The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church each claims to be the apostolic church. In this series of articles, I’ll show that their claims can’t be true. While in other articles I’ve shown that their claims to authority aren’t true, this series will evaluate one of the doctrines that they hold to see if it is correct.
Each of these churches teaches the veneration of icons. If this practice turns out to be an illegitimate alteration to the apostolic faith, then they can’t be the apostolic church. And in fact, I will show this to be the case. In this series of posts, I will show that the veneration of images is not consistent with the apostolic faith.
Though these churches both teach the veneration of icons to be part of their faith, they make somewhat different claims about this doctrine. So first, I’ll describe the different positions that they hold and how they can be argued against.
The Eastern Orthodox Position
The claims of the Eastern Orthodox Church are most straightforward, since this church tradition typically claims to have remained essentially unchanged in doctrine and practice since the days of the apostles. Since it’s true that the Eastern Orthodox Church hasn’t changed much since around AD 800, many Christians convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, thinking that it essentially hasn’t changed since AD 100.
Thus, if the veneration of icons arose after the early days of the church, and was actually a change from earlier practice, this claim of the Eastern Orthodox Church can be shown to be false. We will be able to see that this church doesn’t practice as the apostles taught, which undercuts their own claims to authority.
The veneration of icons (also called iconodulia) was mandated in the Second Council of Nicaea—a council that has, for Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, authority on the level of the New Testament. That council, in AD 787, decided that all who do not venerate icons are to be anathematized, or excommunicated. To easily read the most relevant parts of their decision, click on this footnote.1Therefore all those who dare to think or teach anything different [about icons], or who follow the accursed heretics in rejecting ecclesiastical traditions . . . or who spurn anything entrusted to the church (whether it be the gospel of the figure of the cross or any example of representational art or any martyr’s holy relic), or who fabricate perverted and evil prejudices against cherishing any of the lawful traditions of the catholic church [which at that time included Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox], or who secularize the sacred objects and saintly monasteries, we order that they be suspended if they are bishops or clerics, and excommunicated if they are monks or lay people. . . . If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema. If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema. . . . [T]he false writings composed against the venerable icons, should be given in at the episcopal building in Constantinople, so that they can be put away along with other heretical books. If someone is discovered to be hiding such books, if he is a bishop, priest or deacon, let him be suspended, and if he is a lay person or a monk, let him be excommunicated. (Norman P. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, Nicaea I to Lateran V, 137-146)
In substance, the council concludes that icons are so important that if a Christian doesn’t salute them (e.g., by kissing them or praying to them as to Christ and the saints) the Christian is to be excommunicated. In fact, the council even orders Christians not to own any books that argue against iconodulia.
Note that the council calls iconodulia a tradition of the church. By that, the council means that the practice of venerating icons had originated with the apostles, and that it had always been an accepted practice in the church.
However, the council was simply wrong. Before Constantine’s first influences on the church (starting around 313), and likely for a time following that, the veneration of images was not a legitimate Christian practice.
The Orthodox consider ecumenical councils to make infallible pronouncements on the faith. The conciliar decisions are what defines Eastern Orthodoxy, and they are thought to be exactly in line with the apostolic faith. So if the decision of Nicaea II does not align with the practice of the first several hundred years of the church, then Eastern Orthodoxy can no longer claim to be the unchanging, original faith.
The Roman Catholic Position
The Roman Catholic Church is in essentially the same position as Eastern Orthodoxy, although they have one thing in their favor that the Eastern Orthodox do not. That is that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Christian doctrine can legitimately develop over time. So if it could be shown that the Christian church never came to a consensus on this issue, until 787, then they would be just fine.
However, as I’ll show at the end of this article, doctrinal development doesn’t help those who venerate icons. That’s because the Christian church did have a consensus up until at least the time of Constantine—Christian leaders considered the veneration of images not to be a legitimate Christian practice. So the practice is an alteration of the apostolic faith, not a development.
Near the Heart of Eastern Orthodoxy
In writing this response, I realize that I’m cutting very close to the heart of Eastern Orthodox Christians throughout the world. Icons are very deeply valued by the Eastern Orthodox, probably more so than by Roman Catholics. Realistically, they’re probably the ones who will care the most about this subject, so I will mostly be addressing them.
I don’t mean to be offensive—I love the Eastern Orthodox tradition. There’s much beauty and love for God in it. I’m only trying to fairly evaluate the historical evidence that we have. And I trust that anyone who wants to have a historically-grounded faith will want to know whether the veneration of icons is apostolic.
Because this subject is so important to the Eastern Orthodox, they have developed many, many responses to critiques of iconodulia. The sheer number of objections they have made is daunting in itself. However, I will try to answer every relevant objection in this post and several related posts (which are linked in this article).
What I am arguing for
First, I want to be very clear about exactly what I am arguing for, so as to clear up any confusion right from the start. This is what I’m arguing for:
The practice of addressing communications (such as bowing, kissing, and prayer) to images with the intent that whatever is addressed to the image passes to the prototype (the subject of the image, such as Christ, saints, or angels) was not considered a legitimate Christian practice by Christian leaders until sometime after Constantine’s influence on the church.
In this article, I’ll use the following statement as shorthand for my main claim: At least before Constantine, the veneration of images was not a legitimate Christian practice.
To support my claim, I’ll offer evidence from Scripture, archeology, and early Christian writings from between AD 33 and approximately AD 313. To help give context, I’ll also look at evidence from approximately a hundred years following 313, to see what changes from the Constantinian era may have eventually led to Christian leaders accepting, and finally mandating, the veneration of images.
Why focus on the pre-Constantinian era?
Basically, I’m focusing on what was practiced in the pre-Constantinian period—the era of Christianity before the emperor Constantine, who was the first to support the church. Why focus on that time period? It’s not because the Roman Empire directly changed this practice. Instead,
- The pre-Constantinian writers are the people who directly inherited the apostles’ faith. If they didn’t practice iconodulia, we can be pretty sure that practice wasn’t an apostolic one.
- These are the people who received the apostolic tradition and who transmitted the tradition to later church fathers. So if there were any apostolic traditions that still hadn’t been written down, the bishops in the era of the councils could only have heard it from the pre-Constantinian Christians, who lived between them and the apostles.
