www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Abortion Icon

Many things are used as political tools. Reagan used pictures of farmlands and wholesome Americans to engender a feeling of hope to a country suffering after four years of the Carter malaise. Those images were thus used as political tools. But that should not prevent you from having wonderful images of agricultural scenes on your walls, Dan!

The group that uses the icon, Orthodox Christians for Life, is not a political advocacy group. They are a group of concerned Christians who desire to educate and minister to others who need to hear the message about the scaredness of all human life. I know of some Orthodox Christians and Catholics who are not pro-life. Such an image is probably meant more for them, as well as for teens and children. Therefore its purpose is primarily catechetical, not political.

LOL!

Part of the issue with using a "sperm and ovum" is that it would very difficult to discern the exact meaning of the image without labels! In the interest of interpretation, I'm sure the fetus in utero was used to represent all stages of fetal development - from conception to birth. Icons employ a whole host of symbols - the Eagle, for instance, signifying St. John or keys for Peter or a sword for St. Paul. How do these symbols differ fundamentally from the image of the fetus? The icon conveys clearly the sacredness of all human life, created and sanctified by God. This image to me is one of the great bold witnesses to the "Gospel of Life".

Gordo

There's a woman dressed like a hooker with fishnet stockings in the icon!

I'm going to completely show my age here with the phrasing of this question, but: is that, like, allowed to be in an icon?

Otherwise I like the icon a lot. Don't know about the playset and the bicycle, though.

Logos Teen

I'll venture to add my two cents ...

I'm at a lost to understand what this has to do with the subject under discussion! Of course, many images are used for political purposes - but using "sacred" icons to promote social behavior is not right.

I noticed the hooker's legs too!


I have to agree with Daniel. This is not a proper venue for an icon.

First, it is NOT a marvellous, powerful and artistic depiction. Second, "icon corner...for veneration" describes it all. An icon is for veneration. This is NOT an icon - this is not worthy of veneration - this is a poorly done painting.


Gordo's perspective is well said.


So that's my 2 cents worth ... anyone have any change .

Exactly, Rose; an "icon" one wouldn't put in a sanctuary or an icon corner is no icon.
That fetus is just sort of floating in space, unconnected to its mother. Sort of grotesque.
That other one, the analogical scene,
is just plain weird. Icons depict historical personages, not symbolic representations of virtues and vices, [pace to whoever does those "icons" of the parables for church bulletins].
-Daniel

Daniel,

You mean just like the cross that the Lord directed St. Constantine to have his army paint on their shields in order to defeat his enemy at Milavan Bridge?

Father Anthony+

My only point is that an icon (and I was referring to the icon of Christ, not the scene of Rachel and the prostitute with the fishnet stocking) should not be discounted because it might be used for political purposes. I guess it was a round about way of me saying "So what if it might be used politically?"! Images should not be forever tarnished because they might be used politically. And the primary purpose of the icon of Christ holding the fetus is catechetical, not political. I found the whole reference to the icon as a political tool to be a tad reactionary.

[/QUOTE] First, it is NOT a marvellous, powerful and artistic depiction. Second, "icon corner...for veneration" describes it all. An icon is for veneration. This is NOT an icon - this is not worthy of veneration - this is a poorly done painting. [/QUOTE]

I don't believe I referred to the image of Rachel weeping as a sacred icon. Marvellous might be overstating it a tad on my part - but it is powerful and artistic, at least IMHO. I think we are in agreement here, except for the fact that I have some appreciation for the image, whereas you do not. It is then a matter of taste, since we are clearly not dealing with anything that is a liturgical image. I certainly would not hang this image on my wall for veneration or even general appreciation. (One reason is that my wife can't stand it!) I am grateful it is not in my home, but I can appreciate it's meaning nonetheless.

Regarding Dan's further point, I still think we are confusing the two images somewhat. Rose, are you expressing the same concern or dislike for the OCL image of Christ holding the fetus?

