have you read any von Balthasar? he’s got his issues that is for sure, but i have read from his work “Love Alone is Credible” where he basically posits that beauty is the first point of insight by which many people perceive God and His revelation. i think that is most qondeful…

yet mostly when i experience God via beauty and creation it evokes two almost simultaneous reactions: a feeling of awe and love, and a vague re-awakening of hunger and angst.

i really appreciate the metaphors for idol and icon, yet i have a friend in the greek orthodox church who using the ancient ways to craft icons…and they are so beautiful. but she’s fairly tradition-bound (which is ok), but i have provoked her a few times to be more expansive in her art and making of icons past making mere copies – she usually is copying from a previous icon – to which she hasn’t really responded positively…so question: have you witnessed iconography that has expanded past the horizons of merely copying of old works and masterpieces to seek to capture where our ancient traditions artistically meet our present contexts? have you seen churches, possibly emerging churches, using anything like that…or is it mainly still copies of older artistic representations?

Seems that any sort of kingdom of God theology must have an appropriate appreciation for beauty. Both in its pure physicality and in arts’ manner of connecting physical representations with the transcendent. In contemporary church we accept our embodiedness as a concession, which is more likely despised in some direct correlation with Paul’s “the flesh.” But we are embodied souls–or soulish bodies (as some have said more recently, but I cannot recall the citations)–part of God’s spiritual kingdom manifesting itself in justice, redemption and life in this very physical world. If we believe that God’s intention is to redeem this created order, then our esteem of these fleshy vestments must increase. The lack of art, much less iconography, in the western evangelical-ish church today seems more emblematic of our devaluation of all things physical, and of beauty as an end in itself–or beauty as a means to transcendence and connection.

Anyhow, I really appreciated your presentation Elisa. I wonder if you had mulled over my suggested construction that what differentiates idolatry from iconography is that idolatry objectifies, whereas the icon functions relationally? One could say the idol is self-referential (even where it refers to another, that other is false, cold, impersonal), whereas iconography always refers us to the character and person of the One. As humans are called the tselem of God in Gen1–tselem meaning “image”–we replace the function of the idol (which is typically what Hebr. is invoking w/ tselem) and become God’s icons in a world in need of order, restoration, etc.

thanks again

These papers all seem to be really interesting… So you have to be an SVS member to get them?

the cost of membership isn’t bad, $30 for students, otherwise it is $50 fior an annual membership…that also was inclusive of the SVS conference fee as well, so it’s a great deal as far as this type of group is concerned…we’d love to have you as a member: http://www.vineyardusa.org/site/content/become-svs-member

hope all is well in beligium…

peace

Steve, I think part of the pain that accompanies the pleasure of beauty is our longing for the not-yet of the kingdom and our not-yet fulfilled union with God. As for Orthodox icons, the specific practices involved in creating icons and the imagery used in them have theological motivations, which we as Protestants obviously do not have as part of our heritage. I personally have not yet seen anyone fully incorporate the icon and the theology and practice of the icon into Protestant worship, but certainly there are individual artists, such as Makoto Fujimura, who have reinterpreted the concept of the icon to the context of Protestant art. It’s an exciting idea I’m hoping to explore in my own art! As an anecdote, I have also known Catholic nuns who have written icons of newer saints such as Mother Theresa or Oscar Romero, so perhaps that sort of practice can be part of the process.

Yes, thanks David for reminding me that I want to pursue the connection with Buber and beauty. It does ring true to me that the icon facilitates relational encounter (which is always ultimately encounter with the cosmic You) while the idol we can always objectify. And, for Buber, anything can be experienced as an “it” or encountered as a “you”, just as for Marion anything can be an idol and anything can be an icon.

Your first paragraph reminded me that Surprised by Hope by NT Wright has a wonderful passage on beauty:

When we read Romans 8, we find Paul affirming that the whole of creation is groaning in travail as it longs for its redemption. Creation is good but it is not God. It is beautiful, but its beauty is at present transient. It is in pain, but that pain is taken into the very heart of God and becomes part of the pain of new birth. The beauty of creation, to which art responds and which it tries to express imitate, and highlight is not simply the beauty it possesses in itself but the beauty it possesses in view of what is promised to it…We are committed to describing the world not just as it should be, not just as it is, but as – by God’s grace alone! – one day it will be. And we should never forget that when Jesus rose from the dead, as the paradigm, first example, and generating power of the whole new creation, the marks of the nails were not just visible on his hands and his feet. They were the way he was to be identified. When art comes to terms with both the wounds of the world and the promise ore resurrection and learns how to express and respond to both at once, we will be on the way to a fresh vision, a fresh mission.

A parody of this is found in the passionate belief of many artists and writers of the last generation that the only true art is art that is politically committed. At least the Marxists who thought like that had grasped the point that neither sentimentality nor brutalism will do, but only eschatology in the process of being realized. If Christian artists can glimpse the truth of which that Marxist vision is a parody, they may find a way forward to celebrating beauty without lapsing into either pantheism or cynicism. This will take serious imagination, imagination fueled by reflection and prayer at the foot of the cross and before the empty tomb, imagination that will discern the mysteries of God’s judgment on evil and God’s reaffirmation, through resurrection, of his beautiful creation. Art at its best draws attention not only to the way things are but also to the way things will be, when the earth is filled with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the sea. That remains a surprising hope, and perhaps it will be the artists who are best at conveying both the hope and the surprise.

Elisa, have you read The return of the Prodiagal Son, A story of homecoming, by Henri. Nouwen. It is an amazing book based upon the classic painting by Rembrandt, return of the Prodigal Son. I personally see the light of healing through this work. It has been one of my favorite books.

I haven’t read the book, but I’ve heard of it. That painting is amazing. Thanks for the recommendation!

[...] 3/8 – David Kushner: “Echoes in Scripture” 3/9 – Steve Hamilton: “Signs & Wonders: Wisdom & and the Reign of God” 3/10 – Jason Clark: “Consumerism, Social Imagination, and Ecclesiology” 3/11 – Jason Coker: “The Begging Bowl: Toward a Kingdom Economy of Gifts, Power, and Justice” 3/12 – Elisa Berry: “Beauty and the Practice of the Kingdom of God” [...]