The Problem with Images of Christ

Going in a different direction from yesterday. I realize peeps have strong convictions on this issue, and feel very free to weigh in, but please keep it respectful. Thanks!

Are artistic renderings of the Lord Jesus Christ wrong? As in, sinful, potentially dangerous spiritually, blasphemous, or idolatrous?

I'm thinking that portraits of Christ, even with the best of intentions, are a bad idea at best, and can be all of the above at worst. However, I don't think all drawings - especially those clearly not intended to be representational - are necessarily in violation of the second commandment.

First off, if you read Deuteronomy 4:15-17 in context, it is clearly talking about "graven images" in the context of worship. If we were to isolate those two verses from the passage at large and take it at completely literal face-value, all artwork depicting nature and animals would be forbidden as well. This prohibition on making "graven images" for the purpose of "bowing down to" them is a reiteration of Exodus 20:3-4. Clearly, we would all agree that praying TO a statue, image, or representation of anyone (even Christ-centered art) would be unbiblical, so we don't have to exegete the Decalogue any further.

What about images of God? Since God is Spirit, He cannot be depicted as a physical being. Does this, however, extend to images of Christ? The hypostatic union means that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, now and forever more. He ascended into heaven in a glorified body, and during His earthly ministry appeared "in the likeness of man". Devotional artwork, then, seems reasonable - at first glance.

Part of the reason I have never been too strongly opposed to drawings or artwork of Christ is because of the strong educational/evangelistic purpose such media serves, both historically and currently, among illiterate people (I include both small children and the uneducated of the Third World). A couple of summers ago, we brought our children to the Rila Monastery high in the Rhodope mountains of Bulgaria. Showing them the intricate scenes painted around the outside and all over the interior walls of the chapel, my husband explained that those biblical scenes were painted by the monks of the 10th century in order to educate the parishoners about biblical history. Although the Slavonic-speaking countries had the written Word before those in the West, few could read it and many relied on what little information they could glean from the liturgy. Pictorial scenes helped.

Interestingly, in Byzantine iconography, the distinctive artistic style is designed to be somewhat unrealistic. Unlike the Western Renaissance and Medieval religious art (which is more aesthetically beautiful and realistic), Byzantine icons are deliberately symbolic and originated as a form of instruction. Unfortuantely, that has not stopped many millions from worshipping them - and, in the words of a now-deceased Patriarch, was one of the reasons Protestants have traditionally been so despised in the Orthodox countries: "...They refuse to worship the Holy Icons..."*

But let's consider the purely educational benefit of symbollic (as opposed to representational) images of Christ. Children's Bibles, Sunday School worksheets, and things of that nature....I personally think are harmless. Even a two-year-old knows that a googly-eyed cartoon character in her Beginner's Bible is not a photograph of Jesus, and she does not pray to the picture (or visualize Christ as a cartoon character). My boys have long had this sketch on their wall, and recognize it for what it is - an artist's sketch of Jesus, loving on a child:

However, when I was a middle schooler in parochial school, we had a very realistic, large portrait of Christ by the same artist. For years, I pictured the Alpha and Omega as looking like the kindly gentleman in Frances Hook's painting (and certainly not like the blond Norweigan-looking Viking Jesus in an illustrated Bible I had!) Popular artwork trends have changed in how they portray Jesus over the years, and this is, IMO, a sign of what's wrong. We cannot just come up with our own "favorite image" of Jesus, and visualize Him thus.

As Glenn pointed out in yesterday's combox, that is akin to carrying around a picture in your wallet and telling people it's your wife - when it is someone else entirely. I was uneasy carrying around a certain image (even in my mind's eye) of Christ, when in fact none of us know what He looks like. You don't have this issue with childish, cartoon-style drawings; the more realistic the imagery, the more it sets up an image in one's mind - which is not really Christ. This is the problem, at it's heart, with "devotional" artwork (paintings designed to encourage devotional feelings, such as the Hook portrait I liked so much). Your devotion is to a false image of a real Person.

Additionally, many of the more recent depictions I have seen of the Lord Jesus are disrespectful at best; even blasphemous. While I doubt this was his intention, Stephen Sawyer's portraits definitely strike me this way. We don't even need to get into a discussion about all the creepy kitsch in Christian book and toy catalogues of all stripes (Jesus playing soccer with kids; Jesus action figures sold at Walmart, etc.)