- From 33 to 313 is a period of 280 years, which is a large enough time slice that we can tell what Christians believed and practiced during that period. We have plenty of texts and images from the pre-Constantinian era to use as evidence.
- It’s easily conceivable that doctrinal drift could occur within 280 years or so following Jesus’ ascension. Keep in mind that the U.S. hasn’t even been around for 280 years, but huge amounts of changes have happened to American culture within that time period.
- Furthermore, we have good reason to believe that changes happened to the Christian faith following the First Council of Nicaea. Some of these gradual changes could have been codified in the Second Council of Nicaea four and a half centuries later, by leaders who mistakenly thought that their practices went back to the apostles.
Because of these reasons, if the pre-Constantinian Christians did not consider the veneration of images to be a legitimate Christian practice, it wasn’t one (unless we can find strong evidence for it in Scripture). We shouldn’t consider the pre-Constantinian Christian teachings to be on the level of Scripture—far from it! But they are an important historical witness for what the church practiced in the beginning.2
Note: As I first developed this argument, I focused on the pre-Nicene (pre-325) era. I adjusted this, not because there is evidence that, from 313 to 325, the veneration of images was a legitimate Christian practice. Instead, it’s because archaeologists, unlike historical theologians, tend to make Constantine the dividing line for their eras. That’s because, with Constantine’s favor, new churches and styles of religious images did appear pretty soon, although the legitimacy of veneration took some time to fully change. This makes sense, because images influence the outward perception of a religion or nation, and the art styles could conceivably begin to change before doctrine and practice would begin to change, and could perhaps even open the door for changes in practice. Does this change mean that the date is being slowly pushed back until finally we find that the earliest Christians venerated images? No. Just because there’s not a completely clear time when Christians switched between non-veneration and veneration doesn’t mean there was never a change. That would be the continuum fallacy, otherwise known as “the fallacy of the beard.” The fact that it’s not clear when stubble becomes a beard doesn’t mean that we can’t be sure that a clean-shaven man doesn’t have a beard. I’ve simply moved my argument from starting somewhere in the stubble to starting before it grows, so as to minimize confusion.
What I am not arguing for
I am arguing that the practice of venerating icons is not historically Christian—before Constantine, the veneration of images was not a legitimate Christian practice. That’s my only contention. When I respond to this belief, often Eastern Orthodox assume that I also am arguing other things as well. Because of that, I will list a number of things that I am not arguing for.
I love Eastern Orthodoxy
I don’t have anything against the Eastern Orthodox tradition. In fact, I love it. I think that Eastern Orthodoxy got a lot of things right that the Roman Catholic tradition got wrong, such as their views on original sin (they don’t believe in it in the same way). I admire so much about their respect for historical practices and past Christian saints.
I like icons
I’m also not saying that I don’t like icons or that I have something against them. I understand that there are people who have negative reactions to the veneration of icons, but I don’t have any of that reaction.
By saying this, I may draw some fire from people in my own camp, but I’ll be honest. I like icons and the concept of iconodulia. I think iconography is beautiful and meaningful. I especially like Eastern icons of the resurrection of Christ for the meaningful story and truths that they tell.
In fact, I don’t have any personal reaction to venerating saints at all. I love that the Eastern tradition cares deeply about holy people of long ago; so do I. I do have a reaction to venerating people who didn’t live holy lives, like Constantine, whose life has been whitewashed by overly-zealous Christians. But in general, I would be just fine with bowing, kissing, and even praying to icons, if that was the historic Christian practice. I don’t feel like the Eastern Orthodox worship saints, and their explanations for their practice make sense to me.
Why, then, do I argue against iconodulia rather than practicing it myself? Solely because this is the only way I can be true to Scripture and the apostolic faith. If the veneration of images were a legitimate Christian practice, I would be the first to buy my icons and start kissing them. But the evidence is just too strong—it is clear that before Constantine, the veneration of images was not a legitimate Christian practice. I can’t conscientiously practice something that masquerades as a historic practice and yet is the exact opposite of what the early church universally taught.
The early Christians had images
When we argue that the early Christians did not believe it appropriate to venerate images, many Eastern Orthodox Christians assume that we’re saying the early Christians did not believe it appropriate to have images at all. But that is not the case.
In the past, some scholars have argued that the early Christians believed all figurative art to be wrong. Scholarship has moved on from that idea, since it’s just not true. And as far as I can tell, no Protestants or Anabaptists are seriously arguing for this position today. I certainly never have.
The issue is that we often talk past each other. When I say that the early Christians didn’t venerate images, an Eastern Orthodox individual will reply that they certainly had images—lots of early Christian art has been discovered by archaeology. And of course they did have images—they just didn’t venerate images.
There may have been a few early Christians who thought no religious images should be allowed. However, we have plenty of examples of religious art from this time period, such as in the catacombs. Furthermore, we have textual evidence that the early Christians believed art to be appropriate. Clement of Alexandria, one of the bishops who wrote most clearly against the veneration of images, spoke favorably of art.3But it is with a different kind of spell that art deludes you, . . . it leads you to pay religious honour and worship to images and pictures. The picture is like. Well and good! Let art receive its meed of praise, but let it not deceive man by passing itself off for truth. (Exhortation to the Heathen 4 ANF)
And let our seals be either a dove, or a fish, or a ship scudding before the wind, or a musical lyre, which Polycrates used, or a ship’s anchor, which Seleucus got engraved as a device; and if there be one fishing, he will remember the apostle, and the children drawn out of the water. For we are not to delineate the faces of idols, we who are prohibited to cleave to them (The Instructor 3.11) Irenaeus used the image of a king in an example that suggests that he doesn’t regard it to be essentially wrong.4He criticizes the Valentinians: “Their manner of acting is just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed by some skilful artist out of precious jewels, should then take this likeness of the man all to pieces, should rearrange the gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox, and even that but poorly executed; and should then maintain and declare that this was the beautiful image of the king which the skilful artist constructed, pointing to the jewels which had been admirably fitted together by the first artist to form the image of the king, but have been with bad effect transferred by the latter one to the shape of a dog, and by thus exhibiting the jewels, should deceive the ignorant who had no conception what a king’s form was like, and persuade them that that miserable likeness of the fox was, in fact, the beautiful image of the king.” (Against Heresies 1.8)
So Christian religious art was in existence in the pre-conciliar era. They had images; that is not under dispute. However, as I’ll show, the church did not consider veneration of art to be appropriate.
