Nathaniel R. Clark

Those who have been following the debate on icon veneration in history over the last 5 years (begun with Dr. Gavin Ortlund's presentations) might be interested in my latest video. It is linked below. The presentation goes over a wide variety of points, but I wish to share one of the slides that highlights a notable observation by the Eastern Orthodox theologian Mark of Ephesus concerning the mysterious and providential character of doctrinal development. Gregory Palamas was charged with innovation for his insistence on a real distinction between the divine essence and the divine energies (the essence–energies distinction, or EED). Even in the fourteenth-century East, the doctrine of divine simplicity was held so rigorously that many Greek theologians found themselves unable to affirm this real distinction. From the standpoint of the Palamites, such theologians were "Platonists!" Absorbed as they were in the absolute oneness of God—an emphasis more characteristic of Neoplatonism—they could not accept the essence–energies distinction, even while they readily affirmed the real distinction among the hypostases of the Godhead. Mark of Ephesus reasoned that Palamas ought not to be pressed unduly for explicit patristic proof of the essence–energies distinction. In the wise providence of God, an explicit articulation of this doctrine was not yet sufficiently mature during the patristic era. The principal difficulty to be overcome in that period was the clarification of the hypostatic distinctions within the Godhead; an additional real distinction between essence and energies would have proved overwhelming to Christians still thinking in broadly Platonic categories—so much so that it would have been, in Mark’s words, “inopportune.” In the presentation on icon veneration, I echo the late Jaroslav Pelikan’s observation that this practice underwent a threefold development: prohibition, permission, and obligatory command. In earlier centuries, the production and veneration of images of Christ and the saints was prohibited. Subsequently, a recognition emerged that the honor already rendered to Christ and the saints could fittingly be expressed through the visual medium of painted images—a practice that was then permitted and even encouraged. Finally, when iconophiles were accused of idolatry, the charge was understood to imply a denial of the Incarnation and of deification. At that point, the legitimacy of imaging God in the person of Christ, and of venerating the saints (who participate in divine grace) through images, became an essential doctrine. This final stage is that of “command,” formalized at the Second Council of Nicaea (787), because the denial of icon veneration was perceived as a direct threat to the Gospel itself. This trajectory of development closely parallels the account given by Mark of Ephesus concerning the essence–energies distinction in light of "ultra-Platonism" in Christian theology. Initially, the absolute oneness of God held pre-eminence, and considerable time was required before the consubstantiality of the three Persons could be clearly articulated. That was a substantial theological hurdle. In a similar manner, early Christian theologians largely rejected the use of images of Christ or the saints for veneration. While isolated instances may have existed, the practice appears to have been generally absent. Once the theology of the Word made flesh had been more fully assimilated, however, it became evident that the one who fills the members of his Body renders the material world—and especially the bodies of the saints—venerable. From this recognition it was a short step to pictorial media as vehicles for such veneration. Finally, when opposition to icon veneration came to be seen as implying a denial of the Gospel—just as Mark of Ephesus understood a denial of the essence–energies distinction to entail a denial of the reality of God’s action in creation—the practice was elevated to the status of obligatory dogma, clarified and defined over time. If Gavin Ortlund and Craig Truglia represent the two polar ends of this debate on icon veneration, I believe Pelikan's thesis and Mark of Ephesus's recognition of doctrinal development are a solid corrective to both Ortlund, who would say icon veneration cannot possess an obligatory character, as well as to Truglia, who thinks it is absolutely essential that the Apostles themselves were already teaching the full-blown production and veneration of images and instructed the Churches to do so. youtube.com/live/tloovmjArGg…