I place this in the Christian forum since it is an issue that has showed up many times in the history of the religion so I hope to garner more responses by placing it here.



For those unfamiliar with the term, Iconoclasm means the deliberate destruction of religious icons, symbols, or monuments attributed to religious or political motives. Though the term and it's practices predate the founding of the Christian faith (it started with the destruction of images of Ancient Egyptian pharaohs after their deaths by political opponents, such as what happened to Akhenaten and Hatsheput), in the modern context I wish to discuss it is fueled by debate on if images of holy persons such as Jesus, the Virgin Mary, Saints, etc is considered idolatry. A lot more detailed information can be found on the Wiki Page since I find it easier than quoting arguments for and against from my history books.


Christian dogma has gone back and forth over this issue many times. One of the biggest instances of Iconoclasm that I can think of offhand was the Byzantine Iconoclasm which destroyed countless mosaics, frescos, statues, and other works of art for depicting religious images. This Iconoclasm was set off because of the heavy losses suffered by the Orthodox Byzantines against the Muslim Arab armies... Muslims, as many of you should know, do not permit images of holy persons in Mosques and such, following the "no graven images" commandment. This made Emperor Leo III convinced that God was not on their side because of the icons, so he ordered the Iconoclasm. Didn't help much, but it lasted for a good fifty years until the Empress Irene, regent of Constantine VI, appealed to Pope Hadrian I and the Second Council of Nicea made the following doctrine:



"...we declare that we defend free from any innovations all the written and unwritten ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us. One of these is the production of representational art; this is quite in harmony with the history of the spread of the gospel, as it provides confirmation that the becoming man of the Word of God was real and not just imaginary, and as it brings us a similar benefit. For, things that mutually illustrate one another undoubtedly possess one another's message. ... we decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways; these are the images of our Lord, God and saviour, Jesus Christ, and of our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men. The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full adoration in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels and to other sacred cult objects." - Second Council of Nicea, 787 CE

The second major instance of Iconoclasm was during The Protestant Reformation, though views varied. Some, like Calvin, were very much against the images, while others like Luther eventually concluded that as long as people did not worship the images but instead only used them as tools that they were acceptable... basically the same idea argued by those against Iconoclasm back in the 8th century. However, for the most part Protestant religions don't really have much in the way of icons/religious images... the most obvious difference is seen in the depiction of the Cross versus the Crucifix, you don't usually see a Crucifix hanging in a protestant church, and iconoclasm is why.

So, given my brief history lesson and explanation, I ask what are your thoughts on Iconoclasm and religious artwork?

I think that it is unfortunate that something like this, religious artwork being destroyed happened, especially when it could hold such value historically. I've never been one to like religious art a whole lot, but I do think it is pretty.

My perception is that you shouldn't need an image or 'tool' to help you to focus on God, or even to remind you of God and your commitment to him - as in how some say that the idols/icons, or whatever, are not there to worship, but to remind them to worship.

Well, I do think there is a fine line though between idolatry and just artwork, it could just be a matter of personal opinion on what differentiates the two, but I don't see the need for Iconoclasm, nor do I see the need for the icons lol.

Luther's view was quite understandable, since he originated from Catholicism as well and did not want any division among the church, but know that people are abusing icons and pictures of the saints. People during that time came up with many superstitions, claiming that being able to see the so-called corpse of the apostles or the wood used to make Jesus' cross would help lessen their time in purgatory. They elevated dead objects in equal ground like God. That is why one of the things that Luther spoke against the beliefs of the Catholic church is to elevate pictures, statues or corpses to have the same power and honor to God.

Having pictures and icons of Jesus, Mary, the apostles, etc is not wrong. During that time, these pictures do have some value in terms of sharing the gospel in a visual form. Also, I do not think that it really affected that of the Byzantine Empire. The problem with that of the Catholic church is to worship those icons and pictures or elevate them to be God like or have God like powers. As for the destruction of these icons, it is unfortunate, but I think the idea behind such Iconoclasm is the idea of preventing someone from continue living in sin or not be the cause of someone who struggles in sin. For example, Paul affirmed with other apostles that eating meat is not a sin, but if someone is offended of him eating meat in their presences, he would avoid eating meat so that he would not be the cause of sin, and I think that the mindset behind such iconoclasm is that because people are so into their icons, that they destroy those items, like how Israel destroys their idols when they turned back to God.