And that’s what Protestants and Anabaptists believe. It is appropriate to have pictures of Christ or dead Christians. It is inappropriate to venerate them in the sense in which I previously defined veneration.
Venerating is appropriate in one sense
Sometimes Eastern Orthodox point out that “venerate” can simply mean “honor,” and of course we honor the saints, don’t we? If some form of honoring saints is fine, then why wouldn’t other forms be fine?
Or they might point out that many of us have pictures of departed relatives. Is it wrong to speak to these pictures or even kiss them in memory of our relatives? If not, why would it be wrong to do the same to images of saints? After all, the saints are our departed spiritual family.
This argument fails because it is an equivocation on what “veneration” means. Note that words can have multiple definitions. I believe that it is perfectly okay to venerate saints in the sense of honoring and praising them; even placing an image of them in a place of honor. After all, most of us do that for our departed loved ones. However, the key is this: When we see an image of those we love, we don’t think that the image stands in for them; instead, we believe that the image reminds us of them. If I were to speak to a picture of my grandfather, I wouldn’t be assuming that the image plays a mediatorial role. I wouldn’t think that my words will pass on to my grandfather because they were addressed to his image.
However, the Eastern Orthodox practice of venerating images is a specific kind of veneration that considers actions addressed to the image to pass to the subject of the image. That type of veneration is what I’m talking about in this article. That’s what’s in question, not the other forms of honor that do not consider the images as a means of communicating with the subject.5I have heard it said that the Eastern Orthodox don’t venerate images; instead, they venerate saints and angels by means of images. This isn’t a historical distinction, but again, I’m responding to the position of those who pray toward material objects and expect to be heard by saints by doing so. If you don’t do that, I’m glad! You don’t practice iconodulia. If you use images to remind you of saints and angels, but you don’t bow to, pray to, or kiss their images in the expectation that that communication passes on to the person depicted in the image, then I’m not arguing against your practice.
I’m not arguing for a specific usage of images
I’m also not arguing that there was one specific role that images held in the practice of early Christianity. I’m only saying that veneration was not one of the roles that images held. Why does this point even matter? Sometimes, Eastern Orthodox argue against saying that images were merely didactic or merely decorative. They may suggest one or more of the following reasons:
- They may question why we would limit images to a merely decorative (for example) role.
- They may suggest that there is no explicit evidence that images played a specifically decorative role. The idea is that if there is no explicit evidence that images were used in decorative ways, then our theory is proved wrong.
- They may argue that images will affect our worship either positively or negatively, and that there is no middle ground. Thus, if early Christians had images at all, then they must have used them in worship.
The trouble with these arguments is that images can play all sorts of roles for religious people. The early Christians’ images could easily have ranged from artistic, symbolic, evocative, commemorative, decorative, instructive, didactic, or pious. We don’t need to limit images to just one of these roles; it seems that the Eastern Orthodox are limiting images to primarily being one (for veneration).
It’s possible for images to be helpful in worship without thinking that they stand in for Christ and the saints and should be venerated. And it’s also possible to argue that images are not wrong, but would be a distraction if focused on too much. The usage of images is far too nuanced to simply argue that we can rule out all uses but veneration.
Furthermore, these objections fail to notice something that is very obvious in pre-Constantinian Christian art. As I show in my article on archaeology, most of their art consisted of non-venerated images such as symbols, animals, stories, and the like. Obviously such art was not venerated. That means that obviously early Christian art filled other roles besides being venerable images. They had very few actual portraits of Christ and the saints, and since we know that many of their images certainly weren’t venerated, it seems quite reasonable to suppose that these weren’t either (although we don’t need to suppose; we have excellent evidence).
I’m not an iconoclast, nor were the pre-Constantinian Christians
In the 500s to 800s, as the Christian veneration of images began, a countermovement called iconoclasm also began. The iconoclasts pitted themselves against the iconodules, and many of them destroyed sacred images. Though I agree with the iconoclasts that the veneration of icons is not a legitimate Christian practice, I’m not writing in an iconoclastic tradition.
First, I don’t believe in the destruction of others’ property, since I follow the apostolic church’s command to nonviolence. There is also no evidence that the pre-Constantinian Christians destroyed images. But even more importantly, the view I’m putting forward in this post originates from hundreds of years before the iconoclastic movement gathered strength. It would be anachronistic to call the pre-Constantinian Christians, or those like the Anabaptists who don’t practice iconodulia, “iconoclasts.”
Links to the Evidence
Following are the articles in this series:
- My first post, this one, introduces and summarizes the issues around the veneration of icons. It deals with some high-level objections and brings all the different evidence together.
- My second post deals with the archaeological evidence for early Christian art. Because the evidence from art is more ambiguous, I demonstrate only the more modest claim that evidence from archaeology does not suggest that before Constantine, the veneration of images was a common Christian practice.
- My third post discusses Scripture and theology and whether they can be used in support of the veneration of images (as opposed to the worship of idols). I conclude that Scripture seems to be against the practice, though it doesn’t explicitly mention it.
- My fourth post digs deeply into the pre-Constantinian evidence—the church fathers before 313. It shows very clearly that the consensus of the pre-Constantinian church is against the veneration of images.
- My fifth post discusses evidence starting from 313 to see how the veneration of images could have arisen. I look into the writings of John Chrysostom and other favorite saints of the Eastern Orthodox, and show that these church fathers did not practice iconodulia. I also sketch out how the veneration of images could have slowly crept into the church, without drawing much comment.
When I rewrote this post, I moved much of the substance of it to the fourth post, so as not to repeat myself too often. That post quotes copious amounts of early Christian texts and responds to every relevant textual objection that I know of. The evidence I cite should be enough to convince anyone that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox position has taken a 180-degree turn from the early Christian position.
I invite anyone considering Eastern Orthodoxy to wrestle with that evidence and ask if the Eastern Orthodox position has maintained the early faith unchanged.
Where does this leave us?
So assuming the arguments in my other articles are correct, Scripture, archaeology, and the early church all coincide to demonstrate that before Constantine, the veneration of images was not a legitimate Christian practice.
