Images of Christ

[strengthinweakness]

I know that within Reformed Christianity, the use of images of Jesus for the purpose of worship is considered to be Biblically unwise, if not outright idolatrous. However, what about the use of images of Jesus for other purposes-- teaching, evangelism, art, etc.?

Over at the singles forum, I have been involved in a lengthy debate/discussion (more of the former than the latter, unfortunately, as most people won't even attempt to really engage with my observations) on Mel Gibson's film, "The Passion of the Christ." My argument, at least at this point, is three-fold. First, the film contains certain elements which are extra-Biblical (and in some cases, arguably, non-Biblical), and at least for Protestant Christians, that should be a cause for serious concern. Second, the film focuses almost entirely on the physical suffering of Christ and has very little content about His resurrection. This intense focus on the suffering of Christ on the cross is "understandable," given the film's Catholic director and highly Catholic sensibility, but again, for Protestant Christians, it is problematic, especially when there is so little content about Christ's resurrection, and therefore, His victory over sin and death. The third part of my argument is the one that I am most interested in getting your opinions, and any other feedback, on here. I think that it is at least problematic to portray Christ using visual images, even when it is not for the purpose of worship. My reasoning is similar to that of J.I. Packer's in chapter 4 of Knowing God. When human beings attempt to "portray" or "represent" Jesus physically, through images, almost invariably, they end up with a Jesus who looks very different from the Jesus of the Scriptures. The Biblical Jesus was/is a man of Jewish ethnicity who, in God's paradoxical wisdom, had nothing, physically speaking, that would attract people to Him. By contrast, the Jesus of most Christian "images" is a handsome, striking, dark-blond to brown-haired white man with blue eyes, and this obviously is not the physical picture of Christ that Scripture presents. There are exceptions to this rule, but even these exceptions rarely present Christ, physically, as the Bible does. As such, it seems to me that as much as possible, Christians should simply refrain from making any use of visual images of Christ.

However, as one person has pointed out to me on the singles forum thread, many people from all over the world have come to faith in Jesus as a result (at least partially) of seeing films about Him. How should Reformed Christians think about this reality? How do you think about it? If people come to faith in Christ through seeing images of Him in a film or in other evangelistic or teaching materials, does the end justify the means, in those particular cases? What about the contention that images of Christ violate the second commandment? J.I. Packer seems to think that they do, or at least, he comes very close to saying so in Knowing God. Do you agree or disagree? I want to hear opinions (and hopefully, Biblical cases for said opinions) from as many people as possible, so please, post away-- as long as you are a Reformed Christian, that is! I need help in continuing to think through this issue!

 

[edie19]

This is an issue that I've come to do a 180 on.

At one time I didn't have a problem with pictures of our Lord. I don't feel that way any longer - mostly because of the reformed teaching I receive on a regular basis.

To this day, one of the most amazing pieces of art I've ever seen is Salvador Dali's "The Sacrament of the Last Supper." Along the same line I have a clear memory of seeing Michelangelo's "Pieta" at the 1964 World's Fair in NYC. I was 8 and remember being amazed by the detail in the sculpture - the veins in the marble matched the veining in the statue's arms. Far be it from me to criticize those great works of art.

However, I have no pictures of Jesus in my home (or in our church). No visual portrayals of Him. We don't know what Christ looked like - we then conform Him to our image when we portray Him in art.

Re: Passion of the Christ, I've not seen it. I did follow a lot of the press prior to and during it's release. I remember hearing Jim Caviezel interviewed somewhere along the line and he mentioned that people were coming up to him and bowing down. Additionally, I read several places that people were bowing down in movie theaters. IMNSHO that is clearly a violation of the 2nd commandment.

Sorry such a rambling answer to your question. Seems about clear as mud to me.

 

[strengthinweakness]

This is an issue that I've come to do a 180 on.

At one time I didn't have a problem with pictures of our Lord. I don't feel that way any longer - mostly because of the reformed teaching I receive on a regular basis.

To this day, one of the most amazing pieces of art I've ever seen is Salvador Dali's "The Sacrament of the Last Supper." Along the same line I have a clear memory of seeing Michelangelo's "Pieta" at the 1964 World's Fair in NYC. I was 8 and remember being amazed by the detail in the sculpture - the veins in the marble matched the veining in the statue's arms. Far be it from me to criticize those great works of art.

However, I have no pictures of Jesus in my home (or in our church). No visual portrayals of Him. We don't know what Christ looked like - we then conform Him to our image when we portray Him in art.

