|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is it OK to Portray a Female Christ in Church Art?
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I don't get from your paragraph what it is that allows you to treat music differently from art. You see that one can get the wrong end of the stick from either, that a minister can guide the faithful on the straight and narrow regarding music.... so why different rules for art? Why is art the sea of subjectivity and speculation and not music?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I think that singing nothing but exact quotes from scripture and visually portraying nothing but literal depictions of people and events in scripture - or visually portraying nothing at all - is just as likely to immerse people in a sea of subjectivity and speculation as any more figurative art or musical lyrics.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
It's possible either to honour or to subvert the meaning of words through the music to which those words are set. And I guess it's also possible to subvert the meaning of music with words as well.
However, as a minister of the word I consider it my first duty to teach my congregation to understand and to believe what they are singing while guarding against the subversion of that meaning through the inappropriate use of music.
The same can be said of visual art as well. It is possible to subvert Christian truth through art and it is the pastoral duty of the minister to ensure that art - when used in the context of worship or devotion - is being used to communicate the truth of God's word or encourage theological reflection on that truth, not as a means of giving illegitimate authority or weight to subjective experience alone.
[ 03. December 2013, 17:03: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
So there's no difference between music and art in that both can be misused, and individuals can discern what is right and what is misleading in them both?
I had thought you were saying they were on different footings earlier, but maybe I misread you. Lucky then that I have you here to guide me away from speculation and subjectivity!
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
So there's no difference between music and art in that both can be misused, and individuals can discern what is right and what is misleading in them both?
I had thought you were saying they were on different footings earlier, but maybe I misread you. Lucky then that I have you here to guide me away from speculation and subjectivity!
I often work out what I think by talking and/or writing, so it won't always be fully formed and coherent. That's why I like debate and it's also studying the bible with me can sometimes feel to some people like an argument! Essentially what I'm saying is that the words of hymns anchor them more closely to God's word in a stronger way than that of visual depictions of theological themes. This is why I think the words of hymns are of greater value to the church than visual art.
[ 03. December 2013, 17:15: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Essentially what I'm saying is that the words of hymns anchor them more closely to God's word in a stronger way than that of visual depictions of theological themes. This is why I think the words of hymns are of greater value to the church than visual art.
For you. I am far more affected by visual art than any words or music.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Gwalchmai - why is it more incorrect and more out of accordance with Christian belief to portray him as a woman than it is to portray him as a pale Northern European? Or as wearing the contemporary dress of whatever culture depicts him? Should most images of Christ in Western European churches be removed?
First, because the OP asked whether it was acceptable to portray Christ as a woman. Second, because sex is a more fundamental distinction between human beings than skin colour or other characteristics loosely descibed as "racial".
Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CL:
[qb] I think that the Roman Catholic hierarchy may have painted itself into a corner though when there are bodies that are not clearly male or female - and some of the people with those bodies do not identify as either male or female.
Not necessarily - after all, an alternate explanation in the RC scheme is that this is just a result of being in a fallen world.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Sure, no problem with work-in-progress-in-debate - its been my style for years.
Boogie, I think daronmedway isn't talking about which affects him more deeply, but rather about which is more error-prone. And his idea is that hymns are less error-prone because of the words.
This still seems likely to be quite personality dependent. As a man of the cloth you are used to describing and reading theological views in words. Therefore meaning seems secure to you. Others may think more symbolically, and may feel more comfortable with art and symbolism. They may find it easier to misunderstand words than you.
Others may find it easier to be wrapped up in the music itself and pay less attention to the precise meaning of the words.
(Under all this I must say I have less faith in the minister to lead the faithful away from error etc. and more faith in the congregation to determine their way but that's another load of unpacking to do).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Gwalchmai - why is it more incorrect and more out of accordance with Christian belief to portray him as a woman than it is to portray him as a pale Northern European? Or as wearing the contemporary dress of whatever culture depicts him? Should most images of Christ in Western European churches be removed?
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
First, because the OP asked whether it was acceptable to portray Christ as a woman. Second, because sex is a more fundamental distinction between human beings than skin colour or other characteristics loosely descibed as "racial".