Whose interpretation is more likely? That there was always veneration of images, but for hundreds of years it wasn’t mentioned and similar practices were unilaterally criticized, or that there wasn’t veneration of images, then an era of change happened, and then Christians began to venerate images? Since we have an explanation for how the veneration of images could have developed from nonveneration, and since we have reason to think that similar developments would and did occur, I think the second is more likely.
I conclude that there is no way to maintain the claim that the Eastern Orthodox Church has never changed from apostolic doctrine and practice.
Doctrinal Development—does it work for Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox?
Though Eastern Orthodox Christians typically argue that their church has never changed since the apostles, some have recognized that this position is impossible to maintain in light of the evidence. Instead, they recognize that changes occurred, but they argue that these changes are legitimate ones.
For example, Stephen Bigham and the author of this article take an approach that’s basically an Eastern Orthodox version of the famed Roman Catholic position of doctrinal development. Bigham says,
“What originally began as a pious custom among the faithful became a point of substantial controversy, thanks in no small part to those who would use it for strategic, political purposes in the 8th and 9th centuries. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the bishops of the Church to assemble and attempt to settle the issue (and thus the Second Council of Nicaea of 787 and the Synod of Constantinople of 843).” (Early Christian Attitudes Toward Images)
“Probably, I mean I’m saying this as a probable thing; I can’t affirm it. Probably, what we call, today, ‘veneration,’ that probably did not exist . . . in the first three centuries” (This video)
Of course, this is a startling admission for Eastern Orthodox. Is Bigham able to preserve the doctrine anyway, even with these admissions?
No, for two reasons. First, because Christian doctrine cannot change or develop. The apostles and the early Christians were very clear on this point. No one but Jesus or the apostles ever had the authority to define the faith.
Furthermore, my research shows that the consensus of the fathers, all the way up to the first church council, is that iconodulia is foreign to Christianity. However, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches now teach something to be essential that was once taught to be foreign to Christianity. This is not a mere development—this is an actual alteration of the apostolic faith.
Calling a new doctrine a “development” only works if you manage to entirely take away the negative case against it, and to show that those who taught against it were only a few isolated dissidents. Yet, given the extensiveness of the negative case, that is hardly possible. The veneration of images was actively argued against by many Christian leaders and was accepted by no Christian leaders.
Finally, the very decrees of the Second Council of Nicaea completely repudiate the idea that the veneration of images could have been a change or development. The bishops at that council claimed that the practice of iconodulia went back to the apostles. This undercuts the well-intentioned arguments of today’s Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
Below you can see what Nicaea II declared. Do they leave any room for development of doctrine?
To make our confession short, we keep unchanged all the ecclesiastical traditions handed down to us, whether in writing or verbally, one of which is the making of pictorial representations, . . .
We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honourable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honourable reverence (ἀσπασμὸν καὶ τιμητικὴν προσκύνησιν), not indeed that true worship of faith (λατρείαν) which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented. For thus the teaching of our holy Fathers, that is the tradition of the Catholic Church, which from one end of the earth to the other hath received the Gospel, is strengthened. Thus we follow Paul, who spake in Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company and the holy Fathers, holding fast the traditions which we have received. . . . Those, therefore who dare to think or teach otherwise, or as wicked heretics to spurn the traditions of the Church and to invent some novelty, or else to reject some of those things which the Church hath received . . .
The holy Synod cried out: So we all believe, we all are so minded, we all give our consent and have signed. This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the orthodox, this is the faith which hath made firm the whole world. Believing in one God, to be celebrated in Trinity, we salute the honourable images! Those who do not so hold, let them be anathema. Those who do not thus think, let them be driven far away from the Church. For we follow the most ancient legislation of the Catholic Church. We keep the laws of the Fathers. We anathematize those who add anything to or take anything away from the Catholic Church.6Extracts from the Acts, Session I, NPNF vol. 2.14
Further Objections
This section deals with general objections to this argument.
What If Iconodulia Isn’t a Doctrine?
Two Roman Catholics whom I appreciate suggest that none of this is a problem at all. They argue that iconodulia is not really a doctrine but a “cultic” issue, so that it is a practice that can change even without being a doctrinal development. Presumably they mean that this practice falls into the category of a “discipline,” as the Roman Catholic Church calls commands that have to do more with worship practices than with beliefs. According to them, their church can command or forbid practices at will as “disciplines,” while “doctrines” can only change through development.
I see this as a very convenient distinction for the Roman Catholic Church to have made. As far as I can tell, there is no early support for such a distinction between teachings that the church handed down. None of the apostles’ teachings could be changed, whether they appeared more like doctrines or disciplines.
Introducing distinctions
If one wants to make two things logically compatible, one has only to introduce a distinction of some kind. For example, if you wanted to permit homosexual actions when the New Testament forbids them, you could simply say that it forbids such actions when performed by heterosexual-identifying people, not when performed by people who identify as being homosexually oriented.
Distinctions are an important thing. If one text says two things that contradict each other at face value, then it is actually good practice to look for distinctions that can harmonize the seeming contradiction. However, when someone later would prefer that a text wouldn’t say something that contradicts their own beliefs, that is not an appropriate time to introduce such a distinction. Instead, we need good textual reasons from the early church to suggest that there is such a distinction between changeless infallible doctrines and change-at-will infallible disciplines, practices, or the like.
Anathematizing people based on changing disciplines
But there’s actually another issue with this. The Second Council of Nicaea actually anathematized those who do not venerate icons, and the bishops who declared this said that “anathema is nothing less than complete separation from God.”7“The Letter of the Synod to the Emperor and Empress,” NPNF vol. 2.14 Do we have any reason to suppose that Christian leaders can anathematize someone for disobeying a ruling that is entirely subject to change?
Everybody in the early church would have disagreed with this change, not only because iconodulia was not a legitimate Christian practice, but because their beliefs and the beliefs they found in Scripture were consistently opposed to the practice.
The church has no right to order all Christians, on pain of anathema or excommunication, to do something that no Christian leader at all would have done or permitted for the first 250 years of the church. There is no precedent for that in the early church.
