Christa

depthdeception · #1 8th August 2005, 12:26 PM

Ok... I tried this in the regular theology forum, but it didn't solicit much response. Maybe I'll get some more bites here...

Recently, a church in New York unveiled a newly commissioned crucifix. This crucifix prompted outrage from many members of the church (as well as others in the Christian community) because the crucifix was a representation of Christ as a female with exposed breasts.

Was this outrage warranted? I am curious what others think about this. On the one hand, the crucifix is obviously historically inaccurate. This may or may not be an issue given the context in which the crucifix resides (it would seem to be more of a liturgical symbol used in worship, rather than a attempt to accurately depict the "historical Jesus").

What I find particularly interesting is this: All cultures in the world "recast" symbols and pictures of Jesus into something that is recognizable. In other words, there are pictures of an Asian Jesus, a black Jesus, a blonde-haired blue-eyed Jesus, etc., and not many people seem to have a problem with this. After all, such practices are usually justified on the basis that Jesus lived and died for "all" people. If this is the case, why would the depiction of Jesus as female (used in the context of liturgy) be inappropriate? Is there some inherently and religiously signficant distinction between culture and gender that would make the former appropriate and the latter inappropriate? Or is what happened in New York simply a reaction against a violation of some religious taboo?

Again, I am not trying to explore this issue on the basis of historical records, as if the depiction of Christ as a female is an attempt to recast history to make Christ a female. Therefore, please try to limit the discussion to the liturgical, unless, of course, one can make a reasonable argument that the accurate historical depiction of Christ necessarily predicates the liturgical.

ottaia · #2 8th August 2005, 01:15 PM

Every age depicted Christ as contemporary. Our age has not done a good job, IMO. I think hwaing a female Chirst is interesting for comtemplation but as an object of veneration, it just doesn't cut it. Jesus was a guy. If we want to make a theological statement about the crucifixion of women in our society, then I am all for it! But as far as a crucifix in a church, I think we should leave Jesus as he is (unless we have him depicted wrong and he had "man breasts")

Joykins · #3 8th August 2005, 01:33 PM

I don't find it particularly meaningful as a symbol, and I am a woman. I feel the impulse behind it may have been uncharitable, meant to provoke controversy and push hot buttons.

The crucifix is not a symbol I feel any need to mess with, nor do I feel any benefit comes from messing with it.

depthdeception · #4 8th August 2005, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by ottaia

I think hwaing a female Chirst is interesting for comtemplation but as an object of veneration, it just doesn't cut it. Jesus was a guy.

I guess I don't entirely understand what you're saying, and I don't understand how you are correlating "object of veneration" (what does that mean?) and "Jesus was a guy."

flautist · #5 8th August 2005, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by ottaia

If we want to make a theological statement about the crucifixion of women in our society, then I am all for it! But as far as a crucifix in a church, I think we should leave Jesus as he is (unless we have him depicted wrong and he had "man breasts")

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ottaia again.

Simonline · #6 8th August 2005, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by depthdeception

Ok... I tried this in the regular theology forum, but it didn't solicit much response. Maybe I'll get some more bites here...

Recently, a church in New York unveiled a newly commissioned crucifix. This crucifix prompted outrage from many members of the church (as well as others in the Christian community) because the crucifix was a representation of Christ as a female with exposed breasts.

Was this outrage warranted? I am curious what others think about this. On the one hand, the crucifix is obviously historically inaccurate. This may or may not be an issue given the context in which the crucifix resides (it would seem to be more of a liturgical symbol used in worship, rather than a attempt to accurately depict the "historical Jesus").

What I find particularly interesting is this: All cultures in the world "recast" symbols and pictures of Jesus into something that is recognizable. In other words, there are pictures of an Asian Jesus, a black Jesus, a blonde-haired blue-eyed Jesus, etc., and not many people seem to have a problem with this. After all, such practices are usually justified on the basis that Jesus lived and died for "all" people. If this is the case, why would the depiction of Jesus as female (used in the context of liturgy) be inappropriate? Is there some inherently and religiously signficant distinction between culture and gender that would make the former appropriate and the latter inappropriate? Or is what happened in New York simply a reaction against a violation of some religious taboo?

Again, I am not trying to explore this issue on the basis of historical records, as if the depiction of Christ as a female is an attempt to recast history to make Christ a female. Therefore, please try to limit the discussion to the liturgical, unless, of course, one can make a reasonable argument that the accurate historical depiction of Christ necessarily predicates the liturgical.

For a brilliant theological case against defining God in female terms see: Leadership Is Male by David Pawson, available either online from www.anchor-recordings.com (UK) or www.Goodseed.org (USA) or from your local Christian bookstore or public lending library.

[Just in case you're wondering (or have already made up your mind based on the title alone), David Pawson is definitely not a sexist male chauvanist pig so one would do well to give his thesis a fair (unprejudiced) hearing before passing judgment.]

Simonline.

LovesOfMyLife · #7 8th August 2005, 04:18 PM

There is really no point in messing with the crucifix.

And adding a naked woman to it just seems more than blasphemous, somehow...

depthdeception · #8 8th August 2005, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Daniels Mommy

And adding a naked woman to it just seems more than blasphemous, somehow...

Christa is far from naked. And why does it seem "more than blasphemous?"

Joykins · #9 8th August 2005, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by depthdeception

Christa is far from naked. And why does it seem "more than blasphemous?"

If the crucifix is not meant to be symbolic of the incarnate Christ and His suffering death, what IS it supposed to be symbolic of? And why should we use {whatever it's supposed to be symbolic of} in worship while we do, actually, have the symbol of that which we do worship?

depthdeception · #10 8th August 2005, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by Joykins

If the crucifix is not meant to be symbolic of the incarnate Christ and His suffering death, what IS it supposed to be symbolic of? And why should we use {whatever it's supposed to be symbolic of} in worship while we do, actually, have the symbol of that which we do worship?

Christians do not worship a male human. Christians worship Christ, the eternal logos of God. The eternal logos has no gender, or more appropriately, is the source of all gender, encompassing and equalizing maleness and femaleness. To symbolize the eternal Christ in a purely masculine form is to miss out on a huge part of the reality of the meaning of the Incarnation.