Apr 03 2008
Reflections on iconography and pornography
“…It would be better for you to leave no brothel in this town unentered than to refuse to venerate our Lord and God Jesus Christ together with his own mother.” – St John of Damascus[1]. The importance of venerating the image: can iconography help defeat the power of pornography?
Reflections on iconography and pornography based on interviews with Susan Cushman, an iconographer and writer in Memphis, Fr Gregory Mathewes-Green, a parish priest near Baltimore, and Fr George Morelli, a clinical psychologist, therapist and priest in San Diego.
The one-hundredth canon of the Council in Trullo in 692 states:
“Let thine eyes behold the thing which is right,” orders Wisdom, “and keep thine heart with all care.” For the bodily senses easily bring their own impressions into the soul. Therefore we order that henceforth there shall in no way be made pictures, whether they are in paintings or in what way so ever, which attract the eye and corrupt the mind, and incite it to the enkindling of base pleasures. And if any one shall attempt to do this he is to be cut off.[2]
St John of Damascus suggests that the tempter-demon would value as nothing successfully tempting a monk to fall into the sin of fornication if he could instead prevent the monk from venerating the icon of Christ and the Theotokos. The Definition of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787) says that we value “iconographic representations… for being of an equal benefit to us as the gospel narrative.”[3] Every year at the beginning of Lent, the Orthodox Church celebrates the ‘Triumph of Orthodoxy’, by which we mean the restoration of icons to the Church. Why does the tradition of the Church place such a high importance on the image? What does this teach us about pornographic imagery, and can iconography find a role in combating it?
Icons as sanctifying
St John of Damascus clearly saw the periods of iconoclasm in the Church as a temporary victory for the devil, saying, “Away with you, envious devil, for you are envious of us, when we see the likeness of our Master and are sanctified by him…”[4] It was clear to him that iconography was far more than decoration in the churches, more even than an aid to prayer or a reminder to us of heavenly things; in some sense the icons can actually sanctify us.
Pornography in modern experience
There can be no doubt that in particular the technological development of the Internet has led to a massive increase in the use of pornography over the last fifteen years or so. With most of the early online business successes being in the porn industry, pornography has also been a driver of technological advancement online. In 2004 there were between 23 and 60 million unique visitors to pornography websites each day. Moreover, 51 percent of all videos on peer-to-peer (P2P) networks are pornographic, 73 percent of all image searches on P2P network Kazaa are for pornography, and in one survey, 37 percent of Christian Pastors in the US identified internet pornography as a current struggle. The average child nowadays is eleven years old at their first exposure to pornography, with 90 percent of eight to sixteen year-olds having viewed online porn, and 80 percent of 15-17 year-olds having had multiple exposures to hard-core (meaning violent, group or bestial) online porn. Beyond the Internet, 70 percent of in-room movie revenues in hotels are from pornographic films, as are 25-30 percent of all pay-per-view revenues. All-in-all, pornography in the US alone is estimated to be a more than $12 billion industry.[5]
Despite the prevailing wind of tolerance for pornography in western societies, notable not only in permissive attitudes towards the use of internet pornography, but also in the degree to which public space has been infiltrated by pornographic images in advertising and media, very little study has been done on the effect of pornography on us since its use became so widespread. This is partly because a 1979-80 study (before the Internet) so effectively demonstrated the ill-effects of pornography (mild pornography by today’s standards) that similar studies have not been permitted for ethical reasons.[6]
Both Fr Gregory and Fr George affirm that in their pastoral experience, pornography has become a very widespread issue. Fr Gregory expresses his continuing astonishment at how much this is so, and says that he has come almost to expect that among males of a certain age-range, it will be an issue. While Fr Gregory has never had it raised by a female person in confession, Fr George said that it is also a problem for some women. He also explained that there is a subset within society that lives deeply in a pornographic world, as in one case he knows where a ‘bi-sexual’ couple had constant hard-core pornography playing throughout their house and whose social life revolved exclusively around others in the same totally sexualised culture.
Fr Gregory particularly identified the problem of the constant temptation to pornography the Internet provides, highlighting both the ease in overcoming filters (even when he has himself helped in installing them and keeping the password) and the frequency with which teens have “free reign over the computer”. Fr George highlighted some of the negative effects of pornography on the person viewing it, that it interferes with home, work and social life, and particularly with marriage. He also notes that clergy are not exempt either from the problem or its ill effects.