Solum Magisterium and discontinuity with the early church
Finally, holding this position undercuts the Roman Catholic claim to continuity with the early church. When Scripture, Tradition, and the church fathers are all against something that is later changed, the church can no longer claim continuity with them. The only remaining source of doctrine for Roman Catholics is their innovative claim to an ongoing infallible magisterium, which literally trumps everything else that any Christian believed before them. If Roman Catholicism is willing to bite this bullet, they will be no better off than the Mormons, who came up with a New New Testament (the book of Mormon), or the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who continually change, believing that God gives them more and more light. Even their prophecies can fail at any point and they are still supposed to be God’s One True Organization. If all the Roman Catholics have is an ongoing magisterium, how are they any better off than these non-Trinitarian Christians?
Finally, this view is foreign to what the Second Council of Nicaea declared. It is obvious from their decree that they were teaching that the veneration of images was a practice preserved unchanged from the apostles, and that nobody could do anything other than what the early church practiced on this issue, as I showed in the previous section.
What if the doctrinal principles underlying iconodulia pre-exist Constantine?
It has been pointed out that, if the doctrinal principles underlying the veneration of images was present in the apostolic church, then we would assume that practice to be legitimate. That’s true; iconodulia could be legitimate if it is consistent with Christian principles. However, it should not be mandated unless it was actually commanded by the apostles.
But this is a moot point. As my articles on Scripture and the early church show, the early consensus was that images could not play such a mediatorial role. Thus, the principles underlying iconodulia are directly contradicted. Iconodulia is not based on Christian commands and principles at all.
Is the principle of iconodulia self-evident?
One argument posed by an Eastern Orthodox apologist whose scholarship I respect is this: Since you wouldn’t spit on an image of Christ, you are admitting that the (dis)honor given to an image passes to its prototype.
Note that such an argument can only go so far. Even if it established this principle, it wouldn’t be able to overcome the preponderance of the evidence showing that before Constantine, the veneration of images was not a legitimate Christian practice. But it doesn’t establish this principle, since Scripture and the early church do not agree that an image can play such a mediatorial role.
So is there another interpretation of our preference not to spit on images of Christ? Yes. Everyone should recognize that the actions we take and the words we say affect our dispositions. There are words in the English language that I refuse to say out loud or even to vocalize in my head, because I know that they will degrade my view of sacred things. I try to refrain from dirty jokes, so that I can continue to think of God’s created order as beautiful. I try to stay away from those who take the Lord’s name in vain, because it harms my view of God.
Just as I would not aim a gun at a person; just as I would not spit on a dead body; just as I believe one should not wantonly kill animals, I also would not spit on an image of Christ—or even of the devil.
The reason an image can be said to be “of” someone is that it resembles the way we think of them in our heads. Thus, if we mistreat an image of them, we are mistreating something that resembles the way we think of them in our heads. Such an action must affect how we continue to think of that person. Thus, we have good reason not to spit on an image of Christ without believing that prayers to that image are addressed to its prototype.
Roman Catholicism & Eastern Orthodoxy Are in a Quandary
I believe that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are sincere in their efforts to follow the faith. They aren’t trying to worship images; they only intend to give honor to the people represented. But just because they’re sincere doesn’t mean that they are following the historic faith.
So this means that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are in a quandary. They live with a contradiction inside them. On the one hand, we have to bow to icons, because the infallible decision of the seventh council is that it’s an essential part of the faith. However, we may not bow to icons, because the apostolic traditions teach that icons are entirely foreign to the faith.
We need to choose one or the other—either the apostles or the council. The choice may be hard, but at least it is simple.
- 1Therefore all those who dare to think or teach anything different [about icons], or who follow the accursed heretics in rejecting ecclesiastical traditions . . . or who spurn anything entrusted to the church (whether it be the gospel of the figure of the cross or any example of representational art or any martyr’s holy relic), or who fabricate perverted and evil prejudices against cherishing any of the lawful traditions of the catholic church [which at that time included Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox], or who secularize the sacred objects and saintly monasteries, we order that they be suspended if they are bishops or clerics, and excommunicated if they are monks or lay people. . . . If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema. If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and his saints, let him be anathema. . . . [T]he false writings composed against the venerable icons, should be given in at the episcopal building in Constantinople, so that they can be put away along with other heretical books. If someone is discovered to be hiding such books, if he is a bishop, priest or deacon, let him be suspended, and if he is a lay person or a monk, let him be excommunicated. (Norman P. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, Nicaea I to Lateran V, 137-146)
- 2
Note: As I first developed this argument, I focused on the pre-Nicene (pre-325) era. I adjusted this, not because there is evidence that, from 313 to 325, the veneration of images was a legitimate Christian practice. Instead, it’s because archaeologists, unlike historical theologians, tend to make Constantine the dividing line for their eras. That’s because, with Constantine’s favor, new churches and styles of religious images did appear pretty soon, although the legitimacy of veneration took some time to fully change. This makes sense, because images influence the outward perception of a religion or nation, and the art styles could conceivably begin to change before doctrine and practice would begin to change, and could perhaps even open the door for changes in practice. Does this change mean that the date is being slowly pushed back until finally we find that the earliest Christians venerated images? No. Just because there’s not a completely clear time when Christians switched between non-veneration and veneration doesn’t mean there was never a change. That would be the continuum fallacy, otherwise known as “the fallacy of the beard.” The fact that it’s not clear when stubble becomes a beard doesn’t mean that we can’t be sure that a clean-shaven man doesn’t have a beard. I’ve simply moved my argument from starting somewhere in the stubble to starting before it grows, so as to minimize confusion. - 3But it is with a different kind of spell that art deludes you, . . . it leads you to pay religious honour and worship to images and pictures. The picture is like. Well and good! Let art receive its meed of praise, but let it not deceive man by passing itself off for truth. (Exhortation to the Heathen 4 ANF)
And let our seals be either a dove, or a fish, or a ship scudding before the wind, or a musical lyre, which Polycrates used, or a ship’s anchor, which Seleucus got engraved as a device; and if there be one fishing, he will remember the apostle, and the children drawn out of the water. For we are not to delineate the faces of idols, we who are prohibited to cleave to them (The Instructor 3.11) - 4He criticizes the Valentinians: “Their manner of acting is just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed by some skilful artist out of precious jewels, should then take this likeness of the man all to pieces, should rearrange the gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox, and even that but poorly executed; and should then maintain and declare that this was the beautiful image of the king which the skilful artist constructed, pointing to the jewels which had been admirably fitted together by the first artist to form the image of the king, but have been with bad effect transferred by the latter one to the shape of a dog, and by thus exhibiting the jewels, should deceive the ignorant who had no conception what a king’s form was like, and persuade them that that miserable likeness of the fox was, in fact, the beautiful image of the king.” (Against Heresies 1.8)
- 5I have heard it said that the Eastern Orthodox don’t venerate images; instead, they venerate saints and angels by means of images. This isn’t a historical distinction, but again, I’m responding to the position of those who pray toward material objects and expect to be heard by saints by doing so. If you don’t do that, I’m glad! You don’t practice iconodulia. If you use images to remind you of saints and angels, but you don’t bow to, pray to, or kiss their images in the expectation that that communication passes on to the person depicted in the image, then I’m not arguing against your practice.
