Thread: Is it OK to Portray a Female Christ in Church Art? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026593

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
I brought this up in the Homeless Jesus thread but figured it needed its own thread. Please don't talk about women's ordination even if there seems to be an obvious connection.

If it is ok for different cultures to portray Christ as looking like them in their church art, is it also ok to ocassionally portray Christ as female? Obviously Christ was not a pale European, but neither was he a sub-saharan African or an East Asian, but he has been portrayed as all of these. I doubt many would argue that the only way to portray him in art is as a 1st-century Palestianian Jew. Traditionalists would argue that portraying Christ as whatever the local ethnicity is has existed since ancient times, but portraying him as a woman is an unjustifiable rupture with tradition.

People may well feel that a private artist can do whatever he or she wants with his/her work, but I am talking about art in worship spaces like (epsecially) the main crucifix near the altar in a liturgical church. If it is wrong to portray Christ as female here, would it also be wrong to do so in other crucifixes (like a processional cross) or in stained glass, murals, sculptures, mosaics, or other art in the same church space? Or are all ok? Why?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Just to give some examples.

[link to Google Image Search for "female Christ" removed]

[ 02. December 2013, 17:27: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

I understand LeRoc's dseire to be helpful by posting some relevant images, but I'm pretty sure some of them qualify as not safe for work.

We want to avoid people accessing the Ship from their workplace and/or work computer from getting into trouble, and others may want notice of such images. This is probably a particularly important thread on which to bear this in mind, so please compose any links accordingly and/or ensure that any content that might be deemed inappropriate is at least another click away after clicking on the link. If in doubt about whether something is "inappropriate", please err on the safe side.

Thank you!

/hosting

[ 02. December 2013, 17:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :
 
well, I personally am not a fan of portraying Jesus of Nazareth as anything other than a middle eastern male. not that I think it's WRONG to do so, just that I don't personally care for it. I believe that there was a person who was born in 1st century Palestine, who was a middle eastern male. I understand the concept of everyone relating to Jesus in their own way, and thus painting him as whatever they can related to (race, sex... species...) I mean, would an alien Christian portray Christ as an alien? if I related better to animals, could I portray Jesus as a dog or cat or bear or whatever?

symbolically, I think it's perfectly OK to portray Jesus i any way one wants. but it's not JUST about symbolism (to me). it's about affirming that there was such a person living on earth,in a particular place and time, and therefore while we can't know every aspect of His appearance, we should probably do our best to convey the reality. hair length and skin tone (and face shape) may not be something we can know exactly, but sex? yes, we do know that, at least for the biological being that was Jesus.

I could appreciate a purely symbolic paining of a female Jesus, trying to convey the universality of salvation. but that would be in a very specific context, such as an art exhibit. I'd have trouble with it in a worship environment. but.. that's just me. I also don't like modern music in my liturgy.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
As we are surrounded by female Christs I don't see what the problem is.

Patricia Arquette in the film Stigmata echoes Him terribly well.

And An Instance of the Fingerpost by Ian Pears is the most beautiful 'heresy' I've ever read.

God the Father as a black woman in The Shack and by Alanis Morissette in Dogma.

And my favourite visualization of the Holy Ghost is as Gelert.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
I'm with Anyuta. Jesus was an actual person and should be represented as that actual person. Jesus as some kind of mythical figure is a lie. Portraying the Holy Spirit as a woman, Sophia or Holy Wisdom is perfectly fine and has a historical precedent.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
if I related better to animals, could I portray Jesus as a dog or cat or bear or whatever?

One could argue that C.S. Lewis pretty much did: Narnia is an attempt to imagine a world in which Christ was a lion.

So, yes, I don't see any arbitrary norms on how Christ can be represented in art. If you want a very old example of feminine imagery of Christ, images of him as a female pelican may go back to the 2nd Century.