Contrast between iconography and pornography
If imagery in icons can in some way sanctify us and imagery in pornography can negatively affect our lives and our relationships, what is the relationship between iconography and pornography? There was a clear sense in all three interviewees that there is an opposition between iconography and pornography. Fr Gregory suggests that it is clear to people that the two could not co-exist, so, for example, an icon attached to the computer screen could be a preventative measure for one tempted to view pornography online, or an icon on the television set to prompt the question, “is what I’m watching consonant with the faith?” He has in the past been told by a family that they felt they had to keep their icons in a different room from the television, which he thought really ought to have suggested to them that there is a problem. While “icons have to do with communion with… the divine”, Fr Gregory thinks that in its refusal or inability to invoke communion, pornography is the opposite. Fr George described iconography with the analogy of ‘windows’ (or ‘doors’[7]) into heaven and a channel of divine life, contrasting this with pornography, a “tool to manipulate, disrespect and un-sanctify God’s creation and our part in his creation”. Susan went on to describe from the artists point of view, the virtue of using the “gift of visual art, of painting, to enhance our worship of God” as opposed to using the “same gift of visual art to enhance our worship of idols – in this case the idol of the physical body and sexuality”, where it becomes a vice.
Fr John Breck, in his book The Sacred Gift of Life, describes pornography as ‘demonic iconography’, as instead of feeding the mind and soul with heavenly food as iconography does, it “infests the mind with corrupt images that produce corruption in the depths of the soul.”[8]
Image and modern western society
In relating the concept of the image in iconography and pornography, a possible avenue is to explore whether there is any link between the iconoclasm in the background of our historically Protestant countries and the rise of pornography, and whether these same societies are now developing a growing dependence on ‘image’ above ‘word’. Susan sees a connection in that “we are physical beings, and when we’re struggling with physical issues, it’s difficult to find something to hold on to when there’s no visible image before our eyes.” She compares it to the parable of the ‘empty house’ where a demon is expelled, but since there is nothing to take its place in the soul, it returns with seven more (Mt 11:24-6). A catechumen interviewed by Frederica Mathewes-Green for her article ‘Men and Church’ agreed, writing “that he was finding icons helpful in resisting unwanted thoughts. ‘If you just close your eyes to some visual temptation, there are plenty of stored images to cause problems. But if you surround yourself with icons, you have a choice of whether to look at something tempting or something holy.’”[9]
Fr George does not necessarily see this connection between traditional Protestant iconoclasm and the rise of pornography, as his experience shows him no discernible difference between the patterns of Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox people in terms of the potential to become addicted to pornography. He also points out the increasing tendency of Protestant ministers he knows to make some limited use of icons in their own personal prayer, if not in church. Certainly it would be interesting to study the impact and extent of pornography across historically Protestant , Catholic and Orthodox cultures to see if the undifferentiated impact of pornography that Fr George notes on individual persons can also be extended to cultures.
Susan has seen in her lifetime the growing dependence on image above word as television and video games have taken the place of books and the spoken word in radio. She notes the significant impact images of all kinds have on our lives. For example, those with food addictions can easily fall prey to sights and sounds of food advertising. Fr George notes that while all the senses can have this kind of impact on us, their relative strengths depends on our individual personalities. However in all of us, an experience in one sense can bring up another: a smell may trigger a sound or an image. He points out a patristic tradition of confessing sins of sight, taste, smell and so on.
The false image – image without communion
Susan sees that in the image we present to the world, we all wear masks, and that part of what sanctification is about is gradually melting away our masks so that each of us can become the person God created us to be. She points out that icons are never painted in profile, which indicates an avoidance of eye-contact with the viewer, but front-on, face to face with us. Susan wondered whether there is something in the nature of erotic imagery that invites “sideways glances, clandestine looks and meetings”, that perhaps the idolatry involved in pornography addiction darkens our souls, causing us to lower our gaze, turning away from the light of Christ. She quoted her Father Confessor speaking about Confession as turning the light on our sins: “It’s like flipping on a light in a dark room and watching the roaches run for cover.” She says, “We are just like roaches, when we allow ourselves to love darkness rather than light.”
Fr Gregory saw a deep opposition between the common modern use of the word image to denote superficial presentation, with its associations with consumerism and materialism especially in the world of advertising, suggesting the surface and the reality can be very different. This is in sharp contrast to iconography, where a “presentation of the very depths of reality becomes accessible to us”. Pornography is likewise about manipulation, he says, where what is presented is for the immediate gratification of the person watching. Where there can be no depth of communion, it is a denial of true iconography.
