Is the problem with pictures of Christ a question of
devotion? Is it because people will 'worship' the picture? And thus the
question implies that if it's non-devotional in nature, is it then permissible?
This 'devotion' trajectory can go in a couple of different
directions. Some will use it to justify pictures of Christ within the meeting
house auditorium or (as those of this persuasion or more likely to identify it)
the sanctuary. In other words, the pictures are okay in the meeting if they're
not objects of devotion. Or in other cases some will put forward this argument
as a way of justifying art, but not art within the context of Church worship
but instead to be located in public spaces such as a museum. In other words the
art is fine but shouldn't be incorporated into worship.
So the question is, if the pictures of Christ are non-devotional
in nature, are they okay?
One wonders how a picture of Christ could not stir a believer
to devotion or worship? How can Christ be dealt with or depicted in any way
that wouldn't stir such passions and response? How could Christ be depicted in
a way that we would not worship Him or at the very least venerate Him?
We do not 'worship' the Bread and Wine of The Lord's Supper
and yet they are not profane or common. While we don't worship the elements per
se, we nevertheless utilise them in our worship. As representing Christ's Body
and Blood we use these tokens to feed on Christ, to partake of spiritual meat
and drink, to receive blessing and to experience and outwardly express
communion (1 Cor 10). These symbols are sanctioned and commanded by God and
when attached to the Holy Word, these common elements are indeed sanctified,
set apart for holy use.
No Scripturally minded Protestant would want to speak of a
picture of Christ in this manner and yet how can a picture not stir devotion?
How is that possible?*
If the picture attempts to realistically depict Christ and yet does not truly or accurately
depict Him, what is it then?
It's a lie and thus it is necessarily depicting a false Christ, teaching its audience to
either focus on some aspect of Christ not reflective of reality or some aspect
or nuance of the artist's taste. Or it may falsely portray Him in over- and/or
under-emphasising some aspect of His human form.
How can Christ be depicted apart from His divinity? Again is
depicting Him not an example of Nestorianism, a doctrine of Christ guilty of
dividing and even divorcing the natures?
What about pictures of Christ in a book or depicting Him in a
movie?
Many of the same arguments could be marshaled that are used
to defend Christ being depicted in art and these portrayals being utilised in
public spaces. Of course many who employ such arguments are of the Sacralist
mindset and believe there are distinct Kingdom interests when it comes to
culture. The arts necessarily come into play. Many who speak of Christian
Worldview in this sense are not speaking of Scripture but rather selected
Scriptural concepts synthesised with philosophical aesthetics. The hybrid they
have formed is presented as a Christian Worldview in the realm of the arts.
Apart from being unconvincing it rarely asks a more basic
question. Why would we as Christians want to use or endorse such depictions?
Are they for the gospel's sake? For the spread and advancement of the Kingdom?
Where are we commanded to do this? If we're not, then another question ought to
be asked. Aren't those who teach thus guilty of teaching for commandments the
doctrines of men and thus worship God in vain?
The Scriptures tell us the gospel is spread through the Word,
through preaching. We testify to this truth by testifying to the doctrine and
by living it out, by bearing fruit, by shining light.
Nowhere are we told to augment the Gospel by depicting
Christ.
At this point many will say it's not the primary means, but
nevertheless a means, and perhaps an introductory means of reaching the lost.
And we're back to the school for the laity argument again.
Now, I'm not an iconoclast, at least not in the realm of
culture. I don't believe we need to take over the culture, seize control of
Western art and thus purge the museums and academic curriculum.
On one level I can certainly appreciate the surviving art as
art but I don't venerate it and I certainly cannot endorse the theology behind
it. Art is a wondrous thing and we are not called to be philistines. We as
Christians can appreciate art, literature and music as much as the next person.
And yet, our level of interest and investment will never be
the same. Unlike many Dominionists, especially those of the Transformationalist
stripe the Bible does not teach that the canon of Western Art will be located
in heaven. We won't have Rembrandt, Caravaggio, Shakespeare, Hugo or Mozart in
heaven. Thankfully Bach and all that is Baroque will also be excluded!
The arts are impressive and I can find myself quite moved and
even enraptured whilst experiencing certain pieces of music, surveying certain
works of art and I have a deep appreciation for certain categories of
literature and poetry.
And yet for all that even the wonders of fallen and accursed
nature far exceed any attempt by man to portray either reality or to evoke the
eternal and sublime. Art can be inspiring but is at best a shadow.