- 6Extracts from the Acts, Session I, NPNF vol. 2.14
- 7“The Letter of the Synod to the Emperor and Empress,” NPNF vol. 2.14
I think there are major problems with what is presented here. In short, passages against pagan idols are equated with icons which, if they did not really exist (not simply art itself, but art made for veneration’s sake) then one could not read those passages with that anachronistic lens. More crucially, the explicit statements where iconodulia is described is dismissed out of hand because as the author states, he has not read this or that english translation himself. Well, how is one assessing the evidence if he/she is not following up one these things? And if one is not following up, shouldn’t the statement then be taken at face value unless proven otherwise. Lastly, there are some crucial errors of analysis, such as the treatment of the Acts of John. Yes, this is a gnostic source…it’s a gnostic source that *rejects* iconodulia explicitly. So, if your logic is consistent, if you were to reject iconodulia because it IS found in a gnostic source, do you now accept iconodulia because it were the gnostics who were actually rejecting it? And, as a matter of historical nuance, where did the gnostic author get the idea of what iconodulia was that he felt it was so important to reject it if it *did not exist*? And who likely practiced it? His own gnostic compatriots which he hoped would receive his book or those they were not in communion with, the Orthodox/Catholic Christians?
The quandary is ultimately among the iconoclasts and aniconists. They find themselves using anachronisms and inconsistent logic, at odds with the actual extant evidence of iconodulia. Via occams razor, iconodulia seems to me the historically most likely practice of the Apostolic Church.
Thanks for the reply, Craig. When you say that the argument depends on an anachronism, I’m not sure which point you’re calling into question. That pre-Nicene Christians thought images couldn’t stand in for anything sacred, or that they saw veneration of images as a difference between them and pagans, or that they don’t mention it as a Christian practice (either positively or negatively)?
Thanks for pointing out that it could sound to readers like I’m dismissing evidence because I don’t yet have access to it. I’ll edit the article to make my position clearer. Until I have done further research, I’m of course willing to accept that evidence as you represented it. Note that I did give reasons for my assessment of that evidence, even given that the evidence is as you say.
Good point the my analysis of the Acts of John could be clearer. To clarify, I don’t see why we need to give it any weight one way or another. In some areas the Gnostics agreed with the Christians, and in some areas they didn’t. So whether or not they held a belief is not evidence for what Christians believed. I’ll edit the article to make that more clear, and I definitely welcome your feedback on that point.
And of course, feel free to mention any anachronisms or inconsistent logic you see in this post or any other on this site. I’ll be glad to correct or clarify my position.
Thank you for the kind reply. I was writing my previous one in haste, I appreciate your understanding. Hopefully one day we can speak this issue out.
As for anachronism, if iconodulia is an innovation, then one should not expect that it was explicitly condemned in the early Church or in the Scriptures, as it (allegedly) did not exist. Hence, to read Origen, Hippolytus, or whomever as condemning icons, if they did not really exist, would be anachronistic. By default they’d be condemning something else, idols, if one holds to the idea that iconodulia did not exist yet.
May God save you!
Craig
Thanks! It’s tough to have respectful back and forth on issues like this which are (very understandably) close to our hearts, so I really appreciate it when it happens. I’ll give some thought to that objection and see if I can clarify the argument to address it more specifically. Definitely would be glad to dialogue further. God bless.
Hi Lynn,
The last two centuries of Christian archeological has uncovered Christian art that the Reformers never dreamed existed. I’ve seen the frescoes in the catacombs and I’ve seen mosaics in churches in Greece, Cyprus, Turkey and Egypt that date from the 5th and 6th centuries. Who would have dreamed that the house church in Dura-Europos with its frescoes would have existed until it was found. Keep in mind that Dura was a small and obscure place.
Clearly the Church Fathers aren’t the complete story. They aren’t trying to be balanced when they rage against (quite successfully) against pagan art. The first rule of polemics is not be fair.
PS: scholars used to think that Judaism/ the Rabbis were totally against art. Then 15 synagogues with extensive art were found in the last 100 years!
Thanks for the reply, Stephano. You’re right that we do know of plenty of art from the pre-Nicene era. But do you know of any evidence that art was venerated before 325? I’d be glad to research it further if you could point me to primary sources or to scholarly archeological sources.
That’s an interesting argument you make, that the writers I cited weren’t trying to state their actual position. I don’t see indications that they were raging or engaging in overstatement, do you? But we need such indications before we assume hyperbole, or we could just assume that what anyone says in support of their position is hyperbole and that they don’t really believe what they’re saying.
Hi Lynn,
what do you think that Christians were doing with all this art? To create art is an act of veneration. Please tell me what you think ‘veneration’ means.
It clearly took money, time and effort to create the art in the Dura-Europos House Church. Was it like ‘We made this art but it means nothing to us.’ Is there evidence that Christians lit candles in pre-Nicene time in front of icons? Not really. Candles and lamps were lit in the catacombs but that could just be lighting. The evidence from Pre-Nicene Christianity is not a ‘how to’ of Christianity. The writings are occasional and specific. They simply had no need to deal with the issue of veneration. However, if memory serves Irenaeus has a passage where he condemns the Carpocratians for venerating an image of Christ along with Plato and Pythagoras. Interestingly, Irenaeus doesn’t condemn the icon of Christ but the syncretic way the Carpocratians used it.
I should also point out that technically the Carpocratians were a type of (heretical) Christian and you have evidence there of veneration.
As my comment about polemics, I’m simply saying the writers aren’t trying to be balanced, not that they aren’t stating their position. They aren’t talking about art but art used in pagan worship. It’s like a preacher saying some group (let’s say American White Supremacist) are hypocrites without going into detail about how many Christians are hypocrites as well.