So what if it's a fundamental human distinction. Is that what Christ is tied to? Or if the test is one of realism, however fundamental the distinction is, the lack of realism is identical whether we are talking sex, clothing, skin colour or carefully groomed hair and a trimmed beard after 40 days in the wilderness without food.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Before getting onto portraying Christ as a woman I think it would be better for women if there were more realistic images of the BVM.
I mean, there she is, new teenaged mother, looking dewy-eyed and wrinkle-free, and no post-partum bulge in sight.
Fast-forward 33 years: there she is again, at the foot of the cross: dewy-eyed, wrinkle-free, or maybe just the hint of a frown between the eyebrows (after all, son is crucified in front of her).
GET REAL - as a woman of c47 years living in the middle east even now she'd likely have a few lines and grey hairs.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Essentially what I'm saying is that the words of hymns anchor them more closely to God's word in a stronger way than that of visual depictions of theological themes. This is why I think the words of hymns are of greater value to the church than visual art.
For you. I am far more affected by visual art than any words or music.
Yes, but look at how much sounder my theology is than yours. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Before getting onto portraying Christ as a woman I think it would be better for women if there were more realistic images of the BVM.
Hey, how about portraying the Blessing Virgin as a man, Jesus as a woman, and Joseph as a genderqueer disabled Chinese person riding a tricycle?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Before getting onto portraying Christ as a woman I think it would be better for women if there were more realistic images of the BVM.
Hey, how about portraying the Blessing Virgin as a man, Jesus as a woman, and Joseph as a genderqueer disabled Chinese person riding a tricycle?
If this works for you, I'd like to see the resulting artwork. If you have a sermon abt it, please post it.
I always thought Mary was a short little dumpy woman and rather bossy to Joseph, her hen-picked husband. Poor guy had to find a donkey and got too busy so he forgot to prebook accommodation, and heard no end to the story of "how your unthinking and inconsiderate father made me give birth in a fricking barn, and still won't do the dishes". But this may be because of the Mary that I knew when young, whom I though was Jesus' mom Mary. -- one of my kids thought grandpa was a girl until age 4.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Sure, no problem with work-in-progress-in-debate - its been my style for years.
Boogie, I think daronmedway isn't talking about which affects him more deeply, but rather about which is more error-prone. And his idea is that hymns are less error-prone because of the words.
Yes, that's pretty much it. Although I'd prefer to say that it's easier to ensure that a congregation understands the words of a hymn correctly - and their connection to the meaning scripture - than they arrive at biblical truth by reflecting "correctly" on a painting or a piece sculpture. This, presumably, is why God chose to reveal himself through the written word rather than a 66 canvas retrospective at the Jerusalem Municipal Gallery of Contemporary Art.
[ 03. December 2013, 17:59: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Hey, how about portraying the Blessing Virgin as a man, Jesus as a woman, and Joseph as a genderqueer disabled Chinese person riding a tricycle?
I thought L'Organist had a good point. I don't see that your silly caricature is at all effective in satirizing it anyway.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
This, presumably, is why God chose to reveal himself through the written word rather than a 66 canvas retrospective at the Jerusalem Municipal Gallery of Contemporary Art.
I think there may be other reasons. You should bear in mind that many Christians (I'd even wonder if the majority throughout history?) were/are illiterate and got a lot from the spoken word and the symbolism of church services through the ages. I suspect your attachment to the written word over music or art says more about you than about God or the church.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Possibly. Although the early church seems to have put great stock on the presbyterate being able to teach the word, not paint, dance liturgically, or rightly divide lumps of clay.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I'm going to resist being drawn into arguing that the written word or exposition of it by priests/ministers isn't important - that isn't my argument.
My argument was that there were no grounds for being suspicious of and dismissive of the role of art in the church but accepting of music.
If you want to be consistent you should go for a minimalistic worship style with said prose, avoiding the emotionalism and potential misleading swell of the organ or soaring descant (or crash of cymbal and energetic power chord or whatever), the most plainly unadorned building, and then, consistently, no art.
Any inequality in suspicion or dismissing of one over the others I'm going to put down to personal preference rather than logic or scripture.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Before getting onto portraying Christ as a woman I think it would be better for women if there were more realistic images of the BVM.