Re: Passion of the Christ, I've not seen it. I did follow a lot of the press prior to and during it's release. I remember hearing Jim Caviezel interviewed somewhere along the line and he mentioned that people were coming up to him and bowing down. Additionally, I read several places that people were bowing down in movie theaters. IMNSHO that is clearly a violation of the 2nd commandment.

Sorry such a rambling answer to your question. Seems about clear as mud to me.

Thanks so much for your reply, edb19. Currently, I am thinking much as you seem to think on this issue. I, too, am awed by the works of art that man has created in an attempt to portray (and in man's view, honour) Christ. By the way, that Salvador Dali painting is in the collection of a museum about 45 minutes away from where I live, but I digress! Francis Schaeffer had an interesting take on that particular Dali painting in his book, The God Who Is There. If you haven't read it, you might find it very thought-provoking. Anyway, as much as I am "impressed" and "moved" and "awed," in a human sense, by works of art which depict Christ, visually, I have to wonder, do they violate the second commandment, even if the artists do not mean them to be taken in that way? I am unsure at this point.

I definitely have a problem with even the very idea of anyone actually bowing down to an actor who has portrayed Jesus. That sort of action certainly smacks of idolatry. However, what about someone bowing down to a picture or statue of Jesus? In one way, the idea makes me uneasy, but on the other hand, I am not sure if my uneasiness is coming from a Biblical worldview or not. I know that I still don't like the fact that almost all images that I see of Christ, period, don't look anything like how the word of God describes Christ physically. Does anyone else have any Biblically-informed thoughts, convictions, etc. regarding the use of images of Christ, for purposes other than in a worship service, such as teaching, evangelism, or art?

 

[5solas]

there are some interesting articles here
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/tencommand.html

 

[James1979]

I believe what the scriptures say about not making any graven images in heaven, on earth, underneath the earth. Its all idolarty. The movie "The Passion of Christ" is idolatry as well because its showing an image of Christ and we know full well that Christ did not look anything like Jim or any of the other past movies about Christ. Also, pictures of Christ, angels and demons, we've never seen with our own eyes, so once we began to use our imagination, we began to trust and rely on our understanding which Christ, angels, demons look alike and we really don't.

 

[lmnop9876]

if we have images of Christ, they must be for the purpose of worship. there is no way to have an image of Christ without it being for the purpose of worship. just looking at a picture of Jesus should strike awe in us for Who He is, and what He did for us, and cause us to worship Him. the whole debate should not hinge on whether images of Christ should be used for worship or not, but whether it is right at all to have an image of 'God manifest in the flesh.'
i have no problem with images of great Christians of the past, i do have a problem with images of Christ.

 

[arunma]

Well at least I know that I'm not the only one who's thought about this issue. I too think that images of Christ aren't the best idea. In church, I don't think they should ever be present, because there is a danger that we may worship them. I don't have a problem with secular artwork which depicts Jesus (in a reverent manner, of course). But you are right that Jesus will usually be depicted with the same ethnicity as the artist, when in fact he should be portrayed as a Jew.

Depicting Jesus in film is a trickier issue, isn't it? I saw the Passion of the Christ, and I admit that the idolatry concern has crossed my mind. Does Jesus want us to represent him by a human actor? I don't know. But perhaps in future films, Christians could try a different approach. I'm aware that around 1980, a Muslim director made a film called "The Call," about the life of Mohammad. In Islam, it is considered sinful to make any depiction of the false prophet Mohammad, precisely for concerns of idolatry. So the director always placed the actor portraying Mohammad in the shadows, or veiled in some other way. Perhaps a Christian director could portray Jesus in this way?

This intense focus on the suffering of Christ on the cross is "understandable," given the film's Catholic director and highly Catholic sensibility, but again, for Protestant Christians, it is problematic, especially when there is so little content about Christ's resurrection, and therefore, His victory over sin and death.

I have just a random comment about this. Mel Gibson is not actually Roman Catholic. As far as I can tell, he isn't even a member of one of the many Catholic churches which is not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. He seems to have started his own pseudo-Catholic cult. I call it a cult because according to my understanding of the situation, the entire church is funded by Mel Gibson himself. He has even chosen his own priest. I don't even want to know what sort of theology is being espoused here. But I do know that he tolerates his father's strong anti-semitic views. I realize he may not share the views, but I wonder what his views are on St. Luke 14:26.

 

[Rick Otto]

I don't think we get busted for the commandments per se, bu the the cause/effect reason behind the 2nd commandment is still in effect.
If films are at least "partialy" responsible for conversions, then those conversions are "partialy" weak. More films may be needed.