Dan, this image reminds me of the Psalm that references something about the rejection of a child by its mother, with God stating the fact the He will not reject the child. (I have to run and catch a plane, so I do not have time to look it up right now!). "Grotesque" may be overstating things a bit, don't you think? I would see this as no more grotesque than a pro-life display that demonstrates the stages of fetal development. To me it seems to be a "window within a window" - it is depicting the child in the womb as co-created and sustanined by Christ the author of Life.

Gotta run.

Many years,

Gordo

God deliver us! Iconography is a language, and it is normally used to present us with heavenly realities, not with hellish sins. If one wants some suitable icons for use in prayers for the rescue of those threatened with abortion, and/or the conversion of the abortionists, such icons have been around for a long time and are quite traditional.
There are some topics which do not, repeat, NOT belong on icons. Abusing iconography for other purposes, no matter how righteous and holy those purposes may be (and I am utterly and implacably opposed to abortion) is destructive of iconography.

Incognitus

Yes. This is (was) an acceptable icon of Christ and then the scriptures was removed from His left hand and replaced with that "thing". Surely there are other icons which convey the sanctity of life. I'm left with the impression that there are Orthodox and then there are Orthodox. This seems to be an image for those "Monestary Icons" folks.

Both pictures are offensive to the sacred art of iconography.

Come on, Rose. That "thing"? Oh, you mean a human being in utero created in the image and likeness of God?

As a former "thing", I resembled that remark! (The only difference being time and nutrition... perhaps too much nutrition, but that is a discussion for another day!)

Let's not be puritanical on all points re: canonicity, shall we? On one end of the continuum we have "Bridge Building Icons" which takes us into the outer realms of sanity and new age/pagan advocacy and beyond. On the other end, there are those who treat Orthodox iconography as if no room for creativity is permitted, like the Bible plopped down in the King James Version into the lap of the Baptists. How does one explain the development of various symbolic traditions? (And I will say that the canonical standard seems to be selectively applied, especially for those who prefer acrylics and other non-organic media. No names, of course!)

This is not an icon of Ghandi or Martin Luther King. It is of Christ holding a human child. The icon is perfectly "Orthodox", in the sense that an orthodox theological truth is faithfully depicted.

Gordo

Mr. Gordo,
Since tradition prohibits icons from displaying the interior of the human body, i.e. the Sacred Heart of Christ, I don't see how an embryo can be allowed. If this type of icon is allowed, would it not be proper to paint the Theotokos showing a fetus with a halo? Would that offend anyone?

So, why not instead say you were an egg in your mother's womb that was brought into existence by your father's sperm.

I do believe in creativity, but I also believe in good taste, which is obviously the point on which we differ.

I have heard some say only egg tempera should be used, others say dimensional statues are prohibited,etc. etc. etc. And, now-a-days icons are reproduced by machines, laminated, and pasted on purchased boards, and I've also seen icon reliefs and statues. You had said, the mediums used are NOT "canonical" standards. This is common misunderstanding. If you can let me know the canon on which mediums allowed that you are referring to, I am always willing to be corrected and to learn something new.

Not being "Orthodox" and least of all theologically minded, I cannot comment with any surety as to your statement. I'm not dismissing an Orthodox theological truth, only the manner in which it is done.

Yet I see it as Christ holding an unborn fetus in its early stages of development... and, I don't like it.

Amen

Speaking of icons used for political ends, here's one a friend just e-mailed to me:

http://ljplus.ru/img2/p/_/p_alexey/Iosif-Petrogradskiy.jpg

It's almost as good as St. Mark of Ephesus trampling on the Pope, or an icon of the "Ship of the Church" showing Christ and the Holy Fathers inside the ship, while the Pope, Martin Luther, and others drown in the sea of heresy.

There is a fine line between being didactic and being propaganda.

Dave

OK Everyone,

Take a deep breath. Icons are subjective as to the content. Rose for your information the organization that had the icon/written/painted took great pains in ensuring its theological correctness. It also has the blessing of several hierarchs of the Orthodox Church that actively engages in the movement.