My evidence is based on the rhetorical progymnasmata that was part of Greco-Roman education like Theon, Hermogenes and Aphthonius. The rule of invective (or polemic) is to be one sided. There are English translations of these handbooks so take a look.
Hi Stephano, I actually already have a response to that claim about the Dura-Europos church, as well as that quotation from Irenaeus, in the article above. Feel free to comment on what I wrote.
Thanks for the recommendation of the progymnasmata. I’ll do some research into them.
You say “Furthermore, the early images seem to be instructive and decorative, not liturgical. In the Dura-Europos church, for example, there are paintings that seem to be of Adam and Eve, Christ’s miracles, the ten virgins, Christ as the Good Shepherd, and David and Goliath. They are exactly the subjects that we would expect if their purpose was to decorate the church and serve as teaching tools for Bible stories and concepts, but not exactly what we would expect if they were to be venerated.”
Please tell me which of the writers you quote in this article takes this approach that Christian art is ok as long as it’s for educational purposes.
I would assume that the default position would be that Christian art is ok for any purpose, except for purposes that contradicted Christian beliefs. No longer being under the Old Testament, having art wouldn’t be a problem, unless the Christians specifically contradicted it. In the article, I offered two examples of Christians who believed art to be ok. Do you know of any pre-Nicene Christians who believed that art was forbidden for educational purposes?
Hi Lynn,
Clement of Alexandia (who was not a bishop) is talking about signet rings not decoration on the walls of churches. It was a practical piece of advice as many people were illiterate and needed a ‘singature’. Eusebius talks of images of Christ, Paul and Peter being created in gratitude. Where is the written evidence to back your claim that art is being used for teaching?
You suggest the written evidence paints a complete picture (so to speak) of early Christian practice so according to you there should be written evidence to back your assertion.
Also, what do you think Eusebius means when he says people ‘honored’ the images?
Hi Stephano, I’m not sure what you’re suggesting. Either these images, including Adam and Eve, David and Goliath, the ten virgins, are intended for veneration or they are intended for purposes other than veneration. Are you saying they’re intended for veneration? As far as I know, Orthodox don’t venerate David and Goliath or the ten virgins. If Orthodox do not venerate them, then these images are intended for purposes other than veneration, and these images themselves are evidence that Christians used images for other purposes.
Also, I didn’t mean to suggest that the written evidence paints a complete picture of early Christian practice; just that we have enough evidence to draw some inferences. And note that Eusebius didn’t say that people honored the images.
I know this is an issue that is very near to the Orthodox heart, and I don’t mean this article to be offensive. I suggest you get Orthodox sources on icons, such as orthodoxchristiantheology.com, and try to fairly compare their assessment of the evidence with mine. There are good points to be made on both sides. In the end, I think that my assessment is more accurate, but I can see how you’d disagree. I just think you could make a more informed argument for your side than you’ve made so far.
Hi Lynn,
I hope you don’t mind if we continue this dialogue. Let me know if you get bored.
The Orthodox Church doesn’t deny the educational value of religious art. For us it is fairly obvious. Pope Gregory the Great says this clearly in his letters to Serenus of Marseilles (Letters IX.209, X.10) “Pictures are used in churches so that those who are ignorant of letters may at least read by seeing on the walls what they cannot read in books.” So for us it is not an either/or question.
Orthodox don’t venerate Goliath but we do venerate King David. The Wise Virgins are a parable. Veneration is about real people. In a sense Orthodox don’t venerate icons but people. This is what I think Eusebius is talking about when he mentions the images. The people who have these images are clearly Christians but Eusebius suggests they were made in the far past by recent converts. Why would they still have them centuries later if they weren’t important. I should also point out that the Greek word Eusebius uses is ‘icons’, the typical Greek word for a picture. The word now has a more technical meaning in English but it is just the plain old word for image/picture/drawing/art (even in modern Greek)
Interestingly enough, going back to the Dura-Europos Church, in my church there are depictions of Jesus walking on water and the paralytic up on the walls.
We can’t detach the veneration of icons from the veneration of the saints, apostles and prophets. I suggest do some research on the graffiti in the catacombs and in Peter’s house church in Palestine to see the practice of visitors venerating the saints there.
Icons are a big issue for Protestants/Anabaptists but we don’t spend all our time thinking about icons. You’ll find there is a deepness to Orthodoxy that is missing from Reformation churches. I strongly suggest you visit an Orthodox Church. We make just as much fuss about the Bible for example, which a lot of outsiders conveniently ignore.
I am not aware of the orthodoxchristiantheology blog but I’ll take a look.
Can I ask a question? The early Anabaptists were strongly all art. The Swiss Brethren broke with Zwingli over that issue (and baptism). They wanted all art gone. Were they wrong? Does the church you go to have any educational art?
Sure, the comments section here is for conversation about these posts, so more conversation is definitely good. However, I’d suggest keeping comments under a post to be mainly about the issue the post is discussing. If you’d like to range into other areas, I’d love to discuss them over email. Feel free to contact me through the contact page on this site with anything, and we can continue the conversation there.
I agree with much of what you say here, but I would note that Eusebius seems to suggest that the creation of the art was the way these Gentiles gave honor to the apostles, not that they were giving honor through venerating the art. It seems that the artists may not even have been Christians, and Eusebius offers this as a Gentile (maybe he means pagan?) sort of thing to do, rather than something that would represent Christianity as a whole. Anyway, thanks for the recommendation on artifacts to look into. That’s one of my next projects.
I haven’t looked as deeply as I would like to (sometime) into veneration of saints, having confined myself to the issue of venerating them through icons for now. It’s not because this issue is necessarily central to Orthodoxy, but because it’s an area where we have fairly clear evidence of how the early Christians practiced, and it provides a litmus test for the idea that Orthodoxy has never changed. I’ve offered two other such areas as well.
I do appreciate (and love) the ancientness of Orthodoxy. However, I would rather go deeper in history and practice as the apostles and the church they established. I find the Anabaptist tradition to be close to the essentials of that practice. Also, Anabaptism is more flexible, since we don’t claim that our church’s decisions are infallible, so we can continue to adjust to better live the historic faith, while it’s hard for Orthodoxy to do so. I think you’re right that some of the Swiss Brethren were against all representational art, but where I want to follow them is in their zeal for returning to the apostolic truth, not necessarily in every belief (which would of course be impossible, because not all agreed on every issue).
