On John of Damascus

How can we most appropriately study history, namely the history of theology of icons? Appropriately means not taking matters out of context and yet looking for basic human questions in the specific time period. Why then, did the orthodox theology conclude that the use of divine images is correct? To me, the answer is obvious, as it was obvious to John of Damascus. Jesus Christ, both human and divine, appeared to us in flesh and blood, in a specific historical time period. The Christian doctrine of God lends itself fully to the use of divine images and the creation of icons.

What’s amazing about John of Damascus is first and foremost his approach to reaching this conclusion. He acknowledges his predecessors (theologians, philosophers, etc.) and works from the basic assumption that “orthodoxy” is good. Orthodoxy is not something, which is to be scrapped completely and substituted by a new trend in theology. This is why it is important to be mindful of our past because there is something to be learned from Plato and Aristotle, for example. This aspect of looking into the history (appropriately) has been completely lost in our current paradigm. I would say that it started with Rousseau who doubted everything. This doubt included history as well. This is when an artistic and philosophical arrogance was born, and we have been failing to purge ourselves from such endeavors ever since then.

Another aspect of the approach that John of Damascus takes is the fact that he defines matters clearly. He wants first and foremost what an icon is, what an image is, before he can make an effort in arguing his point. In his introduction to Josef Pieper’s Leisure the Basis of Culture, Fr. James Schall writes that before we write about something, we must first know what this something is, and how does it work. Before we make assumptions about a for example, chair, we must first know what a chair is. This is a very classical approach to philosophizing. John of Damascus is obviously of that “school of thought,” although I doubt that he would want to categorize himself in such a manner.

John’s obvious connection to the arts made him the most perfect candidate to actually say something about an image. One has to be genuinely concerned about human passion, emotion and imagination to reach any type of conclusion in regards to the veneration of the icons. The worship is not, by any means, purely emotional since the whole being is involved in the worship. But perhaps that flame that starts the worship is far more mystical than analytical. The analytical arrives at a different point in the worship, merging with the mystical in the most unified manner. To me, this is what makes the Byzantine thought most beautiful. We are complete in the eyes of God, and why should we fragment ourselves? Fragmentation of a human spirit and mind is unique to the human animal (I can’t expect my cat to have an existential crisis) and human condition. We spend our whole lives trying to make ourselves whole. It seems to me that the writings of John of Damascus did exactly that—they have taken another step towards wholeness and unity with God.