I hear many Christians wax philosophical when it comes to the
arts. The arguments are sometimes interesting although almost always rooted in
Western Roman Catholic thought. I find many of the argument to be less than
compelling and distant from Biblical concerns. Many Christians are (perhaps
under the influence of thinkers like Francis Schaeffer) rather taken with
certain forms and eras of art. Many are of course enthralled with realism and I
must admit the Dutch Masters are impressive. That said I don't buy into the
sacralisation of daily life argument for a moment. I think it can be challenged
both historically and certainly theologically.
For all the appreciation of Western philosophic influence and
commentary in the realm of art criticism I think many Christians would do well
to consider Plato's position regarding art and its ability to communicate truth
or to speak anachronistically (in Kantian terms) the noumenal. Plato, the
mystic man obsessed with forms was quite hostile to art and doubted its ability
to communicate truth. His take is both interesting and unexpected and yet why
don't Christians look to Plato in the same way they seem to rely on Aristotle?
While Plato is certainly wrong there are moments of
brilliance in his thought and his grasp of eternal forms is interesting. One
might intuitively think he would view art as a means of capturing something of
the form and communicating its essence and yet he viewed art as not only shadow
but of a secondary and thus misleading nature. Never able to grasp the eternal,
art reflects (from Plato's point of view) man's perspective and experience and
can never accurately reflect the eternal. Obviously Schopenhauer and other
Romantics who in many ways stand in the shadow of Plato (no pun intended) would
sharply differ and considered the arts essential to human experience and
contained within them the capacity to touch the eternal and sublime.
Of course some will tie in this anti-art position with
Platonic dualism and will by implication insist that rejecting pictures of
Christ makes one a dualist. And yet again, I insist to depict Christ actually rests
on a type of dualist premise and in no way am I opposed to art. Plato's
argument is interesting and might (in part) have some application when it comes
to considerations of the divine and heavenly. But of course at that point one
doesn't need to follow Plato when the Decalogue more or less says the same.
That said, I believe art can very powerfully communicate
other transcendent ideas. I will grant the art being but symbolic and
analogical will always fail to comprehensively (and thus accurately) depict
anything but can nevertheless prove evocative and inspiring.
Iconoclasm, a position which few advocate today was in my
view more political than doctrinal and thus I think we can safely reject it. On
the one hand I want to cheer as I visit Calvin's church in Geneva and see where
the old altars were ripped out but on the other hand those moves were probably
equally motivated by the political moves of the city council. One thinks of the
proto-Covenanters and Puritans struggling against Rome and Canterbury and the
Dutch Reformed in their struggles with Spain. Much of the iconoclasm was not so
much rooted in Reform (ecclesiastical or otherwise) but in rabid political
revolution.**
The objects shouldn't have been made in the first place but
then at the same time they didn't need to be destroyed. Their destruction was
about claiming 'public' space and the official state-church shrines.
If they're going to tear out the statues they might as well
have torn down the Judaizing structures while they were at it. Something close
to that happened in St. Andrews Scotland and yet St. Giles in downtown
Edinburgh was left intact. More often than not, the buildings with their
towering spires and their sacral architecture were allowed to remain and viewed
as positive expressions of Christian society.
The Christians of the Reformation should have denounced it
all and separated themselves but the Reformation was also about wresting
control away from Catholic powers and re-tasking the cultural narrative.
I don't see the point in destroying the various works of art,
even those of a theologically dubious nature. The art has no liturgical or
theological use or justification but at the same time it's history and thus
contains some value even if in terms of negative instruction.
Am I embracing the view of Francis Schaeffer? Just put it all
in museums? Maybe, but for Schaeffer and many others they actually find the
Catholic art to be moving and appreciate it in terms of its message and
depictions. I do not. I recognise the talent and skill and its place in the
development of art but I do not find these works to be moving or inspiring.
Biblicists are often accused of being detached from
historical Christianity and historical theology. It can happen. Sometimes the
detachment is rooted not in ignorance but in conscientious rejection, something
many critics fail to understand. As a Biblicist I insist we must interact with
the history and be aware of it. There's a great deal of wisdom to be gained
even if it isn't always in accord with convention. We can learn from mistakes.
I want to wrestle with the issues and events that others in
my shoes had to confront in their day and context. Even if the art and the
history is mostly a tale of what is wrong, there's a value in knowing the past
history of the Church, even the false church.
Visiting Rome with Fundamentalist Baptists can be frustrating
but my experiences there while rich enough to be sure were not the same as an
Anglican or a Roman Catholic. I am moved but not enraptured. I am not on a pilgrimage
to a holy place but in many ways traversing both the pathways of the Ancient
Church and Mordor at the same time.***
Some Christians have attempted to tell Bible stories while
avoiding depictions of Christ. They will strategically place him so that his
face is missing. Ben-Hur (1959) represents a rare example of Hollywood
following the principle. Christ is shown but you're never able to get a look at
him. Actually the fictitious scene of Christ giving Ben-Hur water while passing
through Nazareth is particularly fascinating even moving. Christ's gaze is
overwhelming, penetrating and powerful but you never see it. Instead you see
the effect on the face of the Roman soldier who is broken by his exposed soul
and his shame.