Hey, how about portraying the Blessing Virgin as a man, Jesus as a woman, and Joseph as a genderqueer disabled Chinese person riding a tricycle?
The point is not to portray Christ or any other biblical figure as something different from a literal description of them in the Biblical text just to be different. The point is to show truths about them that might be hidden in other depictions of them. I for one would be interested in seeing a male depiction of the Blessed Virgin Mary or a female depiction of St. Joseph. With the BVM especially, this would raise questions about the importance of Mary's womb, and whether men can give birth to Christ in the same way women can. If the Blessed Mother can be a father, then maybe God the Father (or even God the Son) can be a mother? I don't think these questions take us any farther from the truth of the gospel than sticking to non-figurative reading of the text does.
In the case of a female Christ, I think it is pretty important to address front and center in the Church whether or not it matters that Christ incarnated as male and, if so, why. It is a question that just about every Christian deals with, but some are not bothered by it. A lot of Christians are, though. Why is the only created body (granted, an uncreated divine person incarnating in a hypostatic union with a human person into a created body) that we are allowed to worship male?
Divine wisdom, which mainstream modern churches do not depict front and center as female in their churches anyway, does not have a body in the way Christ does. The Blessed Virgin Mary is given very special veneration by Catholics and the Orthodox, but she is not divine so we cannot worship her. Worship in its most sensory elements (up to and including tasting the Body and Blood of what we worship) is limited to a male body. We can worship God the father as an incorporeal transcendence, and God the Holy Spirit as an immanent indwelling presence, represented by a dove (but not "being" a dove in the way that Jesus "is" a male), but in terms of an image that captures "what God really looks like" in a way that is not just figurative we only have Jesus' male body.
I can't help but think that that says something about the otherness of women when it comes to being made in the image of God. Christian orthodoxy says that women are not in any way other in their creation or redemption, but I think the Church in her (there's a whole other box of gendered worms) imagery needs to do more to communicate the non-otherness of women. Putting a female corpus on a crucifix is not going to completely fix this, but allowing it (while not encouraging it) might help - maybe.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
the early church seems to have put great stock on the presbyterate being able to teach the word, not paint, dance liturgically, or rightly divide lumps of clay.
To the quotes thread with you!
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Before getting onto portraying Christ as a woman I think it would be better for women if there were more realistic images of the BVM.
I mean, there she is, new teenaged mother, looking dewy-eyed and wrinkle-free, and no post-partum bulge in sight.
Fast-forward 33 years: there she is again, at the foot of the cross: dewy-eyed, wrinkle-free, or maybe just the hint of a frown between the eyebrows (after all, son is crucified in front of her).
GET REAL - as a woman of c47 years living in the middle east even now she'd likely have a few lines and grey hairs.
Agreed! I always wonder why we don't ever see an ageing Mary. It's hard enough finding racially accurate images of her.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Er, she wasn't 14 when she gave birth. God chose a woman, not a girl. He wasn't irresponsible. A pregnant fourteen year old girl wouldn't have wandered around town, alone, visiting post-menopausal pregnant cousins.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Here's an older looking BVM. Not particularly wrinkly but still looks in her forties to me.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Er, she wasn't 14 when she gave birth. God chose a woman, not a girl. He wasn't irresponsible. A pregnant fourteen year old girl wouldn't have wandered around town, alone, visiting post-menopausal pregnant cousins.
A 14yo WAS a woman then. Childhood was much shorter and there was no teenage culture. If you were old enough to reproduce you were an adult.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If you want to be consistent you should go for a minimalistic worship style with said prose, avoiding the emotionalism and potential misleading swell of the organ or soaring descant (or crash of cymbal and energetic power chord or whatever), the most plainly unadorned building, and then, consistently, no art.
Any inequality in suspicion or dismissing of one over the others I'm going to put down to personal preference rather than logic or scripture.
