I just finished reading a fascinating thesis. It was obviously written by a Protestant with a Russian background. It is his thesis for his Master of Theology degree. It can be found at:
http://www.bethel.edu/seminary_academics/international/russian/icon.html I found it to be extremely well-written. He did a very good job at summarizing the philosophical, theological, historical, and social dimensions in the development of iconography. For anyone who has interest in these aspects, I heartily recommend it. But remember, it is Master's level.
However, I must disagree with him on his suppositions and conclusions. As you would expect, he treats his topic, icons, separate from the rest of Byzantine tradition. As a result, he finds them primarily attractive to the psychological aspect of humans, and not primarily the spiritual. As a result, they are dangerous, as they can support the development of various superstitions and even idol worship.
Obviously, he misunderstands the central tenet of Byzantine theology, that is, no part of tradition stands alone. He never develops a link between, for example, Scripture and iconographic representation. He minimizes the differences between iconographic representation and the Eucharist, and overemphasizes the cult of the saints and Mary as if they existed separate from the Word.
He never mentions the central and essential link between liturgy and iconography.
While doing a good job at referencing the Byzantine perspective, he under-references the Protestant perspective, thereby treating his criticisms as being self-evident.
I welcome any critique of this thesis. Please try to remain objective in your criticisms. After all, this was meant to be a serious theological presentation.
I would especially like to hear from those of you from a Protestant tradition, or those of you who had your own Evangelical period, to comment on your comfort/discomfort with iconography.
John
