Skip to main content

A Picture, An Image and An Icon

Recently, my daughter sent the latest version of their family pictures.  I appreciate having a chance to see countless pictures of her, her husband and the kids.  Probably only my wife and his parents will care about seeing that many pictures of four human beings!  Of course, they look much like last year’s pictures.  In fact, I probably could not tell you the difference between the parents from last year till this year.  But the kids are still young enough that one year makes a difference.  They are still cute, but I know the closer we get to being adults, the less cute most of us become.

Fortunately, I have long since come to the place where I would rather see these pictures than pictures of me.  I am no longer cute!  That is assuming I ever was!  But I did use this occasion to think about pictures.  Naturally, pictures have been created by painters for quite some time.  And we know long ago painters painted pictures on the wall of caves.  So pictures have been with us a long time.

In the nineteenth century we find that the first attempt was made at pictures the way modern folks would understand it.  George Eastman gave us the Kodak film at the end of the nineteenth century.  Polaroid appeared on the scene in the 1960s and all of us that age remember it as a real novelty.  Probably the most amazing contemporary invention is the phone in our pockets that takes better pictures than I have ever taken in my life.

Pictures are such an everyday occurrence in our lives, we don’t give much thought to them.  Thinking about how prevalent pictures were led me to think about the counterpart to pictures, namely, images and icons.  Unless you know classical languages, it would be not self-evident that the three words, picture, image and icon, are related.  In fact, they are the same word, but in different languages.  And to pursue these three words can lead us into some fairly deep theological waters.  Let’s dive in.

The word image likely seems more related to the word, picture.  Indeed, our word image (Latin = imago) suggests a picture-like representation.  An image might be nothing more than a shadow---representing the figure casting the shadow.  But it is a representation.  It should resemble that which it images.  There should be a likeness.  All this means there is a relationship between that which is the image and that which is the imaged.  This is what pictures do: it captures a likeness and reproduces it.

But we can take image further.  Image is the crucial word used in the early Genesis creation account to describe human beings.  We are created in the image of God.  Unlike anything else in the totality of creation, humans are set apart because they are created in the image of God.  By affirming this, the author of scripture wants to assert that humans represent God.  Humans somehow image who God is and how God acts.  I see this as an awesome gift and huge responsibility.

It gives humans a special relationship to the Creator.  We may not look exactly like God does---as a picture would provide.  Nevertheless, we image what God looks like.  We are offspring of the Divinity.  And we are creatures who are created in the image and are designed to go around imagining what God would say and do.  It is as if we each have a special mission.  Of course, it is possible and, maybe, easy to foul up this process.

The way we can foul up the process is to see our self as the center of the process.  Instead of imagining what God wants, we turn to our own self-interests.  Instead of being selfless instruments of the Divine in the world, we become selfish agents of our own egocentric drives and whims.  We blur the picture and set up our own self as the idol of our attention.  The rest is history.

We can turn to the third word, icon.  This is the Greek word for image and picture.  It is less known, but means basically the same thing.  We were created to be icons of God.  You may have seen icons, which the Orthodox Church uses. Icons are used to represent God and the manifestations of God in Jesus, etc.  It is incorrect to assume that an icon is an idol.  To the contrary.  An icon “shows” or “represents” the Holy One.

Because we are created as icons of God, that is our basic role.  We are to represent God in this world.  We do it by looking like what God would look like and acting like God would act.  Because most of us probably don’t even know what this means or if we do know what it means, we prefer not to do it, we thereby become iconoclasts---breakers of the icon.  An iconoclast destroys the icon (image), and sets up a different image and likeness.  Again, we see selfishness and egocentrism in our world as the usual substitutes.  Those are very poor substitutes.

Our call is to get back to the basics.  It is time to get good pictures.  Let’s touch up the image and reestablish the icon.  In some ways it is the same call.  Each of us is called to offer the world a picture of God.  We are called to image and imagine what God would do in our world.  And we are called to be icons to others---to represent and reveal the Divine love at work in a world that sorely needs its healing.
   

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I-Thou Relationships

Those of us who have read theology or, perhaps, those who are people of faith and are old enough might well recognize this title as a reminder of the late Jewish philosopher and theologian, Martin Buber.   I remember reading Buber’s book, I and Thou , when I was in college in the 1960s.   It was already a famous book by then.   I am not sure I fully understood it, but that would not be the last time I read it.   It has been a while since I looked at the book.             Buber came up in a conversation with a friend who asked if I had seen the recent article by David Brooks?   I had not seen it, but when I was told about it, I knew I would quickly locate and read that piece.   I very much like what Brooks decides to write about and what he contributes to societal conversation.   I wish more people read him and took him seriously.           ...

Spiritual Commitment

I was reading along in a very nice little book and hit these lines about commitment.   The author, Mitch Albom, uses the voice of one of the main characters of his nonfiction book about faith to reflect on commitment.   The voice belongs to Albom’s old rabbi of the Jewish synagogue where he went until his college days.   The old rabbi, Albert Lewis, says “the word ‘commitment’ has lost its meaning.”    The rabbi continues in a way that surely would have many people saying, “Amen!”   About commitment he says, “I’m old enough when it used to be a positive.   A committed person was someone to be admired.   He was loyal and steady.   Now a commitment is something you avoid.   You don’t want to tie yourself down.”   I also think I am old enough to know that commitment was usually a positive word.   I can think of a range of situations in which commitment would have been seen to be positive.   For example, growing up was f...

Inward Journey and Outward Pilgrimage

There are so many different ways to think about the spiritual life.   And of course, in our country there are so many different variations of religious experiences.   There are liberals and conservatives.   There are fundamentalists and Pentecostals.   Besides the dizzying variety of Christian traditions, there are many different non-Christian traditions.   There are the major traditions, such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on.   There are the slightly more obscure traditions, such as Sikhism, Jainism, etc.   And then there are more fringe groups and, even, pseudo-religions.   There are defining doctrines and religious practices.   Some of these are specific to a particular tradition or a few traditions, such as the koan , which is used in Zen Buddhism for example.   Other defining doctrines or practices are common across the religious board.   Something like meditation would be a good example.   Christians meditate;...