I have no general problem with icons. I have one, after all, on my ipad, and my laptop screen contains several of them, in rotation. But, it is a little different than what I am used to, to be honest.
Pate, thus far, with little disagreement from me, has pursued the nature of theology in a critical, but relatable, and now in Part II, is moving to show how philosophy can help with building theology. In the first section of Part II, he tackles the Incarnation in a way which would make Plato tremble. He also tackles the issue of icons, siding with, ironically*, John of Damascus and Orthodox Christianity.
On 119, Pate argues that John’s view is actually a very important way of remembering the balance of the Incarnation, something he criticizes both the Liberals and the fundamentalists for. He writes,
God has appeared as a human being: that means not only that material things are intrinsically good but also that God can be represented.
Knowing the philosophical arguments before and after this statement makes his argument something worth considering. Imagine if icons could be understood as a way to keep the balance in the mind of the believer?