Liturgical art, though, would seem to have narrower limits. A female corpus on a crucifix, for instance, would probably make me think about Jesus' sex more than a male one would. I can see merit to doing this at times, but should this be part of every worship experience?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Eutychus: I understand LeRoc's dseire to be helpful by posting some relevant images, but I'm pretty sure some of them qualify as not safe for work.
Sorry, I hadn't thought of that. You're absolutely right.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
He saw Himself as a hen.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
When I say surrounded, I don't mean in popular culture, I mean in all women.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
The merits of iconoclasm abound. Seriously, I'd prefer that there we no "artistic" representations of Christ at all, especially in church buildings.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Just to give some examples.

[link to Google Image Search for "female Christ" removed]

cough, splutter, rising blood pressure, tonight's amontillado going down the wrong way, good grief, LeRoc, are you trying to kill me?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
quetzalcoatl: cough, splutter, rising blood pressure, tonight's amontillado going down the wrong way, good grief, LeRoc, are you trying to kill me?
Think of your heart! Sorry again, I guess I saw it as 'artsy' and didn't realize that there was rather a lot of nudity in there.

I tried it again with the SafeSearch filter, but it didn't help much either.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
When I say surrounded, I don't mean in popular culture, I mean in all women.

I suppose that having an image around occasionally might remind people of that.
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
No, it's heresy and possibly blasphemy too.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Before I write this, please let me remind people to not discuss the ordination of women here. Why does portraying Jesus as female make an editorial statement that is much more profound or distracing from worship or distracting from the historical Jesus than portraying Jesus as belonging to a culture completely different than the one he belonged to? People might answer that biological sex is a more inherent part of who a person is than culture or race. They can indicate that with race especially, science has shown that it exists more in our heads and social attitudes than in anything genetic. But over 100 years ago, there were plenty of people who believed that race was an inherent biological part of who someone was and who would have objected strongly to portraying Christ as anything other than the race he "belonged to" (how Anti-Semites got around the fact that Christ was Jewish I am not sure, but white supremacists would have definitely insisted that Christ be portrayed as white). You could point out the Galatians passage that there is no gentile or Jew, no slave or free, no male or female in Christ, but such people back then would have argued that an artist could maybe show the universality of salvation in a work of art outside of a church by portraying a Christ of a non-Caucasian race, but that this image on the principal crucifix or other art in a church was much too distracting from the historical Jesus and too political, etc.

Now, the "scientific" theories of racial supremacists and eugenicists of the late 1800s/early 1900s have been discredited, and our culture has changed quite a bit, making a black or Asian Jesus a lot less "distracting" than it used to be.

It is true that there is a scientific basis to biological sex (at least in our sex chromosomes, as long as the genes on them are expressed). But that does not mean that in 100 years or so people might not see much of a political statement in there being a female body on a crucifix. The fact that Christ is described in the gospels as biologically male might not seem that important then.

I know that the maleness of Christ is something that many Christian denominations believes needs to be reflected in the text of the Liturgy - no female pronouns for the Second Person of the Trinity, for example. Again, not going into the discussion of the ordination of women - what is it that is so important about remembering that Christ is male and portraying Him as such? Why does it lessen the reality and concreteness of the incarnation to portray Him as female? How is a male Christ more "real" or more "accurate"?

Some churches might feel that since a female corpus on a crucifix in perceived as "political" whether or not it is intended to be (and whether or not anything can ever be apolitical), it should be avoided so as not to create controversy that would drive people away from worship. But I know many people, male and female, myself (a male) included, who feel uncomfortable venerating a male image as the principal image of God incarnate in our worship, especially because we know that replacing that image with a female image would not be allowed. Many women might have no problem only going to Church and seeing Christ as male in art - but there is no choice of how to portray Christ in the art used in worship that does not offend a significant amount of people.

Protestants from traditions that shun images in worship spaces might be thinking "I told you so!" but I think that the sensory is an indispensible part of worship and that idolatry consists of making any created thing a substitute for God, not in allowing created things to draw you to God.