Perhaps the heart of the opposition between pornography and iconography lies here, in the matter of communion. Fr John Breck calls pornography a ‘demonic iconography’, and it perhaps is not going too far to describe pornographic images as icons of hell. The icon is there to draw us into deeper communion; the image is there as a window that we can pass through to a deeper reality. Pornography is there as a substitute for communion, as an ‘easy way out’ to gain the pleasure without the struggle of relating to another human being. In pornography there is nothing to pass through and no deeper reality to find, quite the opposite; in pornography a human person, an icon of Christ, is stripped of that iconographic nature as the spirit is separated from the flesh, and the flesh presented as a commodity, an end in itself. In fact, while the icon brings us to a person, pornography begins to damage our very ability to relate on a personal level: there is an “absence of individuality in the figures of pornographic literature and imagery. In pornography, one human being is interchangeable with any other of the same general type… the medium which seems to represent ‘individuals’ – the photography of fashion and pornography – in fact imposes stereotypes for replication in social reality. Yet the icon, which makes no pretence at physical literalism, allows the viewer the freedom to find the individual beauty of particular human beings.”[10]
So while iconography leads us into the communion of heaven, pornography destroys the communion designed by God for the human person as an icon of Christ, separates the image from the full personal reality of the person portrayed therein, and separates the sexual impulse from the essential aspect of communion for which it was created. Unsurprisingly, the end result of this is to damage the pornography user’s ability to experience any level of communion. As one of the women interviewed by Pamela Paul put it, “I don’t know any man who is into porn who has been able to be truly intimate.”[11]
Beauty will save the world?
One of Dostoevsky’s characters famously declared that beauty would save the world. Eugene Trubetskoi said, “Our icon painters had seen the beauty that would save the world and had immortalized it in colors. The thought of the healing power of beauty has been alive for a long time in the idea of the miraculously revealed and miracle-working icon! Amid our present manifold struggle and boundless sorrow, let that power console us and give us courage.”[12] Susan says that icons are born in “the convergence of the beauty of the spiritual realm… with the beauty of the physical world.”
Susan recounted that back in the 1980s she heard a priest recommend to students the need to have an icon of the Mother of God on the wall in their dorm room particularly to aid with the struggle with lust. She also recommended that an icon of St Mary of Egypt could also be a good reminder of the importance of the struggle. Both Fr Gregory and Fr George had suggested to people involved in a struggle with pornography that they keep an icon attached to the computer monitor. Though as Fr Gregory points out, this is more a reminder than anything, and it is of course something people will be free to ignore or remove if they give into the temptation to do so. Fr Gregory also now always makes sure to explicitly include televisions and computers when he is blessing a house. He can remind a penitent of this during confession, that the computer and television are not somehow outside real life, but should be swept up into one’s whole life in Christ and the Church.
When Fr Gregory spent a few days on Athos, he says that even in just a few days, when what was before his eyes was limited to the iconography in the many hours spent in church, the beauty of the landscape when outside, and other real human faces, most of them committed to a lifelong struggle towards Christ, he felt the beginnings of a kind of retraining of where his thoughts and imagination would begin to go, teaching him to see reality on a deeper level, sanctifying his sight.
St John of Kronstadt highlighted our tendency to “… see flesh and matter in everything, and nowhere, nor at any time, is God before our eyes.”[13] Granting that icons have the power to sanctify our sight, how far can this power be exercised if we are focusing our eyes on icons for only a little time each day, and letting our eyes rest on ‘flesh and matter’, as St John says, the rest of the day. The Definition of the Seventh Ecumenical Council said, “For the more these [Christ, the Theotokos, angels, saints and holy men] are kept in view through their iconographic representation, the more those who look at them are lifted up to remember and have an earnest desire for the prototypes.”[14]
Pornography is a particular focus on flesh and matter, and a certain failure to keep ‘God before our eyes’. “Pornography, Liam says, makes an object out of everybody. ‘It takes a three-dimensional human being with feelings – someone who could be your daughter, sister, or mother – and basically says, this is a creature that is only intended to satisfy your sexual desires. It becomes your natural way of thinking… You’re no longer conscious you’re even doing it. It just happens.’”[15]
“As we gaze in our worship upon the transfigured cosmos of the icon, we actually enter within that new world, becoming one with that which we behold, filled with its grace and changed by its power. The purpose of the icon is thus not only contemplation but transforming union.”[16] If we immerse ourselves in the life of the Church, if our vision is sanctified by the constancy of our being surrounded by the iconography of the Church, if through this we can learn to look upon every human being as an icon of Christ, including those in pornographic images, then pornography must lose its power over us.
