man so that man could become god", then we should expect those who have been resurrected with him to take on something of God's nature, in a way which we don't yet have here on earth. If I've understood correctly, this means that in Orthodoxy the saints are seen as granted a similar role in creation to the old pagan "gods". The underlying metaphysics is quite different - the pagan "gods" either didn't exist at all, or were (fallen) angels rather than humans who had become children of God. But in practical terms, they are not omnipotent, but they have an assigned role in the great dance of creation. In some way they have power to perform miracles in relation to that role. (Or perhaps I should say they are able to ask God to perform a miracle - but I have the impression that both statements are seen as having some truth to them, much like how Jesus performed miracles in his own power, but also said that he can only do what he sees the Father doing?) One might suggest that they were the true thing that the pagans were longing for when they invented pagan gods.
In this context, the Orthodox idea that the saints would actually be present in icons seems to make sense to me. In pagan religions, it was generally believed that if you make an image of a god, then it is present in that image in some way. Christianity doesn't really contradict that idea - in fact, the Old Testament has quite a lot to say about images, often mockingly comparing the wood-and-stone images of the pagan gods with the true God, whose image is a human being. So I think I can see how the Orthodox idea of saints being present in their icons would flow out of those ideas about theosis.
(Continued in a second comment below)
However, there's something which puzzles me. As I said, the Old Testament makes it abundantly clear that God's image is a living being. The Israelites are forbidden from making images of God, and if I've understood it correctly, this isn't just because of purity laws or suchlike, but because you *can't* make an inanimate image of God. At least, not in the the-god-is-present-in-the-image sense. If you did somehow do that, then, almost by definition, the image would be a living being, because being a living being is a part of bearing the living God's image. Thus, trying to make an image of God (in the the-god-is-present-in-its-image sense) was blasphemous, since it was putting God on the same level as the pagan gods.
But the saints have become what they are through taking on something of the nature of God, not through becoming pagan gods. So if I've understood the Orthodox theology correctly up to this point, it seems to me that we should expect a true image of a saint, in which they were present, to also be a living being. And wouldn't the logical conclusion then be that the saints *aren't* present in their icons, which are clearly not living beings?
It's entirely possible that I've misunderstood something about Orthodox teaching here. A lot of this has been drawn from relatively small comments from Orthodox priests and theologians online, and my own efforts to fit things together in my own mind. If so, can you find what it is I've misunderstood?
On the other hand, if my understanding is close enough that the objection I gave makes sense, then I'm guessing that Orthodox theologians have discussed it in the past, and come up with an answer to it which they found satisfactory. If that's the case, would you mind explaining that answer to me, or pointing me towards some (English-language!) source addressing it?
Hope the Easter season is treating you well, Padre.
Post a Comment