This, I think, is a slightly unfair charicature of what I've been trying to say. I really do appreciate art and music for their aesthetic qualities and their ability to stir the religious affections. My main point, I think, is that there is something about the ministry of the word (including sung worship) that better promotes the corporate apprehension of biblical truth and collective edification than the visual arts, which by their very nature tend towards more introspective and individualistic expressions of personal piety.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by stonespring:
The point is not to portray Christ or any other biblical figure as something different from a literal description of them in the Biblical text just to be different. The point is to show truths about them that might be hidden in other depictions of them. I for one would be interested in seeing a male depiction of the Blessed Virgin Mary or a female depiction of St. Joseph. With the BVM especially, this would raise questions about the importance of Mary's womb, and whether men can give birth to Christ in the same way women can. If the Blessed Mother can be a father, then maybe God the Father (or even God the Son) can be a mother? I don't think these questions take us any farther from the truth of the gospel than sticking to non-figurative reading of the text does.
Depicting Jesus as a woman doesn't reveal any hidden truth about him. The historical Jesus was male. Nobody seriously questions that. What truth could revealed by depicting a historic inaccuracy?
Are you saying that God is neither male nor female? True enough. However, making that statement by portraying Jesus as female implies no division between his human nature and his divine nature which is in sense saying he only had one divine nature which was equally male and female or neither male nor female. In any event, failure to distinguish between the two natures of Christ is the heresy of monophysitism. A work of art based on a heresy cannot reveal any hidden truth about the Christ worshiped by the Church.
Likewise a male depiction of the BVM would say nothing at all about the BVM. An artist can paint or sculpt anything they want and call it whatever they want but their ability to do that doesn't raise any questions about what they are claiming to depict. Labeling an artists rendering of a chubby bearded man wearing a trucker's hat, flannel shirt and blue head covering as "Larry the Cable Guy: Mother of God" doesn't make the Maginificat a fart joke or a fart joke the Magnificat.
quote:
originally posted by stonespring:
In the case of a female Christ, I think it is pretty important to address front and center in the Church whether or not it matters that Christ incarnated as male and, if so, why. It is a question that just about every Christian deals with, but some are not bothered by it. A lot of Christians are, though. Why is the only created body (granted, an uncreated divine person incarnating in a hypostatic union with a human person into a created body) that we are allowed to worship male?
Depends on which branch of the Church you ask. Personally, I don't think it does. Still,the only created body we are allowed to worship is male because God became incarnate in a male body. We have no clue what that body looked like but we do know the body was male because Jesus says he's male.
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Menarche has decreased. Responsible people have always deferred reproduction. This was a patriarchal, big-brother is watching, honour bound, intensely taboo ridden society where females were valuable, skilled property.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I hope this isn't a tangent, but when I was younger there was some sort of movement to justify understandings of God as female. Occasionally this touched ordinary congregations in some way rather than just being an exercise for theologians. But it's something I haven't heard about for a long time. I've never heard a sermon or small group engage with what it might mean.
What I'm getting at is that it doesn't seem to make much sense for the theological content of 'church art' to diverge from what's generally taught in church pulpits and liturgies and small groups. If a church is already engaging with challenging understandings of Jesus then installing a painting of a female Christ might be helpful; but to plonk such a painting in a church where there's never been any such discussion is only going to create confusion and division.
Of course, some 'church art' exists mainly to be displayed in art galleries. That's a different matter.
[ 03. December 2013, 22:43: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Before getting onto portraying Christ as a woman I think it would be better for women if there were more realistic images of the BVM.
Nobody (apart from daronmedway) suggests portraying Mary as a man, so why should anybody want to portray her son as a woman?
Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802
|
Posted
Can we take the discussion in a slightly different direction. Virgin births occur in nature - it is called parthogenesis - but the offspring is always female because the offspring have no Y chromosome.
Jesus was fully human and being male must have had XY chromosomes. So in Christian undertstanding he is unique in being the male offspring of a virgin birth. Depicting a female Christ therefore undermines his uniqueness.
Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
Can we take the discussion in a slightly different direction. Virgin births occur in nature - it is called parthogenesis - but the offspring is always female because the offspring have no Y chromosome.
Jesus was fully human and being male must have had XY chromosomes. So in Christian undertstanding he is unique in being the male offspring of a virgin birth. Depicting a female Christ therefore undermines his uniqueness.
