a (non)definition of Ikon who's who, click here

The problem with attempting to describe what one is boils down to the fact that any such description will inevitably fail. Not only is Ikon still ‘emerging’, it is as many different things as there are people who participate in it and influences that penetrate it. What follows then is not a definition of Ikon, but neither is it blank space, rather what follows is a (non)definition, i.e. a definition that acknowledges its failure to define. A (non)definition celebrates the existence of an impenetrable fluidity and elusiveness which makes solid descriptions both impossible and unwelcome. Indeed, as a movement which is attempting to come to terms with that which cannot be reduced to words, we operate with a liquid system that celebrates ambiguity, openness and change. A system which is as unambiguous as possible about our ambiguity, clear about our lack of clarity and insightful with regards to our blindness. The following should not then be viewed as a conceptual representation of Ikon but rather as ‘icons’ of that which cannot be said but which impacts us in its silence.
The word ‘idol’ derives from the Greek root eidos, a term that means to make manifest the very essence of that which we intend toward, revealing its inner workings to the bright light of day. Hence idolatry can be understood as the sin of viewing something as that which renders God’s very essence visible to human experience. Such idolatry can be either aesthetic (like the Golden Calf mentioned in the book of Exodus) or conceptual. In the later we make God intelligible by constructing a doctrinal image which we view as a manifestation of Gods essence. The opposite of this idolatry is the humanistic view that claims God, if God exists, is utterly unknown and thus irrelevant to human life.
Beyond these two extremes lies the iconic approach. To treat something as an icon is to see it as that which draws us into a deep contemplation of that which cannot be reduced to words, images or experience. For example, to treat our religious tradition as an icon means that we understand that it is a fractured, fragile discourse (forged in the white-hot fires of God’s ineffable encounter), which is more about expressing a deep gratitude and worship than defining Gods nature. In addition to this, the term icon also refers to that which God uses in order to interact with humanity. Consequently our icons are not just systems we create to express our praise but are the very systems which God uses in order to communicate with us, for because no one can look upon the unmediated presence of God and live Gods presence must be veiled. Hence in the icon God is neither made wholly manifest nor utterly concealed but rather remains concealed in the manifestation. God thus remains utterly transcendent amidst Gods immanence.
At Ikon we endeavour to view our religious beliefs and traditions as icons rather than idols, not approaching them as some scientifically correct rendering of Gods mind, but rather as wounded, worshipful constructions, formed in the glorious aftermath of God, which allow us to reflect upon our interaction with that which can never be reduced to the conceptual realm.
The word ‘apocalyptic’ simply refers to the incoming of a singular, unrepeatable event that is absolutely inconceivable, an event that could not have been predicted in advance of its coming and which defies all expectations. At Ikon we wish to reclaim and celebrate the apocalyptic nature of God, rediscovering the one who continually escapes all our attempts at domestication through words, images and experience. By recognising that our religious traditions and beliefs are icons rather than idols it follows that these traditions must embrace the pseudo-concept of God as one who cannot be contained in any concept. At Ikon we recognise our dark tendency to reduce God to an object like other objects, one which can be grasped by human faculties, yet we resolutely stand against this by acknowledging that God is larger, superior and other than God (i.e. than what we mean by the term ‘God’).
Building upon the idea of our religious traditions as iconic discourses that recognise and celebrate the apocalyptic nature of God, it follows that Ikon acknowledges itself as a heretical community. Each revelation of God requires interpretation and these interpretations are inevitably limited by such things as language, intelligence, cultural context, tradition and psychological makeup. By recognising this we endeavour to hold our current understanding of God lightly, allowing both the Spirit and other people to challenge what we believe. Thus we echo Augustine when he asked himself ‘What do I love when I love my God’, thereby affirming his love of God while simultaneously questioning his understanding.
In addition to this we acknowledge our heretical stance in relation to the larger Christian community. Unlike the terms ‘unbeliever’ and ‘infidel’, which traditionally referred to those from a different religious tradition, a heretic is one who comes from the same tradition but who reads it in a different way. Not only do we acknowledge and celebrate the multiplicity of ways that one can read Christianity, we actively employ these diverse readings in order to help ensure that no single understanding is taken as the only true understanding. By doing this we also endeavour to be a place of refuge for those on the edges, or outside, the traditional church system, yet who desire God. While this can often place us in tension with more established forms of religion, we view this as a creative force that allows for a critical, two-way interaction with the larger church, challenging while being challenged.
We are aware that our own success will ultimately help undermine our heretical stand, for if we become established then we will become the dominant voice. Hence we attempt to build self-critique into the very heart of each Ikon service so that we are continually undermining our own ideas rather than those of other people. In this way Ikon is neither a conservative or liberal community (although people who attend come from both traditions) for the point is not what you believe but whether you are willing to challenge and critique it.
Flowing naturally from the previous statements Ikon does not view itself as having reached some final destination/destiny but rather as being on a journey toward that which forever transcends us. As a result of this we understand ourselves in a continual state of kinetic movement and fluidity. As such we would prefer to call ourselves a community becoming Christian rather than a community of Christians, for if a Christian is someone who selflessly follows Christ and radiates divine love in a broken world then we are profoundly aware that there is much of our being that lies in darkness, still needing to be evangelised. The term ‘emerging’ should not then be thought of as a provisional one that will some day be replaced with the word ‘emerged’, for we embrace the idea that re-reading, critiquing, constructing and deconstructing are all processes which remain vital for our spiritual development. By recognising ourselves as pilgrims and sojourners we endeavour to regularly meditate upon the direction of the movement and be open to the divine call that would draw us down paths we have not yet discovered. As such there is an implicit ambiguity and openness built into the heart of our structure.
Finally Ikon acknowledges that it constantly fails in its desire to be an icon of the invisible. While our community is deeply committed to interacting with the mystical realm and demonstrating love in the world we are profoundly aware we taint what inspires us with our own finitude and selfish desires. Because of this we recognise that it would be inauthentic for us to sit back and declare that we have accomplished what we have set out to do. Instead we remain mindful of the fact that our attempts at forming a community of individuals who radiate divine love are, at best, the forging of a poor icon through which people can dimly perceive God and, at worst, an off-putting mirror that simply reflects our own limitations.