Films about the life of Christ present a similar dilemna, to my way of thinking. No one can deny how greatly God has used The Jesus Film and similar evangelistic movies, such as the Indian "Man of Mercy". And yet, for every reasonably-accurate biblical film made about Christ, it seems there are ten more entertainment-driven, inaccurate trainwrecks that take a dangerously wide berth from the Scriptures. Add to their number the films that are downright heretical ("The Last Temptation of Christ"; "Jesus Christ Superstar") and again there is a slippery slope. Even the "good" ones run the risk of misrepresenting the Jesus of the Gospels.

Just as every portrait has a model (the real subject of the painting, if you think about it), films feature actors. One Good Friday, a friend blogged about how an image from "The Passion of the Christ" was used during Mass to inspire private prayer. As she pointed out, staring at Jim Caviezel's bloodied form did not inspire worship of Christ. She had to close her eyes to concentrate (I would probably have opened to John's Gospel, which never fails to move me in a way no movie ever could). In a similar way, I worry that a friend who wept all night and re-dedicated her life to Christ after seeing the film is more in love with Caviezel than Christ (although she probably doesn't realize it). Christian Bale once played Jesus in a horrible, made-for-TV movie that promoted a feminist agenda. Comments about the film from young, female fans online focused on his physical attractiveness. One young fan even jokingly stated that Bale "could convert [her] anytime!"

This was never the purpose of the Gospel.

Taking the iconoclast position to the extreme, where we feel we need to burn every children's drawing symbolizing Christ, is (IMO) going too far. However, I am beginning to see the danger of visualizing or depicting in realistic, devotional artwork an image that is supposed to portray Christ. In "Worship: The Ultimate Priority", Macarthur discusses in some detail why visualizing God is wrong - the bottom line being, it degrades Him. God is so much bigger, more beautiful and awesome than any image made by humans could capture, that to even try is to do Him injustice. The Bible does not describe the appearance of Christ - perhaps for a reason. Some things are not meant for us to know this side of eternity, perhaps because of our propensity towards idolatry.

*Quoted in "Heralds of the Truth: The History of the Evangelical Church in Bulgaria" by Pastor Hristo Kulichev. Copyright 2009.

If Your Favorite "Picture" of Jesus is from a Cult, is it Still Your Favorite Picture?

There are two distinct, but related, questions I would like to discuss in the next couple of blog entries: if you happen to like a sketch, drawing or portrait of the Lord Jesus Christ, does the origin matter to you? Secondly, are all artistic depictions of Christ sinful; in violation of the Second Commandment; or just a really bad idea? Please note much of what I write on this topic is purely subjective, and undoubtedly some of you have given the subject much more thought than I have. I am not extreme in one opinion or the other; this series is simply me thinking out loud. Feel free to disagree, correct, or add your own observations.

Somewhere around 1991-92, my Dad gave me an 8x10" portrait of Jesus, given to him by a Mormon lady that same summer. He had been somewhere - possibly upstate New York - on some sort of business/research trip, and there was a high Mormon population. I think it was Palmyra, NY. Anyway, this kind-hearted lady told my practicing Catholic, self-professing agnostic father all about their "martyr" Joseph Smith, the hills in Cummorah with the Golden Plates, and all things Mormon.

Now, there are two things you need to know about my Dad: one, he is a now-retired history professor. He holds a PhD in American history, has written a couple of books, and probably knew far more about Mormon history than this lady did herself (but I am sure he did not tell her). The second thing you need to know about him is that he cares about as much for religion as I do for quantum physics (which is to say, not a whole lot). His knowledge of ancient and Renaissance history was, in large part, what drove him to despise Romanism, and the papacy in particular (although he faithfully attends Mass each Sunday with my mother. That's actually pretty common among Irish catholic husbands). He thinks my "Luther is My Homeboy" T-shirt (which I always wear to dinner at their house) is a riot, although attempting to discuss theology with him is a dead end.

In short, the Mormon lady made no headway. My father was not a potential convert. However, as a parting gift, she gave him this portrait of "The Savior", which he very thoughtfully passed on to me. I say that in all sincerity - I had become a Christian the year before; my Dad thought, "This lady loves Jesus. My daughter loves Jesus. I bet she'll appreciate this lovely portrait!" Of course, I thanked him; although I instantly recognized the painting as "The Mormon Jesus". I'm sure you've all seen the picture:
That portrait is as recognizable to a Mormon as the Sacred Heart image is to a Catholic (although I believe the artist was a Seventh-Day Adventist). I slipped it back into the brown paper envelope he'd carried it back to Massachusetts in, and put it in my desk drawer. I knew it was supposed to represent the Lord Jesus Christ, but....it just felt funny displaying it. It was The Mormon Jesus. How could I hang a false jesus on the wall? It felt...weird. Mormon Jesus stayed in my desk drawer at my parents' house. I don't know what became of him, but I doubt they hung it up when I moved to Bulgaria.