“From your icon, O Lord, we receive the grace of healing… the eyes of the beholders are sanctified by the holy icons.”[17]
Bibliography:
Audrey Barrick: ‘Porn Addiction Flooding Culture, Church’ in Christian Post (5th January 2007)
Mario Bergner: Redeemed Lives Course Manual: Pastoral Care and Discipleship for the Cure of the Soul (Wheaton, IL 2003)
Henry Bettenson (ed.): Documents of the Christian Church (Oxford, 1963)
Sarah Jane Boss: Empress and Handmaid – On Nature and Gender in the Cult of the Virgin Mary (London, 2000)
John Breck: The Sacred Gift of Life: Orthodox Christianity and Bioethics (Crestwood, NY, 1999)
John Chryssavgis: Beyond the Shattered Image: Insights into an Orthodox Christian Ecological Worldview (Minneapolis, MN, 2007)
Susan Cushman: ‘Icons Will Save the World’ in the online archive of First Things: The Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life (December, 2007)
St John of Damascus, Andrew Louth (transl.): Three Treatises On the Divine Images (Crestwood, NY, 2003)
Stephen Freeman: Glory to God for All Things: Orthodox Christianity, Culture and Religion, Making the Journey of Faith (fatherstephen.wordpress.com)
Stephen Freeman: Glory to God (Podcasts) at ancientfaith.com/podcasts/freeman
Matthew Gallatin (Podcast): ‘Lust – part 2’ from Pilgrims from Paradise at ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims (14th September, 2007)
John of Kronstadt: My Life in Christ (Jordanville, NY, 1977)
Bobby Maddex (ed.): Salvo magazine Issue 2, Spring 2007 ‘The Way of All Flesh’
Frederica Mathewes-Green: ‘Men and Church’ at www.frederica.com/writings/men-and-church.html (30th September, 2007)
Pamela Paul: Pornified (New York, NY, 2005)
Eugene N. Trubetskoi, Gertrude Vakar (transl.): Icons: Theology in Color (Crestwood, NY, 1973)
Kallistos Ware: ‘Praying with Icons’ in Paul McPartlan (ed.), One in 2000!: Towards Catholic-Orthodoxy Unity (Slough, 1993)
Mother Mary and Archimandrite Kallistos Ware (transl.): The Lenten Triodion (London, 1978)
‘The Canons of the Council in Trullo’ in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV
[1] On the Divine Images, Treatise I:64-5, quoting a story from John Moschus: Spiritual Meadow, St John of Damascus comments: “You see, that he spoke of veneration of the image of the one depicted, and how wicked it is not to venerate this, and how the demon would have preferred [that he stop venerating the icon] to fornication.”
[2] ‘The Canons of the Council in Trullo’ in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV
[3] Henry Bettenson (ed.): Documents of the Christian Church (Oxford, 1963), p.178-9
[4] On the Divine Images III:3
[5] These statistics are all from Salvo magazine, Issue 2 (Spring 2007), being a recent source. They are in accord with other sources from the last few years, such as Pamela Paul’s Pornified (2005) and newspaper reports such as ‘Purveyors of porn scramble to keep up with Internet’ in USA Today, 5th June, 2007.
[6] According to Pamela Paul in Pornified (p.90). The study she refers to was a 1979-80 study by Zillman and Bryant on 80 college students divided into four test groups, one group being shown non-pornographic films, the other three being shown an increasingly greater proportion. Pamela Paul writes (p.77-8), “Without exception, the more pornography the subjects had viewed over the six-week period, the more likely they were to believe others to be sexually active and adventurous… gross overestimations of actual sexual practices, according to all available data.” Moreover, “60 percent of those who viewed no pornography in the experiment endorsed marriage as ‘an important institution’; only 39 percent of those who viewed ‘massive’ amounts of pornography agreed.” (p.141). And (p.89) “participants were asked to read a newspaper report about the recent rape of a hitchhiker… Students were then asked to recommend a sentence for the convicted rapist… Men in the ‘massive exposure’ group recommended an average of 50 months’ imprisonment for the rapist, while men who had not viewed the films recommended 95 months” (the figures for the women students being 77 months and 143 months respectively). She also makes the point (p.91) that what was then called ‘massive exposure’ is now not an untypical level of exposure in men who regularly use the internet for porn, and the material now tends to be more hard-core.
[7] As, for example, in Metropolitan Kallistos’s article, ‘Praying with Icons’ (p.148 in One in 2000!) quoting St Stephen the Younger (d. c.764)
[8] John Breck: The Sacred Gift of Life, p.103
[9] Frederica Mathewes-Green: ‘Men and Church’
[10] Empress and Handmaid, pp.5-6
[11] Pornified, p.127
[12] Eugene Trubetskoi: Icons: Theology in Color, p.37-8
[13] John of Kronstadt, My Life in Christ, p.143
[14] Definition of the Council of 787, in Bettenson p.179
[15] Pornified, p.221
[16] ‘Praying with Icons’, p.165
[17] Mother Mary/Bishop Kallistos’s Triodion, p.300
