Repost: Milk-Giver Icon | Not Scandalized by the Incarnation

On July 3, the Icon of the Virgin “Galaktotrophousa” (Γαλακτοτροφουσα, meaning “the Milk-Giver”) is celebrated. The Icon shows the Mother of God breast-feeding Christ. Not many modern icons use this composition, which may hide just how ancient and widespread this icon really is.

The specific Icon celebrated on July 3 (and January 12) dates from the 6th century A.D. and resided in St. Sabbas’ lavra (a type of monastic community). Before his death, St Sabbas prophetically stated that in time a pilgrim sharing the saint’s name, of royal lineage from Serbia, would visit, and to him the Icon of the Mother of God, the “Milk-Giver”, should be given as a blessing from the Monastery. God’s time is not like our time, and so it was not until 700 years later that the prophecy was fulfilled. The pilgrim was the Serbian prince Rastko Nemanjić, who had taken the monastic name “Sava” (i.e. Sabbas) when a youth. Coming to venerate the relics of St Sabbas, the elder’s episcopal staff fell at the young Sava’s feet. The monks inquired into the pilgrim’s identity, and hearing his name (and remembering the centuries-old prophecy) gave the Milk-Giver Icon along with another icon of the Theotokos, and St Sabbas’ staff. All three items ended up in the Hilandar Monastery on Mt Athos, which was founded by the Serbian Sava. The Milk-Giver Icon is still there to this day, in the Iconostasis of Hilandar’s church.

Like the dogmas of the Church, icons often arise as a response to heresy. In this light, it is not difficult to see why and how an icon of Mary breast-feeding the Christ-child would appear in the 6th century, and be associated with St Sabbas in particular. Sabbas was a strenuous opponent of the Monophysites, a group who believed Christ’s divine nature absorbed His human nature. The icon is a rebuttal of this position, as it shows Jesus Christ, truly God, suckling at His mother’s breast.

Monophysitism is just one flower of an all-pervasive weed that can has its root in one overriding feeling: scandal at the Incarnation. In other words, shock and revulsion at the idea that the All-Powerful Creator would take on corruptible human flesh, spend 9 months in the womb of a woman, pass through her vagina, and then spend the next few years a physically weak and helpless baby, totally dependent upon her. People have come up with a multitude of ways to deny this dogma of the Church. Another example is the Julian Heresy, which flourished in Egypt during the time of St Sabbas. Supported by the patriarch of the time, the belief was that Christ’s body was incorruptible (before His crucifixion). Again, the influence of being scandalized at the Son of God taking on human flesh is seen in this belief. A number of right-believing monks separated from the heretics and set up their own monasteries, which they named after the Theotokos, i.e. God’s human mother. One of these monasteries, the Syrian Monastery, still survives and it shouldn’t be surprising to see an ancient fresco of Christ suckling His mother there. Again, reacting against the misguided scandal of the Incarnation, the Milk-Giver Icon proclaims the Orthodox belief.

From the 6th century onwards the image of the Mother of God “Nourisher of Life” is always found without ever being common. Whenever it is found, both Mother and Child are stylized, with Mary’s exposed breast depicted proportionally smaller than is natural. This is because the icon is not painted to dwell upon the sensuality of Mary breastfeeding Jesus Christ, merely to proclaim it happened.

Copies of the Hilandar Milk-Giver Icon aside, today icons of this type are not very common, especially in Western Orthodox iconography. Is it because “scandal at the Incarnation” is no longer a problem among Christians? Don’t believe it. Even while openly proclaiming Christ’s two natures, the tendency to downplay or practically deny the humanity of Jesus is still something that lurks in the shadows. The Mother of God “Milk-Giver” Icon is still a powerful rebuttal to these beliefs, and a reminder that God’s love for us is not abstract but physical.

---

Source: "Milk-Giver Icon | Not Scandalized by the Incarnation," A Reader's Guide to Orthodox Icons blog, July 3, 2011, accessed July 18, 2015, https://iconreader.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/milk-giver-icon-not-scandalized-by-the-incarnation/.

A Christian's Good Name

It is one thing to love honor and human esteem for themselves and to rest in them, which is evil, and it is another thing to love these things for some good end, which is not evil. [...] Not only persons in authority, but Christians in general, should practice what is written: "Take care of a good name" (Sir 41:12). This does not mean to rest in it, but that a Christian has to be such that, whoever hears or sees his life, may glorify God, as we usually do at the sight of a rose or a tree with fruit and shade. This is what the holy gospel commands: that our light might so shine before men that, seeing our good works, they may give glory to the heavenly Father (Mt 5:16) from whom all good proceeds. [...]