The fact that he was an incarnate Person of God is not unique?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
This is a weird conversation for me because in myself i don't feel gendered. I mean, i have a female body that does the usual female things and I'm okay with that, but the only time I'm conscious of my gender is during tge very few activities--sex, childbirth, nursing--where sex makes an obvious difference. The rest of the time I forget it except when some asshole tries to pigeonhole me based on it (like my boss stating that women-in-general like to froufrou up tables.)
I'm assuming there are other people--most people? Who walk around being conscious of the gender all the time. Otherwise I don't get why Christ's gender is of such enduring interest to them.
[ 04. December 2013, 00:37: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
Depicting a female Christ therefore undermines his uniqueness.
Parthenogenesis would be pretty bloody unique in a human birth. Were our Lord and saviour to have been incarnate as a shark, komodo dragon or aphid then I agree, a female representation would undermine his/her uniqueness.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
My main point, I think, is that there is something about the ministry of the word (including sung worship) that better promotes the corporate apprehension of biblical truth and collective edification than the visual arts, which by their very nature tend towards more introspective and individualistic expressions of personal piety.
This comes across rather more mildly than "Seriously, I'd prefer that there we no "artistic" representations of Christ at all, especially in church buildings." and probably I wouldn't have leaped into this discussion based on your paragraph above.
Anyway, since we're here I'll say that personally I don't think that art is limited to introspection and individualism, but that aside I don't see "introspective and individualistic expressions of personal piety." as an something entirely undesirable. Was that the implication?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
That implication is present, yes. Public worship is corporate worship and, while "personal" encounters with God are entirely possible and in many ways desirable in that context, we shouldn't forget the emphasis in the New Testament on mutual edification and the corporate aspects of worship. Church is much more than a bunch of individuals in a room looking for their personal encounter with Jesus. The charismatic church is guilty of this to a great extent, I grant, but so is the contemplative "artsy" alt worship wing of the church as well. We've lost something when corporate worship becomes overly introspective and self referential.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953
|
Posted
I googled "female Christ" and got a lot of pictures that were interesting but sort of cheesy. I mean, all the women looked like they were just hanging out, on the cross. Not one of them looked like she was in anguish or agony and that's why I didn't identify with them in the least. That blonde just looked as if she was thinking, "Ho hum, here I am, hangin' out, nailed to a cross... I wonder if my hair is stylish...". I'm all for gender-bending Christ figures but these paintings just didn't do anything for me. YMMV.
--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.
Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Church is much more than a bunch of individuals in a room looking for their personal encounter with Jesus.
Certainly it is more. But it also includes a bunch of individuals looking for something personal. Insisting it be only corporate sounds a little North Korean to me.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:
I'm all for gender-bending Christ figures but these paintings just didn't do anything for me. YMMV.
I think you've managed to pack everything I think is wrong with the use of art for devotional purposes into one sentence. The de-personalisation of Jesus and the subversion of his identity for religio-political purposes, and the self-seeking and self-referential motives that lie behind such endeavors summarise much of what is wrong with the church today.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
daronmedway, you have argued for dismissing various aspects of worship or art based on evidence of bad practice at several points during the thread. It doesn't work as an argument for me, and if we extended it we'd close the church.
[ 04. December 2013, 07:12: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Church is much more than a bunch of individuals in a room looking for their personal encounter with Jesus.
Certainly it is more. But it also includes a bunch of individuals looking for something personal. Insisting it be only corporate sounds a little North Korean to me.
I'm not insisting on only the corporate and I dedicated a whole sentence in the paragraph from which you've quoted to make that very point. However, I'm pretty convinced that people are actually longing to experience a deep intersection of the personal with the corporate: it's called belonging. The problem, perhaps, is that some people feel the need to re-imagine Christ in their own image in order to create a particular sense of belonging; a sense of belonging which is as superficial as it is manipulative. Putting a female Christ on the cross falls into this category, I think.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Well if there is a place for individualistic expressions and introspection in the church, which you link to art, then surely by that logic there is a place for art in the church?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
(By the way I'm not about to start defending the depictions of attractive semi-nude women hanging around on crosses with artistically windswept hair. That's not my thing either, and I can live without related google image searches.)
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Well if there is a place for individualistic expressions and introspection in the church, which you link to art, then surely by that logic there is a place for art in the church?