Hi Lynn,
Eusebius implies that the icons of Christ, Peter and Paul are ancient. Why and how would pagans still have them and even know who they were after 250 years? I suggest they are Christians and Eusebius is (disaprovingly) trying to explain their use of icons by Christians by claiming it was a pagan habit. As an Origenist he was very cerebral and rather dismissive of common Christians.
For a smallish group that is supposedly flexible the Anabaptists have a lot of schisms over trivia things like buttons and dolls with faces.
You didn’t answer my question if your church has art?
I’ve been reading through some of your posts. Sorry but the early church wasn’t as pacifistic or unpatriotic as you think. It also baptised infants (and everybody else with no age limit). The image of the early church created by the early Anabaptists (one thousand, five hundred years later) was a figment of their imagination based on a misreading of the New Testament.
Consider this, how similar is the Judaism of the Jews who wandered in the desert for 40 years to the Judaism of the Kingdom of Solomon? A misinformed observer might think they were different, or the latter was a ‘corruption of the simplicity of the earlier one.
The Orthodox Church is simply a continuation of the church in Acts 28 with 2,000 years of history under its belt. Over the centuries there have been some tough questions on doctrine but once a decision is made you can’t go back. For example, the Nicene-Constantinoplian Creed is now a necessity. You can’t pretend it doesn’t exist.
It’s interesting that you don’t consider the decisions of your churches infallible. Can I ask about the Holy Spirit in history? Where exactly are the ‘real’ Christians in the 4th century or the 6th century or the 10th century?
Hi Stephano, I went and read Eusebius’s account, and I think you’re right that he’s not indicating that it was pagans who made and kept the statue. But note that I did say later in my article, “What is more to the point is that Eusebius takes special notice of these images, as though they were curiosities, not typical Christian practice. He speculates that they were created due to a pre-Christian habit, not that they were created due to beliefs inherent to Christianity. Thus, this quote actually is evidence against the early veneration of images.”
You’re absolutely right that the Anabaptists have divided over many deplorably small issues. I mourn that. And since you asked, my church does use images as teaching tools in our church services.
You say that the early church wasn’t as pacifistic or unpatriotic as I think. Can you find me any Christian text predating 313 that holds that a Christian may use violence? Can you find me any Christian text predating 313 that holds that a Christian may give patriotic allegiance to his earthly nation? I will revise my position, if so. I’m simply following the evidence that I’m aware of, and I welcome you to let me know with any evidence I’m missing.
I’ve given evidence here, here, and here that changes such as the Orthodox Church has made are not apostolic. I’d be grateful if you’d give your specific objections in the comments at those articles. I’m always looking for things I’ve missed.
And I believe that there have been real Christians all through history. They’ve belonged to many different movements and churches. For broad swaths of history, many Christians have been mistaken with regard to some apostolic doctrines. But I believe that God will have mercy on those who sincerely seek him, despite their faults. That’s the only way I can be saved, after all.
And The Holy Spirit has worked to save, comfort, and aid Christians all throughout history. But as the articles I linked show, no further doctrines have been revealed other than what the apostles knew and taught the churches.
oops, typo.
The early Anabaptists were strongly against art…
Sorry.
Hi Lynn,
I was specifically referring to the paintings/icons. The quote ‘Nor is it strange that those of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Saviour, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings, the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers’ points to an ancient practice of veneration by Christians. Eusebius disapproves but it is happening. This is fairly clear because he is relating it to the way gentiles act. As for how widespread it is, this text provides no evidence.
Over the years people have told me many things about the pre-Nicene church. They didn’t baptise infants. They didn’t have bishops. They didn’t have art. They didn’t have purpose built places of worship. They only held the eucharist once a month. They didn’t drink wine. They believed in papal infallibility. They didn’t believe in the trinity. They believed in TULIP. Etc, etc, etc.
I believe you are being simplistic and mishandling/misunderstanding the evidence. That Christians were serving in the army and government in Pre-Nicene times is fairly well documented. Was the ideal for peace/non-violence? Yes! Was the church willing to tolerate using violence to defend the innocent? Yes! It didn’t force Christians into violence but (begrudgingly) accepted the reality. I should note here that the Orthodox Church never adopted the crusader mentality of the west and has never believed in holy war.
As we have been attacked by jihadist Muslims, Western Crusaders, Nationalist Turks, Communists and Nazis over the centuries then we have a right to defend ourselves. Even all those ‘sola scriptura’ types (basically) agree with the Orthodox position and the Anabaptist interpretation is a tiny minority interpretation that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. I should also say that 4/6 million Orthodox were martyred in the 20th Century, particularly by Communists, Nazis and Turks so there is plenty of room in Orthodoxy for passive resistance. I, myself, am a pacifist but I acknowledge others don’t have that luxury like my grandfather who fought in World War Two to defend Greece from the Italian Fascist/German Nazi invasion.
Sorry Lynn, but your response about ‘true’ Christians in history left me unimpressed. You need to be specific. The Holy Spirit guides us not only in the New Testament but through history. You can’t find any Anabaptists before 1625 because there aren’t any. That is very problematic for me. Their eccentric combination of re-baptism, rejection of art, civil life and absolute pacifism only reached that combination very late in the history of Christianity.
Hi Stefanos,
To clarify, my goal is to live out the faith that was lived and taught by the apostles and those who came after them. I’m an Anabaptist because the evidence leads me to conclude that Anabaptism is very close to that faith, so it’s easier for me to live it out among Anabaptists. But I honor all those who live out that faith in other traditions. And I’m always glad to learn to better understand that faith.
So I’d be glad to know any places where you notice that I’m misreading the evidence, and any places where I’ve missed evidence that contradicts my interpretation. Feel free to share that in the comments under any of the posts you disagree with. It’s a little hard for me to respond to more general objections like this.
I’ll respond to your mention of Christians in the army in my response to the article you were so good as to share with me through email.
I’d like to say here that I respect and honor Orthodox martyrs for their testimony of faith. Anabaptist history began in martyrdom, and we also seek to emulate the faith of those who died for Christ.