Depictions of Christ (Part 1)

Should Christ be depicted? For many this question is confused by debates over whether or not such depictions are appropriate for 'church' or whether they should be restricted to the arts. Some believe such depictions are appropriate for a children's Bible book while others would forbid even this. Can Christ be depicted in the movies?

Few will condemn all depictions in toto and yet many are uncomfortable with how pictures of Christ are used by other professing Christians.

As Biblicists we might intuitively say there should be a prohibition. To speak of Christ is to speak of Divine Incarnation and regardless of one's view of Old Testament Law, almost all would agree that depicting God is highly problematic. Even many who don't have a problem with pictures of Christ will nevertheless wince when the Father is depicted. That said, many who wish to appropriate the canon of Western art will even at this point often capitulate. They are unwilling to condemn works such as the Sistine Chapel. An artistic wonder to be sure, does it represent sound theology?

Is it the Father that is being depicted? Can the Father be depicted? Are not all depictions necessarily (and in fact) representations of Christ? And immediately we're into deep waters.

And of course given the history of the Reformation and earlier iconoclastic movements there's always some hesitation in condemning such works of art. When the Sacralist worldview is embraced the acceptance or condemnation of art often has a political and legislative aspect. During the Reformation this meant smashing and destroying art that was viewed as idolatrous. It wasn't just a theological move but represented political revolution. There are few today even in the most hard-line Protestant camps that would advocate such expressions of expurgation.

Defenses of Christ being depicted often rely on what might be called the human argument. While the Incarnation is recognised they will accuse anti-depictionists of being Nestorian. In other words since Christ is both fully divine and fully human and the two natures are inseparable it would be wrong to prioritise one over the other. No one would suggest it's wrong to depict a human being and to argue that Christ shouldn't be depicted is to effectively separate the natures and thus give priority to the divine at the expense of the human.

Thus, it follows, those who have a problem with depicting Christ are in danger of Nestorianism, of separating the natures.

One could just as easily argue that in fact it is the pro-depiction camp that is guilty of Nestorianism. They seem to suggest that Christ's humanity is what is being depicted.... as if you could depict Him as a man and not at the same time depict His divinity. If you are depicting His Divinity (it could be argued) then you are in violation of the commandment. You are effectively depicting Jehovah, something most would agree is clearly forbidden.*

By depicting Christ under such auspices could they could not be charged   with a form of Nestorianism suggesting that His humanity has all but overshadowed His Divinity? It could also be viewed as a type of subordinationism in which the divinity of the Son is practically reckoned as of a lower order or type and thus not subject to the same representational prohibitions as divinity of the Father.

Indeed Christ set aside his glory, but clearly he did not abandon his divinity. Will they embrace an extreme form of kenosis, will they break the hypostatic union? If not, then even though His glory was laid aside and he took the form of a servant, He was still God of Gods and Lord of Lords, Emmanuel, God with us.

Others will attempt to construct an argument on the basis of what might be called a reconciliation argument. God spoke the creation into existence. It fell and through the Incarnation, the creation is reconciled and effectively redeemed. And thus the Incarnation represents a restoration of the Edenic order, the time in which God walked in the garden and man communed with Him face-to-face. Christ in his mediatorial role represents that bridge and thus depicting Christ is not only proper but perhaps even desirable. They would by implication argue that it is important to think of Christ as human in order to grasp this. Art helps in this effort as it too is redeemed. While some might argue for solely depicting Christ during His earthly ministry, they might balk at depicting Him in heavenly glory. The reconciliation camp seemingly wouldn't have a problem with this, at least in principle.

The various theories regarding Reconciliation and depicting Christ provide an interesting philosophical argument but it's akin to an anvil hanging by a thread. It won't hold and finds little to no solid exegetical support. It's a deduced and extracted principle teased out from a couple of verses that speak of reconciliation but don't actually express what is often claimed.

While reconciliation is certainly a valid principle I would argue it only occurs with the destruction of this present order. This age is passing away and I am unconvinced that art has any redemptive role. The argument represents a coherence, resting on several rather shaky pillars, the assumptions of Sacralist worldview and cultural Christianisation. If these pillars are collectively questioned as they ought to be, the argument, indeed the very impulse behind the question seems to evaporate.