Some might object to even seeing Christ from the back and I
would be willing to listen to their arguments. I just find it interesting that
for whatever reason the people involved in making the film made a point of
obscuring his face.
Overall I am somewhat uncomfortable when it comes to seeing
Christ in a book or movie. I don't go to the extreme of blacking out books or
refusing to watch a movie but it must be clear.... that's not Jesus.
Our devotional thoughts must not frame the actor in our minds.
If you haven't pondered that before, make sure you do so. The same is true when
looking at any art. How many err in picturing Jesus as the famous Sallman Head?
Now that's a painting that has no place in any Christian meeting.
His appearance was certainly that of an ordinary rustic Jew
and yet he walked the earth as holy. There had to have been something about him
but I don't believe it was something that a camera could pick up or an artist's
brush could emulate.
Once it is understood that all pictorial representations will
necessarily be false to some degree, depictions per se are certainly problematic. If the depiction is a true
symbol... then it supplants those given, such as the Lord's Supper the means
ordained by God to represent His body post-ascension. That's a real problem. If
the painting (or other art) is not a true symbol, then what do we do with it?
Reject it? Maybe. I would at the very least argue for great
caution. I won't absolutely forbid depictions in every case.... but we must be
wise.
* I have previously related the story regarding a house I
worked on in which the owner, a retired Baptist pastor had in his basement a
nativity set which I'm sure he prominently displayed at the appropriate time as
dictated by the so-called Church Calendar. As I believe Christmas celebration
to be erroneous I have no interest in nativity scenes. Add in the depiction of
Christ element and it's but another reason to oppose their use.
In this case, I had to move some of the pieces to get to
something (I was re-wiring the house) and I stumbled upon something that made
me chuckle. All the shepherds and Mary and Joseph were covered with dust and
basement grime and yet the plastic Jesus infant was lovingly wrapped in
household linen.
They couldn't help it. I'm sure every November when he would
dig the set out he had to clean it and yet something about the grime being all
over the plastic 'Jesus' was disturbing so they made sure to wrap it up so that
it would stay clean.
I was awestruck by the rank idolatry of the act. Filled with
holy indignation I wanted to pick up the plastic infant and smash it to bits. I
was offended that they would dare to venerate some cheap tacky plastic mold and
somehow identify it with the Incarnate Lord.
But on the other hand I found the episode instructive. Is it
Jesus or not? For me the answer was and is clearly 'no' and yet for the
venerators of nativity sets, especially in light of the misguided Culture War,
that's most certainly Jesus.
If so then you had better not only keep the dust off, you had
better get down on your knees. Even the shepherds and wise men knew that.
I drive by that house sometimes. It was almost twenty years
ago that I was there and that pastor and his wife are both dead and gone. There
were many other things about him, interactions and what not that were (from my
vantage point) disturbing. We didn't get on very well I'm afraid and I was
happy to be gone.
**How many political conservatives of today forget that their
Protestant ancestors represented political radicalism and that it was Rome that
would by today's standards be reckoned conservative?
*** I actually did visit Rome with some American Fundamentalists
at one point. The movement and its thought categories are so rooted in American
culture, they struggle not just with a history and art-laden city like Rome but
with Europe in general. The history and culture are for the most part not
appreciated and a general lack of historical context bars even the ability to
reflect. This coupled with the ubiquity of alcohol seemed to generate (for
them) a certain degree of misery. They didn't even like the food in many cases.
Though the alcohol is indeed all but
omnipresent its impact on society is quite different than what is found in the
United States. Britain might provide something of an exception to this Western
European rule and in fact may represent the kind of problems regarding excess
found in American society.
I lived in Italy for two years and I don't recall ever seeing
a drunken Italian. Additionally many of these folks with the über-American
sensibilities did not like the seeming dilapidation of Italy, a thing which to
me amplifies its charm. It's also misleading. Many of the homes while run-down
in appearance from the outside are quite sumptuous within. I think these
American folks had more of a Mid-Western sensibility and thus found Germany a
little more to their liking. Everything in its place, very tight and clean. To
me Northern Italy struck all balances perfectly. I absolutely loved it and I
pine for it almost daily.
If they liked art it was going to be the Dutch Masters or
something of that type and character. While I find much of Italian art and
architecture to be distasteful and even objectionable the overall package that
is Italy is nothing less than wondrous.