It requires a lot of virtue to possess something as if one did not have it. So too, it is extremely difficult to keep the honor others give us from cleaving to our hearts. Very few succeed in doing this.

---

Source: St. John of Avila, Audi, Filia, trans. by Joan Frances Gormley (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 2006), 1.4, 46-47.

Surveillance, Images, and the Devil

Photographer Sheri Lynn Behr put together a photo project that explores an increasingly-discussed topic, namely, the rapidly disintegrating line between the public sphere and one's private life, especially through the use of image-capturing technology.

NoSafeDistance addresses the idea of photography without permission—a concept practically unavoidable in what Behr calls today’s “post-privacy world and image obsessed society.” Separated only by glass store windows, Behr turns the camera on strangers just long enough to capture the surprise on the other side.

Source: Ben Marcin, "Too Close For Comfort: Portraits of Strangers Taken Without Their Permission," Feature Shoot, October 23, 2013, accessed October 24, 2013, http://www.featureshoot.com/2013/10/too-close-for-comfort-portraits-of-strangers-taken-without-their-permission/

Behr remarked, "I wanted to see what other people would do, in this age of smart phones and surveillance.” How would you react? Earlier this evening, I photographed two seminarians in front of me during dinner conversation. At first they tried blocking their faces and stopping me. They jokingly asked what I was doing on my phone, whether I was uploading awkward photographs onto my Facebook or Twitter.

Behr continues:

I’m always interested in things that we are aware of, but don’t necessarily notice, like surveillance cameras. After the Boston Marathon tragedy, people were talking about how great it was that we caught the bombers because of security camera footage. I can’t deny that that was a good thing, but no one talks about the people who were misidentified on surveillance video and how their lives were disrupted. I think all this surveillance falls into really a gray area—there’s so much of it, and we need it to be out in the open and under discussion.

Source: Ibid. 

Earlier this year, 60 Minutes came out with a segment on facial recognition technology. It notes that for the Boston Marathon bombing, although there were images of the bomber, the bomber was captured not by matching photo images but fingerprints. It explores the issue more in-depth: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50147158n

The same technology shows up in the movie Minority Report, which the 60 Minutes segment briefly explores, such as the influence on advertisements and consumerism.

We also live in a society that praises constant self-assertion, whether through Facebook and other social media websites, through YouTube vlogs, through blogs, etc. Even this post is an example of such self-assertion. It's what Behr describes as "image-obsessed." We like to control our output, showing people exactly what we want them to see. We borrow and share familiar angles of photograph capturing, such as the famous selfie. We share status updates that provide a slice of our life that we alone wish to share and have people notice, painting a picture of whom we seem to be. I become what I describe, what I present, the image I project.

But we all understand that this self-assertion is an extension of the basic realization that children have at some point when they look into the mirror and realize that they are looking, not at another child who is imitating them, but themselves and that their being involves an image, an objective side. We want to look in the mirror and see, instead, what we upload on Facebook; after all, people on the Internet don't have a mirror of us.

But when it comes to other people capturing images of us, most of us detest it. Some enjoy it, but it is interesting to meditate on why we might dislike having our images leave our control. Privacy, reputation, and manipulation among other things. But even more fundamentally, we lose control of ourselves, which we equate with our self-output image. If I have no control over my image, I lose myself.

Again, this unconscious mentality is clearly contrary to the spiritual self-surrender necessary for the reformation of Christ's image in us, whom we must remember are made in one image—the image and likeness of God.

It has been particularly unfortunate to see women especially take advantage of the selfie in order to post semi- or fully pornography photographs of themselves. This phenomena suggests another element—the ease in which the demonic enters into all of our attempts to take matters of our destiny, our identity into our own hands. The selfie becomes a new form of magic, by which we attempt to control the forces around us and thus save ourselves rather than allow ourselves to be saved. Even in the masochistic end of a relationship, such masochism is usually consciously chosen, and if not consciously so, unconsciously provoked and encouraged. These are all assertions of self that very easily give room for the demonic to enter in.

It seems necessary to me, then, to reflect on what I put out before doing so, to reflect on my motives and my goal and my relation to Christ at that moment. Am I trying to allow Christ's image emerge through me, or am I asserting myself and in so doing allowing sin and the devil to be my PR managers?