Are you using the term "art in the church" in reference to art in church buildings or the use of visual art in acts of corporate worship? I ask because I've nowhere said that art has no place in the church, by which I mean the body of Christ. What I did say is I don't find art particularly helpful in corporate worship particularly with reference to the corporate apprehension of biblical truth and doctrine.
This is because I'm suggesting that the primary purpose of corporate worship isn't individual introspective and speculative contemplation of the numinous through the medium of visual art - that can be done in the context of private devotion, if it must be done.
My understanding is that the purpose of corporate worship is to enjoy God's presence in fellowship and community, to hear God speak through his word and by his Spirit in the context of a community hermeneutic, and to receive God's grace in and through the ministrations of the whole body of Christ.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
You said "Seriously, I'd prefer that there we no "artistic" representations of Christ at all, especially in church buildings."
And I disagree with that. I think there is a place for artistic representations of Christ in church buildings.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You said "Seriously, I'd prefer that there we no "artistic" representations of Christ at all, especially in church buildings."
And I disagree with that. I think there is a place for artistic representations of Christ in church buildings.
By all means disagree with me, that's what debate is for, but if you're going to press me hard for an explanation of my position I would appreciate the courtesy of not having my efforts intentionally misrepresented.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
I do wonder whether there is a subtle but important difference between Arts (be they visual, music, dance etc) based on religious themes and those inspired by the devotional for the devotional....
Anyone with talent can take a religious theme and use it to create something beautiful or provocative. They could have many different motivations for their creations.
Then there are the things that adorn our places of worship which for many people are a spur to worship. That was the motivation for their creation.
There could also,I'm sure, be a crossover between the two: very little in life ever seems to be completely straightforward....
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
(By the way I'm not about to start defending the depictions of attractive semi-nude women hanging around on crosses with artistically windswept hair. That's not my thing either, and I can live without related google image searches.)
So what about the depictions of attractive semi-nude men hanging around on crosses with artistically windswept hair?
There are plenty of them in Churches.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
My thought about this issue is to ask why there is a need for this kind of art. It seems to me that the creation and use of a female depiction of Christ is really a manifestation of a deeper problem, which concerns the unnecessary conflict between the sexes. Why should a male Christ make a woman feel unaffirmed or alienated in some way? It seems to imply that maleness stands in opposition - in conflict - to femaleness, whereas, in fact, the sexes should affirm each other. This is, I would suggest, what the above-mentioned Galatians 3:28 is getting at.
Why should anyone feel belittled by that which is 'other' or different from her or him? Why do we always need reality to be an extension of ourselves? Why can't we celebrate diversity and difference? I certainly would not want the whole of reality to be male, white and British. That would be more like a nightmare. I am affirmed as a British (Anglo-Irish actually) white male through the fact that I live in a world of diversity and difference. Difference does not - or should not - imply conflict or exclusion. And the act of trying to fashion external reality in the image of one's own characteristics is a form of idolatry and self-worship. The true worship of God draws us out of our self-obsession; it should not encourage or affirm it.
Furthermore, because Jesus was actually historically a man, then the depiction of Christ as a woman only reinforces the truth, because anyone looking at such a depiction knows that it is false historically, and therefore she or he is immediately reminded of what the real facts of the case are! It's a bit like a homesick French artist living in London who decides to produce a painting of London featuring the Eiffel Tower. Anyone looking at it (unless they were incredibly uninformed) would know immediately that it was wrong, and therefore would be reminded of the true location of that celebrated structure. So such a painting becomes nothing more than an absurdity - a banal piece of wishful thinking and self-indulgence.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I would appreciate the courtesy of not having my efforts intentionally misrepresented.
I assure you any misrepresentation is unintentional. I could respond that you owe me the courtesy of presuming good faith.
Can you see how I might be confused about your position to read both;
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Seriously, I'd prefer that there we no "artistic" representations of Christ at all, especially in church buildings.
and
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I ask because I've nowhere said that art has no place in the church, by which I mean the body of Christ.
Sorry you feel hard pressed by it but I genuinely can't see the logic of your position. You are saying now that artistic representations of Christ have no place in church buildings but might have a place in the body of Christ? Or that art might have a place but not artistic representations of Christ?
Maybe it's best we start again here.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