So why is Christ's maleness (or, since a small partially clothed male body on a crucifix could be seen as androgynous, non-femaleness) seen as something worth preserving in regulations cncerning liturgical art? Why is maleness seen as a key part of who Christ "is"? Why is a male Christ in art more "realistic" than a female Christ? (And let's not talk about women's ordination, as much as I or anyone else may want to.)
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
Caravaggio's supper at Emmaus (National Gallery) shows a (resurrected) Jesus that some have seen as a remarkably feminine image.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
agingjb: Caravaggio's supper at Emmaus (National Gallery) shows a (resurrected) Jesus that some have seen as a remarkably feminine image.
This time it's Work Safe.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
No, it's heresy and possibly blasphemy too.

If all souls and bodies are either male or female, this maleness or femaleness is eternal, and this maleness or femaleness is central to all souls' identity, which I would argue is Roman Catholic teaching, then yes, it's heresy. (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. How can the Church be so sure that such people must have either a male soul or a female soul?)

But why is a female crucifix in church blasphemy?
 
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :
 
not entirely the same thing, but I have a recording of Jesus Christ, Superstar where Amy Ray (from Indigo Girls) sings the role of Jesus. I do LOVE the recording. But sound is not image, and JCSS is certainly not liturgical. But she sounds better than some others I've heard sing the role.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The merits of iconoclasm abound. Seriously, I'd prefer that there we no "artistic" representations of Christ at all, especially in church buildings.

What about the pictures your brain makes when listening to hymns, worship songs, sermons, and Bible readings? What picture comes into your head when you hear something like "Precious Lord, Take my Hand"? That's an icon of your own making. What do you see in your head when there is a reading of the Passion? Is the cross empty?
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Mk. 12:25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

er, so what sex are we in the Resurrection?
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
Many of the middle ages paintings of white European Jesus do look a little like a female face with a beard glued on, so if it's heretical it's not a new heresy.

The only time I've seen a white European with a feminine face and a beard glued on, it was a woman at a fancy dress party.
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
not entirely the same thing, but I have a recording of Jesus Christ, Superstar where Amy Ray (from Indigo Girls) sings the role of Jesus. I do LOVE the recording. But sound is not image, and JCSS is certainly not liturgical. But she sounds better than some others I've heard sing the role.

There is plenty of history (on the stage and on film) of female actors playing male characters and the reverse. The identity of an actor does not necessarily change the identity of the character.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Mk. 12:25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

er, so what sex are we in the Resurrection?

Roman Catholic teaching is that even our resurrected bodies are male and female like they were in our lives before death - and that in whatever experience we have of Heaven, Purgatory, or Hell between our death and the Resurrection and Last Judgment, we are male or female just like we were before death in that existence, too. I am asking how can everyone be strictly male or female when there are some people who both in their bodies and in their identity are not either.

And, more broadly, even if Jesus is unambiguously male both biologically and in terms of his gender identity, why does it matter so much for portrayals of Him in art used in worship?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think one of the problems this idea runs up against is quite simply that most crucifixions portray Christ as at least semi-naked.

Modern culture being the way it is, icons (in all senses of the term) being what they are, and irrespective of where one stands on the gender of the Godhead, I'd say a semi-naked form that's recognisably female is going to create connotations of objectified sexuality a lot more readily to a lot more people than most variations on the historical norm of pictures of a male Christ on the cross.

That leaves the question of Christ portrayed other than on the cross (as with Carvaggio above) open - but such portrayals are also (as with Carvaggio above) likely to be more ambiguous, are they not?
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
The only female crucifix I've seen was about as gender specific when it came to the chest as a Barbie doll. It was, overall, an abstract depiction of the human body, but a recognizable female one. The cloth covering Christ's male bits is there for reasons of propriety more than for historical accuracy, so if there is to be a female corpus on a crucifix, there is no reason not to give cover her chest as well as her groin.