Whether you have a like or dislike to the icon is one thing, and Daniel for that matter also, this discussion is being bogged down with preferences. I agree that the original subject posted Pani Rose is not one I would have in church or in my icon corner, but that is because it does inspire any prayer in me. For the other subject I posted, does have a blessing and I have seen them in chapels to inspire prayer and thought for the unborn.

By you making reference to a fetus as a "thing", I find to be personally offensive, and contrary to the Catholic Church's teaching of when life begins, and by implication of that term it is not life. Gordo was bringing it about in a light-hearted way, but there will be many that will take exception to that reference.

As far as your references to the sacred heart icon, there are a number out there not only done by monastery icons. You can get into the argument of the icon of the Holy Trinity and how that is or not canonical.

Unless, you can theologically and by canon find that there is fault, then I have to view your posts in merely subjective terms. I hate to sound harsh, and I mean no disrespect, but the majority of the agruments presented lack any support in theology or canon.

FYI, I have had to study iconography when I had a novice here training to become one. I finally pulled him from the school when the theology presented for subjects was askew and not within Orthodox Teaching. The instructor was upset, but could not back his views with anything from the teachings of the church.

As far as medium used, I can not see were it comes into to play on this thread. Various mediums have been used for centuries, and will probably develop for centuries to come.

One last point that Daniel has brought in earlier, Icons should not be used for political purposes. A point of reference, is they have been used since the forth century from military operations and battle, for political means and demonstrations. That is backed by both Byzantine and Russian History. If you go back into the Old Testament, the ark of the covenent was also used fro that purpose.

The icon in question depicts our Lord embracing the unborn in blessing. This is something we pray for each child, and maybe it is a visual reminder for us also to do the same.

I am sorry for my harsh tone, but I am sick of people trying insert what may be theology into something that has long been researched and checked into.

If I was a potential customer, and viewing this thread, I sure would not have chosen you or Daniel as the iconographer only for the poor presentation that has been exhibited here along with pridefullness. As you may state that the other iconographers work is offensive to you, the same probably can be said for your work by others. Just for you information, I commissioned two icons today for the refurbished academy chapel.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Father Anthony, being that you are the Moderator on this site I will surely expect to be banished.

I too am sorry for your harsh tone.

Never mind .... I'll banish myself (at least for a while).

and this (to use your words) Congratulations!

Rose,

I do not banish, but on an issue such as this one, we all have personal preferences. We all let out pride get into it sometimes when we post. Matters regarding the first icon, I stated I have no preference for, but is more a painting in iconographic form, probably from a RTL group in Greece, and then I do not think the intention, though I can be wrong was to have it used in any liturgical way.

I had to word my post strongly. In our haste to post our feelings and preferences, terms were used that are offensive to the teachings of the church, and that concerns me as you are an extension of the church by being an iconographer. Schools and methods of iconography have eveolved during the centuries. Each school has its own way of depicting and has introduced new examples of icons.

To state that an icon is theologically wrong, needs support to the accussation. If not it is prideful subjectivity.

All we have seen is an attack, and not much substance to back it up. You are observe by not only the members here but many who are guests and they form opinions also.

My spin on this whole thread is that it should be dicussed rationally, with fact and basis.

Personally, I have no real attachment to either icon, but the manner of presentation by both yourself and Daniel made posters to respond to you in the fashion above.

I hope this resolves this matter, and suggest that you think and carefully word your posts in the future.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Fr. Anthony, bless!
I am far from being an Iconographic Fundamentalist; it is just that it seems to me that if one wants an iconographic representation of the Life-giving Mystery of God one need not come up with something so novel. The Virgin of the Sign, with Christ in the Mandola, enwombed as it were, is sufficient.
Or the Nativity icon.
The "icons" displayed here violate several ancient traditions in form and substance. They are needlessly didactic and allegorical. They are not icons. I will grant that they are "iconic paintings" in the sense that Robert Lentz's more offensive paintings are iconic paintings [though they are less offensive to me because I am sympathetic to the cause].
Surely your harsh tone is not justified; after all these are innovative. We who speak for Tradition ought not be vilified. The burden of proof seems to me to be on the side of the innovators.
-Daniel