Now....I told you that story so that I could tell you this one.

A couple of years or so ago, a Christian online friend posted a black and white picture on her blog or MySpace page. I instantly liked it:
I love the message behind it....the embrace of Christ, Who loves us eternally, tenderly, and personally. I believe that Jesus gives hugs (and that God, as the "inventor" of love and affection, is the originator of the embrace). Besides, children were drawn to Christ during His earthly ministry. Pure speculation here, but it's quite possible that He was a hugger. In any event, I really liked the picture.

Except....there was something...disturbingly familiar about it. The style struck me as eerily similar to the artwork I had seen from a certain cult called "The Children of God" (now known as The Family International). I had first encountered CoG/TFI on the streets of Sofia, where they were doggedly pursuing young people with their colorful tracts and message of free love. I won't go into the aberrant teachings or doctrine of this cult as it is so perverse and blasphemous as to put disturbing images into your head, but if you're really curious you can Google them. CoG grew out of the "Jesus Freak" movement of the 1970's, and was led by a delusional guy named David Berg who claimed all sorts of "new revelation" from God.

This lovely drawing of Jesus hugging a girl instantly reminded me of the cult's artwork, so I found the clipart gallery where it was downloadable and e-mailed the owner. He replied that he had no idea who the artist was; he has thousands of images and, after all, it was okay to like it. It's just a picture. I was satisfied with his response, and I even used the image myself to illustrate a posting on my other blog. Recently, a Christian friend of mine started using the picture as her Facebook avatar.

Well, not long ago, I came upon an online forum of ex-Family survivors, and decided to ask. I just could not get it out of my mind that that picture so closely resembled the cult's artwork, although much searching of their online, archived publications had turned up nothing. The moderator agreed that it resembled The Family/CoG artwork, but was unsure as to whether it actually was from the cult. Well, last week, it was confirmed - by a former member of the cult:

Report this postReply with quoteRe: Is this picture Children of God artwork?
by robber » Wed 14-Jul-2010 6:15 am

Hi Marie,
That picture is definitely TFI. It's by an artist who draws for most of their material named Tamar, and I think the pic is from the front of one of their mailings called 'They'll always be mine'.

The Family/Children of God has destroyed many of their more explicit publications and tried to sanitize their image, so I cannot find the publication in question (which is probably just as well). But do you see where I'm going with this? The image, which I (and many other Christian women) like presumably because of the warm, emotional response it's designed to evoke, turned out to have been produced by a cult. A cult which has promoted unspeakable heresies and practices. Ironically enough, The Family Int'l artist who produced this image (and many others) was sued for plagiarism. Not only is she following the doctrine of demons; she's a thief, as well.

So how do you like them apples?

Naturally, there's that initial "ick" factor that makes you remove the image and want to wash your hands. But the real issue runs deeper than that. As Glenn pointed out, cults can produce good (and seemingly innocent) artwork. I just scanned an LDS online gallery, and half (if not more) of their depictions of Christ are also well-known portraits on Christian sites and galleries. One, of the resurrected Lord, I have seen in churches and I swear it's Mormon Jesus in a different robe. Kinda messes with your head, doesn't it?

Not that I'm an extreme iconoclast, mind you. At least, I don't have a history of being such, for reasons I'll get into in tomorrow's post. But artwork, supposedly depicting a realistic image of Christ - symbollic or representational - from a dubious source is...weird. Just...icky somehow. If we think this through to it's logical conclusion, I think we might have to do away with portraits and "devotional" images of Christ. Does the artist's intention or Christology matter? I'm not sure. Since we cannot get into the head of another person, we really don't know what h was thinking - or who the model was, or so forth.

To be continued.....

UPDATE 7/28/10: I received confirmation from The Family International's public affairs office that this artwork is, in fact, theirs. So the "mystery" is solved:

Hello, Marie,
Thank you for your correspondence. The image you are referring to was done by one of our artists, but the art is not entirely original. The girl in the picture was copied from a paperback novel found in a used bookstore many years ago (artist unknown), and our artist added the picture of Jesus. The illustration was used in a publication that was distributed internally amongst TFI membership and is not on a public domain, and so we would not be able to provide a link.

I hope that provides you with the information you need, and let me know if I can be of any further help.

Sincerely,
Carol Cunningham,
for The Family International