This view (and its many variations) fails to properly reckon with the effects of the curse. Christ has certainly undone the curse and yet even this undoing must be understood in terms of tension. This already-not yet tension which is woven throughout the New Testament is something a number of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists fail to understand and thus their thinking often represents an under-realised eschatology, one wholly relegated to the future.

On the contrary many dominionists and for the sake of this discussion reconciliationists, those that believe culture can be sanctified express an over-realised eschatology, seeming to suggest that sin no longer affects us and can be overcome.

In some ways reminiscent of certain Wesleyan tendencies, I think its true roots are found in the Reformed tradition, in its historical postmillennialism, in the thought of certain Dutch theologians and certainly to some degree in its understanding and expression of the Sola Fide position.

Obviously the Lutherans are not exempt and they too possess some of these reconciliationist impulses and yet on a more basic level the tradition has never really wrestled with or questioned such extra-Scriptural traditions. For Lutherans, Anglicans and indeed many Reformed such questions remain and are in principle adiaphora, things indifferent.

For Biblicists there is a restorationist or primitivist impulse at work in our thought. Though often dismissed, ridiculed and assaulted by traditionalists of all stripes, the reasons for this inquiry are valid and real.

The Early Church was not some romanticised utopia in which all was well and the Church was perfectly moral and did everything in accord with Scripture. Few indeed have ever made such an argument. It is instead a straw-man fallacy often employed by those who would defend their traditions and innovations.

The Early Church was not perfect and was subject to the same dynamism and social entropy inherent in all of man's social constructs. That said, the Church is not like other cultural institutions and its charter is not man-made but Divine.

All Protestants must acknowledge degradation and yet they craft the narrative to fit their 16^th century focus. Other non-protestants focus on organic development and attribute such 'changes' to the working of the Holy Spirit.

Biblicists insist that while the Early pre-Constantinian Church was not exempt from error and indeed was already under assault and in some cases subject to confusion, nevertheless a profound transformative change took place in the early 4^th century.

Both a blessing and a curse, the cessation of persecution allowed the Church to function openly and without fear. But legalisation, favour and by the end of the 4^th century eventual preference led the Church into a path of acculturation and syncretism. By the time of Theodosius the Church had become more or less equated with the governing authority of the state and its positions were effectively enforced by law, in other words by violence... real or threatened.

The 4^th century (it can be argued) fundamentally changed the nature of the Church and its identity and relationship with the world.

There are arguments made against this narrative, one of them being the relatively few voices that spoke out against this trend and trajectory. There are answers to this but at a basic level it's pretty simple. The Church sold out. The era is marked not by Christian victory but effective apostasy or at the very least the beginning of a multi-generational process. This is why many Biblicists view this epoch as 'a' or perhaps even 'the' Great Apostasy, a falling away and/or the Constantinian Shift.

Regardless of how one wishes to view the post-Constantinian Church and the transition from Late Antiquity to the Dark and Middle Ages, one thing is clear. The liturgical practices of the Church (spoken of here in general terms) and certainly the question and use of images fundamentally changed.

The Early Church did not depict Christ in terms of humanity, reconciliation or any of the arguments used by people today. Christ was only depicted symbolically. He was the anchor or sometimes was shown in terms of a generic shepherd... the features not meant to depict the actual Christ but instead were just an 'everyman' type image.

Now this too can be criticised on doctrinal grounds and I would view such 'depictions' as representing well-meant but slightly misguided impulses. Yes, the seeds for the later corruption were already being planted but they would not flower until watered and fertilised by the cultivators and shepherds of the Constantinian order.

As an interesting aside, Eastern Orthodox iconography is specifically meant to be symbolic, aethereal and not at all realistic. Proportions are askew and there's little in the way of tangible dimensionality or shadow.** The reconciliation-cultural impulse is not present or it could be argued is manifested in other ways. Their tradition rejects three-dimensional art whether in sculpture or (seemingly) on the canvas and yet still falls into the same extra-Scriptural traps. The usage of icons in Orthodox liturgy exposes what impulse is really at work, that of rank idolatry.

Everyone has their way to escape these traps. Roman Catholics and Orthodox will play what I call the doulia/latria game. By playing fast and loose with certain concepts and definition... none of which are Biblical... they can argue certain forms of idolatry are instances of doulia or service. Latria or worship only belongs to God. Think of the term ido-latry (or idol worship) and you'll understand the Latin root. So when they're charged with worshipping statues they shake their heads at Protestant ignorance. "We're not worshipping the statue, we're giving it 'service'". They would argue they're venerating the saint, not the object itself. Of course many forms of pagan idolatry have the same understanding when it comes to images.

