Is this offensive?

[Philip]

erm...may I suggest that someone here post the link in our new Anglican forum, and ask them for their opinions before entirely abandoning all all droplets of respect?

I think I will.

For instance, I'm just dying to know what they think of Saint Malcolm X.

Me too.

 

[Rilian]

I was looking around this morning and found some even more discouraging things. This "wedding" picture appears to be from the church and is related to this story.

 

[TomUK]

...and that they consider Malcolm X a saint. Once again Christian orthodoxy is pushed aside by the overwhelming desire to show the world how tolerant and diverse they are.

Well speaking as 'they' i don't really think you should be painting the entire Anglican church with the same brush. I find these images disgraceful and they certainly do represent the doctrine of the anglican church.

They are trying to be Orthodox.

I disagree- i think it's more a case of taking a very superficial look at an Orthodox church and deciding that that would look pretty on their walls. I don't believe we can generalise from that however that they are trying to be orthodox.

Just as an aside, i can see how many of you are offended by these images, but i can't believe that offence was intended. I just think it's a product of a very theologically shallow church, which as i said before is not representative of the Anglican communion.

http://happyplace.cherrytaco.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_puke.gif

erm...may I suggest that someone here post the link in our new Anglican forum, and ask them for their opinions before entirely abandoning all all droplets of respect? I would certanly find their reactions of interest, in any case. Wouldn't you?
For instance, I'm just dying to know what they think of Saint Malcolm X.

Thinks for posting the link. I'll post some sort of reply there a bit later.

On the whole issue of Malcolm X, he is certainly a notable figure from history and a source of inspiration for many. However, a Saint is certainly a whole lot more than just someone who is notable (but then i don't need to tell you lot that ) This whole issue descends from a fundamental lack of knowledge about both the history and traditions of the Anglican church (as well as the Orthodox church) from some more 'charismatic' members. However, that is a whole seperate debate.

 

[Philip]

They are also some of the most conservative (if you include the Anglican members outside the US). IIRC The ECUSA comprises less than 10% of the worldwide Anglican population.

This is part of the reason why many of the Anglicans in Africa and Asia often threaten to break communion with ECUSA.

 

[Rilian]

I found an interesting blog that talks about the church in question.

 

[Polycarp1]

As an Episcopalian, I make no excuse or justification for what St. Gregory's is doing. They are accountable to their Bishop, who appears to have turned a blind eye to their practices, and beyond him to church courts and to our Lord.

There is, of course, a strong tendency to see "what is pure, good, and wholesome" from non-Christian sources as God working through extraordinary means to reach out to humanity estranged from Him. Orthodoxy's own recognition of the Old Testament Saints testifies to that. And Paul was not above quoting from a Pagan philosopher if it conduced to bringing home the Gospel. (A very devout and very orthodox woman at my parish is reading Rumi with an eye to what he has to say to Christians, and is I believe planning a book on the results of her studies.)

Obviously that can be taken too far, and the church in question is a strong case in point.

For what it's worth, those whom the Episcopal Church recognizes as saints are listed at this link, which includes the non-movable feasts other than saints' days as well. Each listing is a link to a short write-up done by a competent Anglican hagiographer. (John and Charles Wesley started the Methodist Movement, a call to greater piety and self-discipline within the Church of England; they remained Anglican priests to their dying days. Methodism as a separate church was not their intention -- though one can argue the setting apart of Thomas Coke as superintendent of the American Methodist evangelists was a Lefebvre-like schismatic act, we prefer not to.)

There are a lot of things on which you could indict our church as against Orthodox doctrine, without finding extremist stuff like St. Gregory's.

 

[Suzannah]

Wow. I just finished reading through the blog that Rilian posted. All I can say is Our Lord is faithful and merciful. The person who wrote that, obviously went through some very heartbreaking moments, and our Lord was faithful in his need. I am sure that God does move through some situations that we would never guess....St. Gregory's might be one of them. We must remember that our Lord is all powerful, almighty and ever faithful.

 

[Philip]

There is, of course, a strong tendency to see "what is pure, good, and wholesome" from non-Christian sources as God working through extraordinary means to reach out to humanity estranged from Him. Orthodoxy's own recognition of the Old Testament Saints testifies to that.

I am not sure how the Old Testament Saints testify to this. We believe in One Church that included the Hebrew Church in the Old Testament and Christian Church of the New Testament. I would call the Old Testament Saints Christians.