Going briefly on a tangent - when men or women were crucified in the Roman Empire, did they have any clothes on? If so, what usually were they wearing? Was it different for men than for women? Were women crucified in Ancient Rome?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

Going briefly on a tangent - when men or women were crucified in the Roman Empire, did they have any clothes on? If so, what usually were they wearing? Was it different for men than for women? Were women crucified in Ancient Rome?

Both sexes were crucified, and generally naked.

The problem - for me - with portraying Jesus as female, is akin to the problem with portraying Jesus as not middle-eastern. Both seem to run contrary to the incarnation, in the same way.
 
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :
 
I believe that people were crucified naked. One theory as to why Jesus is never portrayed in this way - apart from squeamishness about portraying Our Lord in the buff - is that his circumcision would mark him out as unquestionably Jewish.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
I think that for many people seeing Christ "as one of them," and seeing Christ elsewher looking like someone else actually makes the incarnation more real, not less. If Christ is always portrayed as whatever Jews in Galilee looked like in the first century (I honestly don't know), it would help dispel historical misconceptions but would also make the incarnation seem like just an event in history rather than a working of salvation for all and the renewal of all creation - a working that is also seen in its fullness in the Passion and Resurrection but that also continues today.

And seeing Christ naked and circumcised today in the US, where many men, especially middle aged and older men, are circumcised for non-Religous reasons, would not necessarily make Christ appear more Jewish. But it would make people (me included) uncomfortable! I have a hard enough time not being sexually attracted to Him already! But the necrophilia aspect is a turn off.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
I like the icons of Holy Wisdom and Holy Silence. They are definitely of an aspect of the Word and often feminine or androgynous.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
On of the main questions here is, do you want art, or do you want an illustration for your religious texts?

As an artist, I'd be very wary of taking on a commission from a church, partly because I know how precious church people can get about their images, and partly because overtly religious subjects don't really interest me. If I were to take on a commission, then in common with many artists the way I work is to spend a lot of time thinking about the brief - seeing where it takes me in a kind of free-association way. I'd also look at the location for the art, and engage imaginatively with that. If I felt that my best response to a painting of Christ was to paint a female figure, that's what I'd do. Whether you like it or not, or think it's good theology or not, is up to you.

(Sitting here thinking about it, I think my Christ wouldn't be female. I think I would want to paint something that was more about absence than presence.)
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The merits of iconoclasm abound. Seriously, I'd prefer that there we no "artistic" representations of Christ at all, especially in church buildings.

What about the pictures your brain makes when listening to hymns, worship songs, sermons, and Bible readings? What picture comes into your head when you hear something like "Precious Lord, Take my Hand"? That's an icon of your own making. What do you see in your head when there is a reading of the Passion? Is the cross empty?
I tend to think in words and emotions, rather than images unless I'm using the revelatory gifts of the Spirit in which case I do think in images. However, I have to say that I rarely, if ever, picture the physical body of Jesus in my mind's eye when contemplating his personhood. However, I wouldn't consider that sort of mental imagery as being of the same order as artistic depictions of that mental imagery because the thoughts and emotions that accompany the mental imagery have the ability to root it in biblical revelation in a way that cannot be replicated third hand.

[ 03. December 2013, 07:55: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Mk. 12:25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

er, so what sex are we in the Resurrection?

The second verse you've quoted says precisely nothing about resurrection ontology. It is a specifically soteriological statement and can only be applied in that context and for that purpose without doing unacceptable violence to the original context and purpose of the text.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
However, I wouldn't consider that sort of mental imagery as being of the same order as artistic depictions of that mental imagery because the thoughts and emotions that accompany the mental imagery have the ability to root it in biblical revelation in a way that cannot be replicated third hand.

You sound very definite about that. I don't see why the thoughts and emotions can't accompany actual as well as imagined imagery in the way that they can accompany actual or imagined music or sounds.

BTW it seems you have no comment on Martin's first verse?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I'm a bit puzzled about an insistence on souls being, in perpetuity, male or female.