Zed Nelson, the Beauty Industry, and People as Objects

The following poignant commentary on the beauty industry and standards of Western beauty becoming globalized is from the photographer Zed Nelson:

Beauty is a $160 billion-a-year global industry. The worldwide pursuit of body improvement has become a new religion. 

We live in a society that celebrates and iconises youth, where the old, the aesthetically average and the fat seem to have been erased from the pages of our glossy magazines, advertising posters and television screens. 

The promise of bodily improvement is fuelled by advertising campaigns and a commercially-driven Western media, reflecting an increasingly narrow palette of beauty. The modern Caucasian beauty ideal has been packaged and exported globally, and just as surgical operations to 'Westernise' oriental eyes have become increasingly popular, so the beauty standard has become increasingly prescriptive. In Africa the use of skin-lightening and hair-straightening products is widespread. In South America women have operations that bring them eerily close to the Barbie doll ideal, and blonde-haired models grace the covers of most magazines. Anorexia is on the increase in Japan, and in China, beauty pageants, once banned as 'spiritual pollution', are now held across the country. 

'Westernising' the human body has become a new form of globalisation, with 'Beauty' becoming a homogenous brand. The more rigorously our vision is trained to appreciate the artificial, the more industries benefit. The current standard of beauty feeds the fashion, cosmetics, diet, medical and entertainment industries, with the homogenisation of appearance becoming part of an increasingly globalised consumer culture. 

But who creates this culture? However much we may confidently point the finger at certain industries, we can't deny our own tacit, albeit culturally conditioned, involvement. Like it or not, we are judged, and judge, by appearance. Perhaps we are obsessed with the way our own bodies look because we know how instinctively judgemental [sic] we are of the bodies that we look at. 

A recent scientific study reported that we make decisions about the attractiveness of people we meet in the space of 150 milliseconds. This superficial appraisal has profound implications. Those we consider most beautiful not only find sexual partners more readily but studies also show they get better jobs and more lenient treatment in court. 

We have created a world in which there are enormous social, psychological and economic rewards and penalties attached to the way we look. Can any of us honestly say, 'I don't want to be attractive'? Don't we all want to be loved? But have we been brainwashed into believing that in order to be loved we need smaller noses, bigger breasts, tighter skin, longer legs, flatter stomachs and to appear ever youthful? Where does it end?
The body has, in a sense, become just another consumer purchase. Everyone can, in the spirit of our age, go shopping for bodily transformation. Banks now offer loans for plastic surgery. American families with annual incomes under $25,000 account for 30 per cent of all cosmetic surgery patients. Americans spend more each year on beauty than they do on education. 

As our role models become ever younger and more idealised, we are so afraid of aging that the quest for youthful preservation generates an almost pathological obsession with our bodies. As we align our sense of self-worth with self-image, the psychological and emotional consequences are tortuous. The one thing we do know for certain is that our body will always, in the end, betray us.

Source: Zed Nelson, "Love Me: Introduction," Zed Nelson, 2009, accessed October 17, 2013, http://www.zednelson.com/?LoveMe:text

The commentary speaks for itself. The photograph project is quite striking, dark, and saddening, and I highly recommend a viewing. Just a warning, some of the pictures are quite graphic, depicting surgery as well as remains from surgery: http://www.zednelson.com/?LoveMe:1

One quotation that Nelson attaches to one of the photographs is quite perceptive:

“Every society has notions of what one should believe, how one should behave, and how one should look like in order to avoid unpopularity.

“These social conventions are formulated in legal codes and religious doctrines, but also in a vast body of social judgements which we take for granted, which dictates what we wear, who we respect, how we lead our lives, and how we should look. We refrain from questioning the status quo, because we associate what is popular with what is right.”

(Cited as: Alain de Botton, writer.)

A further difficulty is that cultural values work as a web, each element strengthening the other. To overcome one difficulty requires that a person go up against every other element, at least implicitly. Doesn't this resistance culminate in the death of the martyr, whether red or white?

Women and men caught up in the trap of societal standards of beauty, and each entangled in sexual sin, these are two sides of the same coin, or rather, two facets of a multi-faceted problem. The underworld that these practices create, the political corruption encouraged, the entertainment industry fostered, everything converges to tell you that this is the only reality, and it seems that the attempt to look elsewhere is met with the equivalent of the ending of Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty Four.

But there is a true solution. This page sums it up best: http://www.chastitysf.com/q_objects.htm.