Think about it, how often is a cross, crucifix, or especialy a "portrait" realy more than visual bling or sugar. Props help keep the audience from looking to long at the entertainer & noticing his blemishes.
We need a lot of protection from ourselves & the 2nd commandment is a good idea in that regard.
Saves a lot of money that could be better spent, too.

 

[strengthinweakness]

Thanks for your replies, everyone! I'm still continuing to think through this issue, and your replies have given me more to "chew on," so to speak.

5solas, I tried to look at many of the articles from Monergism.com, but several of the links were dead. I haven't had time to look at each and every link (with the sheer number of articles on many different subjects that Monergism has, I don't think anyone has time to look at all of them! ), but I will keep going through them and trying to find the links that work.

Pjw, I'm not sure if I agree with you that a picture of Christ must be for the purpose of worship. Can one not even possibly look at a picture of Christ without worshiping it? This is the part of the question which J.I. Packer seems concerned about (largely, at least) in chapter 4 of Knowing God-- we are to worship the actual Christ, and not an image which supposedly "represents" him. That is why Packer doesn't take a definite, hard line about using pictures of Christ for purposes of teaching, but yet he does take a firm stance against using images of Christ in a worship service. Theoretically, one could postulate that it is at least possible to use pictures of Christ in a class without worship ensuing. In an actual church service though, using such pictures would be potentially more dangerous, in that worship is of the very nature of the gathering. Perhaps, pjw, as you said near the end of your post, the ultimate issue is whether it is even Biblically permissable to make and display images of Christ at all. That is a large part of the question that I am really struggling with at this point.

Arunma, thank you for your clarification about Mel Gibson's "Catholicity." I tend to agree with you that having images of Christ in church is not the best idea. If the problem with images of Christ though, Biblically speaking, goes deeper than whether or not people are actually worshiping them though, but extends to the very fact of such images, then I would think that even secular artwork depicting Jesus would be considered blasphemous. As I wrote above, that is, largely, what I am still wrestling with -- whether such images are permissable in any context. Does anyone else have any Biblical argumentation, observations, convictions, etc. about the whole issue of images of Jesus?

 

[arunma]

Arunma, thank you for your clarification about Mel Gibson's "Catholicity." I tend to agree with you that having images of Christ in church is not the best idea. If the problem with images of Christ though, Biblically speaking, goes deeper than whether or not people are actually worshiping them though, but extends to the very fact of such images, then I would think that even secular artwork depicting Jesus would be considered blasphemous. As I wrote above, that is, largely, what I am still wrestling with -- whether such images are permissable in any context. Does anyone else have any Biblical argumentation, observations, convictions, etc. about the whole issue of images of Jesus?

Yes, I agree with what you're saying. I suppose that there is some personal bias in what I'm saying (which is probably the case with all of us). I happen to like the artwork that many people have made of our Lord. So perhaps at some level, I am dismissing secular artwork simply so that I can continue to appreciate it. I would be interested in any Biblical exposition that you or others have on the issue.

 

[strengthinweakness]

I don't think we get busted for the commandments per se, bu the the cause/effect reason behind the 2nd commandment is still in effect.
If films are at least "partialy" responsible for conversions, then those conversions are "partialy" weak. More films may be needed.

Think about it, how often is a cross, crucifix, or especialy a "portrait" realy more than visual bling or sugar. Props help keep the audience from looking to long at the entertainer & noticing his blemishes.
We need a lot of protection from ourselves & the 2nd commandment is a good idea in that regard.
Saves a lot of money that could be better spent, too.

Very interesting thoughts here, Rick! I agree with you, for the most part, although in a church, I am not sure that a cross would really serve as "visual bling or sugar," unless it were a particularly "dazzling" cross, in a fleshly sense, i.e. extravagantly jeweled or so on. In that case, there would be an inherent problem with the design of the cross itself, in that it would be focusing on what "appeals" to unregenerate man, rather than drawing peoples' thoughts to the fact that Christ is risen, living, and no longer on the cross. I do agree with you, though, that we need much protection from ourselves, and that point is driven home by the fact that Christian artists almost invariably "represent" Christ as being of whatever ethnicity they happen to be.

About films of Christ, I'm not saying that I disagree with the points that you made, but I am curious as to your reasoning behind them. Why do you think that conversions, which result, partially, from films depicting Jesus are "partially weak" conversions? Why, in your view, would such converted Christians potentially need more films to "bolster" their faith? Could the same be said of Christians who read many Christian books? Might it be better for them (us) to just stick with the Bible itself? Again, these are just questions posed out of curiosity, and also to stimulate thought and discussion. I'm not saying that I'm going to dump my favourite works of Reformed theology any time soon!