I am not constantly aware of my being female, only when necessary. In fact, there are aspects of my femaleness which I would quite cheerfully not miss if they weren't to be resurrected, since they would then have no purpose, and have spent rather too much time distracting men from my person. I simply don't identify my me-ness with my double X chromosomes and their consequences. (This may have contributed to my single state, of course.) I don't know about others.

If a male hierarchy are so insistent on the eternal nature of their maleness, I would be concerned that they spend too much of their celibate time being aware of their male nature, and the otherness of females - and there is all too much evidence of the latter attitude. And absolutely no evidence of what state we will be in after death.
 
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm a bit puzzled about an insistence on souls being, in perpetuity, male or female.

I am not constantly aware of my being female, only when necessary. In fact, there are aspects of my femaleness which I would quite cheerfully not miss if they weren't to be resurrected, since they would then have no purpose, and have spent rather too much time distracting men from my person. I simply don't identify my me-ness with my double X chromosomes and their consequences. (This may have contributed to my single state, of course.) I don't know about others.

If a male hierarchy are so insistent on the eternal nature of their maleness, I would be concerned that they spend too much of their celibate time being aware of their male nature, and the otherness of females - and there is all too much evidence of the latter attitude. And absolutely no evidence of what state we will be in after death.

Well, I believe the Bible indicates that our destiny isn't to be disembodied souls, but raised to new life in resurrection bodies.

In Genesis, being created male and female is part of God's very good creation and paralleled with being made in the image of God. Being made male and female is not an incidental biological quirk, but part of our humanity to be enjoyed, expressed and celebrated.

The only passage that could suggest a post-gender existence is the one Martin referred to, "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."

But ISTM that the absence of marriage at the Resurrection is because marriage and sexuality are a shadow and reflection of the perfect spiritual relationship we will enjoy with God. I don't see any reason to think that God will change his mind at the Resurrection about "male and female" being "very good".
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Aristotelian medieval scholasticism is a long narrative dying.

[ 03. December 2013, 11:58: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I brought this up in the Homeless Jesus thread but figured it needed its own thread. Please don't talk about women's ordination even if there seems to be an obvious connection.

If it is ok for different cultures to portray Christ as looking like them in their church art, is it also ok to ocassionally portray Christ as female? Obviously Christ was not a pale European, but neither was he a sub-saharan African or an East Asian, but he has been portrayed as all of these. I doubt many would argue that the only way to portray him in art is as a 1st-century Palestianian Jew. Traditionalists would argue that portraying Christ as whatever the local ethnicity is has existed since ancient times, but portraying him as a woman is an unjustifiable rupture with tradition.

People may well feel that a private artist can do whatever he or she wants with his/her work, but I am talking about art in worship spaces like (epsecially) the main crucifix near the altar in a liturgical church. If it is wrong to portray Christ as female here, would it also be wrong to do so in other crucifixes (like a processional cross) or in stained glass, murals, sculptures, mosaics, or other art in the same church space? Or are all ok? Why?

A female Christ would be Aghia Sophia; Holy Wisdom.

The wisdom of God is always female, and can be portrayed as a woman.

I would not object to images of Christ as a woman, but I would not create them myself. There are far too many women saints to portray, before I would do that.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
However, I wouldn't consider that sort of mental imagery as being of the same order as artistic depictions of that mental imagery because the thoughts and emotions that accompany the mental imagery have the ability to root it in biblical revelation in a way that cannot be replicated third hand.

You sound very definite about that. I don't see why the thoughts and emotions can't accompany actual as well as imagined imagery in the way that they can accompany actual or imagined music or sounds.

BTW it seems you have no comment on Martin's first verse?

You're right, I do tend to express things more definitely than perhaps is necessary. It's probably symptomatic of the Reformed tradition in general and the way that I have been formed by it.