Mary is of course worshipped by Catholics and Orthodox alike, though the former have taken this to a different level. Mary has effectively become co-redemptrix and is almost a 4^th member of the Trinity and yet they are oh-so-careful in how they frame their worship of her. She doesn't receive latria or worship. She receives hyper-doulia, a service beyond what is ordinary but not quite to the level of what is granted to God.

It's brilliant. Just keep inventing categories and you'll find a way for your system to maintain its integrity. Keep splitting hairs and eventually you'll have an answer for every protest, a concept for every occasion and every contingency.

Rome continues to rest its authority in the dogma of the Magisterium and yet due to its sacral project it still heavily depends on philosophy to justify its system. It must do this in order to interact with the culture. It does not want to find itself in the position of Eastern Orthodoxy, relegated to the cave and monastery or when culturally empowered wed to and dependent upon little more than raw state power. Rome wants to lead the world and transform it. It's a position many Protestants and Evangelicals resonate with and find to be inspiring, the very scholasticism reviled by the Orthodox and (for very different reasons) true Biblicists.

Counter-cultural is quite literally a category Rome cannot grasp.

Rome has also used the 'school for the laity' argument, insisting that pictures have been necessary to reach the common man. In the past peasants were largely illiterate... a state of affairs for which Rome certainly is at least partly to blame... and thus pictures were the 'Bible' for many.

It's a false argument on many fronts not least of which it is without Biblical warrant. Additionally all through the Middle Ages there were underground groups that were highly literate and worked to produce copies and translations of Scripture. God's people have always been people of the book. There are times when this has been more in terms of hearing as opposed to reading and such arrangements worked in proximate urban or village congregations where people could gather on an almost daily basis as the New Testament Church did.

The 'school for the laity' defense for pictures (including depictions of Christ) is more a story of negligence, failure and deceit on the part of false Christian leaders, both past and present. It's not a viable or valid argument. I think some find it a convenient way to 'excuse' past conduct in order to validate the canon of Western art and then it also provides a narrative as to why it was okay then but no longer needed today. It's convenient and yet both historically and theologically inaccurate.

Continue reading part 2

*The question of the cherubim in the Temple often comes up at this point leading to several questions. Can God make exceptions to His rule? Is the rule more complicated by questions of orders of angelic beings? If so, then it little helps us as we are unable to elaborate these categories and make distinctions. They certainly exist and we have both Biblical hints and extra-Biblical accounts which suggest a larger reality but as we are left somewhat in the dark as to the particulars, when it comes to statutes against depiction we must necessarily (it would seem) include all aspects of the divine realm... that which pertain to God Himself and to the celestial hosts.

** This could give rise to a separate discussion of not Christian art but rather Christians pursuing art and attempting to communicate spiritual principles. While most Protestants have been particularly geared toward forms of realism and have often been hostile to idealist and symbolist expressions I think a case could be made for art (whether on canvas or the page) that seeks to express gospel-Kingdom truths in a transcendent, metaphysical and/or eschatological format.

This opens up a larger discussion over the role of art and how (if possible) Christians can use it and interact with it. Are we transformers of culture? Reconciliationists? Or are we negationists, harbingers, prophets sounding the alarm? Are we telling of an alternate but true reality, exposing as it were the temporality and contingent nature of this age? Does such art belong in the church meeting? Is it devotional?

My questions are leading and I don't profess to have the answers but the questions themselves open up many doors of possibility and yet they will be met with hostility by those who seek to defend traditional Western categories. Having equated them with 'Christian' thought and values such counter-cultural suggestions are all but viewed as an assault on the faith itself. One can understand the position and yet also believe it is profoundly mistaken.

Biblicism and its anti-sacral implications on the one hand destroy the Western artistic tradition and expose it as essentially paganism with a Christian gloss or veneer. That said, such negation also opens up new doors. The result will not be a new Western-Christian art narrative but rather a counter-cultural niche in which Christian arts can also witness to the world. Art by its very nature will always be subject to ambiguity and thus its value is almost by definition limited and yet there are some interesting possibilities.