 

[nicodemus]

I remember seeing some "icons" of Thomas Merton and Martin Luther King a year or two in an Episcopal book shop. (I don't typically go in Espiscopal book shops, but I had gone to hear Desmond Tutu speak at an Episcopan chuch and figured I'd have a look while I was there.) I remember being quite offended and l wanted to say something to the shopkeeper, but didn't. They were right there amongst icons of our Lord, the Theotokos and the Saints (both western and eastern.) 95% of the icons they had (and I believe 100% of the real icons) were from Orthodox sources and I thought those two icons would just add to the confusion most people already have about the Orthodox Church.

It is a sad thing indeed that people appropriate a very specific ancient tradition for their modernist, syncretic ways.

 

[TomUK]

Uhm, i'm against these 'icons' too, but there seems to be a bit of anti-anglican feeling here, so i'm just curious; what is it that you really object to about these images (images for arguments sake). I don't mean this to sound like an attacking comment, and it's not ment to sound like one, but i was just wondering why some of you feel so strongly about these pictures.

 

[Philip]

Uhm, i'm against these 'icons' too, but there seems to be a bit of anti-anglican feeling here,

What I see is not anti-Anglicanism. Rather, I see disgust at an improper use of icons that happens to occur in an Anglican parish. I also see sadness that the presiding bishop has not rebuked the parish.

so i'm just curious; what is it that you really object to about these images (images for arguments sake).

IMNSHO, they are blasphemous. They make a mockery of use of icons and Orthodox tradition.

 

[Polycarp1]

What I see is not anti-Anglicanism. Rather, I see disgust at an improper use of icons that happens to occur in an Anglican parish. I also see sadness that the presiding bishop has not rebuked the parish.

If you mean their diocesan, I agree. If you are referencing the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA and merely did not use capital letters, for reasons that seemed good to the founders of ECUSA he was not given metropolitan powers and the efforts of successive PBs to receive them have been turned down. Only the diocesan bishop and the triennial General Convention of the church, and where appropriate church courts, have any say in the matter. The PB could speak to the issue, even rebuking them, but it would have only moral, not canon-legal sway.

IMNSHO, they are blasphemous. They make a mockery of use of icons and Orthodox tradition.

I think tomuea and I fully grasp that. The presumption I'd make is that the attitude of non-Orthodox, whether this be appropriate or not, is that iconographic art is not the sole property of orthodoxy, and that figures from non-Orthodox Christianity may appropriately be depicted in iconographic style. With the devotion that Orthodox feel to true icons, I can understand where this is seen as cavalier and somewhat mocking of something important to your devotional lives. Hence, I'm not trying to defend it, but merely to grasp how people without that understanding of their meaning to you might use them, inappropriately by your, and my, understanding.

 

[Philip]

If you mean their diocesan, I agree.

Yes. This is what I meant.

The presumption I'd make is that the attitude of non-Orthodox, whether this be appropriate or not, is that iconographic art is not the sole property of orthodoxy, and that figures from non-Orthodox Christianity may appropriately be depicted in iconographic style.

I agree. I would love to see all Christians properly use icons. I do not take offense at an icon of an Anglican Saint in an Anglican church. I am bothered, as I assume you are, about the depiction of decidedly non-Christians.

With the devotion that Orthodox feel to true icons, I can understand where this is seen as cavalier and somewhat mocking of something important to your devotional lives.

I don't think the Dancing Icon was meant to be mocking, but I find this to be an unintended result.

 

[Rilian]

I also see sadness that the presiding bishop has not rebuked the parish.

Judging by this letter, I don't think a rebuke will be in the offing.

 

[nikephoros_spatharios]

I think that Anglicans should protest to the relevant ecclesiastical authorities of their Church against this type of phenomenon. If this type of phenomenon is allowed to go on, then people outside the Anglican Church will rightly consider the entire Anglican Church responsible, because it has not taken a stance in such an important matter, hence implicitly accepting it.

I'm sure that some Anglicans protest against this type of thing; if their ecclesiastical authorities refuse to take a stance despite these protests, then it is perhaps the time for each person to think whether they feel comfortable being in communion with people of this kind.

 

[ufonium2]

Uhm, i'm against these 'icons' too, but there seems to be a bit of anti-anglican feeling here, so i'm just curious; what is it that you really object to about these images (images for arguments sake). I don't mean this to sound like an attacking comment, and it's not ment to sound like one, but i was just wondering why some of you feel so strongly about these pictures.

We know that we don't own the patent on icons (although maybe we should look into it, in light of this) and most Orthodox are perfectly fine with other churches and their members using icons. In fact, one of the Episcopal churches in my city has a chapel full of them, and I think it's great. But, icons are generally associated with Orthodoxy, and probably 99% of all icons are owned by Orthodox churches and Orthodox Christians. So, when we see "icons" of people who aren't even Christian, and these folks are illumined as if they were saints, it's offensive.

Think about it this way: Christianity doesn't own the patent on the cross. Thousands of people were executed that way, and it's a fairly common geometric figure that can be found in non-Christian artwork throughout recorded history. But, probably 99% of the crosses you see today are representative of Christ's cross. If you saw Malcolm X depicted on a cross, would that be offensive to you as a Christian?

 

[nicodemus]

Like others have said, first and foremost the problem is one of depicting non-Christians in a specifically Christian art form.

Additionally though, while different 'styles' of iconography exist, a definate argument could be made that many of these are being painted in a Byzantine (and specifically in a pseudo-Cretan school style) which is almost soley the preserve of Orthodox Christianity.

 

[Matrona]

Ask and you shall receive, Matrona!

Thank you Planny!

erm...may I suggest that someone here post the link in our new Anglican forum, and ask them for their opinions before entirely abandoning all all droplets of respect? I would certanly find their reactions of interest, in any case. Wouldn't you?

I guess you're right. Although I meant before that I lost respect for the Episcopal Church's hierarchy that would condone this, and even encourage it and honor them for it, as that bishop's letter attests.

It's not just the abuse of iconographic art or depiction of non-Christians--it's that they would take Orthodox saints, and place them on the same level as people who spent their lives actively rejecting Christ. The fact that they are using Orthodox-style icons for this blasphemy is just rubbing salt into the wound.

Also, I was right about them using a three-bar cross in their church, although thank God, they at least have it turned the right way. It's in this picture--hanging from the ceiling, it's up near the light fixtures. http://www.saintgregorys.org/Tour/Churchtour2.html

 

[Plan 9]

Thank you Planny!

Why, you're quite welcome! I was happy to oblige! Sometimes only a hurling smiley can truly express our..ahem..gut emotion. Feel free to come to me for all your emoticon needs, Matrona.

I guess you're right. Although I meant before that I lost respect for the Episcopal Church's hierarchy that would condone this, and even encourage it and honor them for it, as that bishop's letter attests.

It's not just the abuse of iconographic art or depiction of non-Christians--it's that they would take Orthodox saints, and place them on the same level as people who spent their lives actively rejecting Christ. The fact that they are using Orthodox-style icons for this blasphemy is just rubbing salt into the wound.

Also, I was right about them using a three-bar cross in their church, although thank God, they at least have it turned the right way. It's in this picture--hanging from the ceiling, it's up near the light fixtures. http://www.saintgregorys.org/Tour/Churchtour2.html

My feeling is that it's a very backwards compliment, because, let's face it, Bizantine art is extrordinarily beautiful, and they just couldn't resist. I've seen other examples of murals and such in churches which honored Christians who whose earthly service was admirable (no halos were used), and Sojourner Truth is a fine example of one such person. However, I think she would be disconcerted to see herself presented as actual saint, and Malcom X would certainly be quite surprised. The Anglicans who found their way here (I swear, I didn't call the, although I was tempted) didn't seem exactly approving themselves.
Some people don't mean to be offensive; it's just that they're silly, silly, silly!
They probably don't even think of it as your art.

btw, I hope I didn't offend anyone myself by laughing when I saw those windows and reading the material; it just struck me as so absurd as to be one those parody sites, like Bonzai Kitten. The fact that they were actually serious cracked me up, plus that remark about the saints dancing above as they danced below made me wonder what they were smoking when read in the already ludicrous context.

Heres an interesting theological question for everyone to answer:
Do the Saints in Heaven line dance a lot, and if so, would it benefit us to learn to line dance in the here-and-now?
Should I start a thread on the subject, Matrona?

 

[nyj]

Just for the record: John and Charles Wesley never intended for the Methodist Societies to become a separate church, and John Wesley remained an Anglican priest until his death. Both remained faithful to the Anglican Church. Their intent was reform, not separation.

Hmm, I've heard that before from somewhere... but where?

Yes, it's disgusting, but is anyone really, when they think about it, surprised?