However, I'm certainly not denying the affective elements of visual art. I'm suggesting that visual art has the capacity to have a very profound and powerful effect indeed; a capacity that can be used - both intentionally and unintentionally - in order to propagate falsehood and communicate spiritual error if it is not managed carefully and intelligently.

[ 03. December 2013, 12:43: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
No, it's heresy and possibly blasphemy too.

Care to expand on your reasoning?
 
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :
 
The whole point of the incarnation is that God became incarnate at a particular time and place as a single idetifiable person, and human biology being what it is God had to choose between male and female (I note the comments about intersex people up thread, but that is a different conversation). We might discuss why God chose to be incarnated as a man rather than a woman, but Christian belief is that he became incarnate in Jesus, a man. No amount of politically correct argument can change that. So it is simply wrong to portray Christ as a woman - it does not accord with Christian belief.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Mk. 12:25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

er, so what sex are we in the Resurrection?

Here's how I'd read the verse. The ground of the verse is that the dead will rise; there will be a resurrection to life. There are two subordinate clauses which make two additional propositions. Firstly, that people after the resurrection "will neither marry nor be given in marriage" and that "they will be like the angels in heaven".

Now, it seems to me that the first of these subordinate propositions may actually affirm the continuation of gender via the use of traditional language of "marrying" and "being given in marriage": this might refer to men marrying, and women being given in marriage. However, it could also mean that there will be no procreation in the New Creation by which children are born, grow and are eventually given in marriage.

The second proposition suggests that our risen bodies will be similar, in some way, to angelic bodies. I think this refers to a qualitative similarity in the sense in the resurrection we, like angels, will be everlasting having been clothed with immortality.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
Some things move us toward God, some things move us away from God. I am willing to tolerate things that move people toward. Jesus could be portrayed as anyone if this helps. With the caveat that the historical facts that he was a man are confirmed.

I also like representational art that leads my perception to new understandings versus resembles precisely the things painted, sculpted or drawn. There is fundamentalism in art as well as in text. But many people don't attend to art enough to know that.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm a bit puzzled about an insistence on souls being, in perpetuity, male or female.

I am not constantly aware of my being female, only when necessary. In fact, there are aspects of my femaleness which I would quite cheerfully not miss if they weren't to be resurrected, since they would then have no purpose, and have spent rather too much time distracting men from my person. I simply don't identify my me-ness with my double X chromosomes and their consequences. (This may have contributed to my single state, of course.) I don't know about others.

If a male hierarchy are so insistent on the eternal nature of their maleness, I would be concerned that they spend too much of their celibate time being aware of their male nature, and the otherness of females - and there is all too much evidence of the latter attitude. And absolutely no evidence of what state we will be in after death.

Well, I believe the Bible indicates that our destiny isn't to be disembodied souls, but raised to new life in resurrection bodies.

In Genesis, being created male and female is part of God's very good creation and paralleled with being made in the image of God. Being made male and female is not an incidental biological quirk, but part of our humanity to be enjoyed, expressed and celebrated.

The only passage that could suggest a post-gender existence is the one Martin referred to, "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."

But ISTM that the absence of marriage at the Resurrection is because marriage and sexuality are a shadow and reflection of the perfect spiritual relationship we will enjoy with God. I don't see any reason to think that God will change his mind at the Resurrection about "male and female" being "very good".

Two points, to both of you:

1. In Genesis God creates humanity FROM male TO female in the Hebrew terms used - a spectrum, not a binary system.

2. Don't confuse gender with biological sex - gender is a societal construct and sometimes matches with biological sex, sometimes not. The two aren't related. Actually our binary system of biological sex is also a construct to an extent - nobody matches the biological 'ideal' perfectly, and most people are a bit more like the 'opposite' sex in some way in terms of physiology (eg a flat-chested cisgender woman is still not conforming perfectly to 'biological' norms).

So, there will certainly be people other than male and female (ie genderqueer and intersex people) in Heaven.....
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
I believe that people were crucified naked. One theory as to why Jesus is never portrayed in this way - apart from squeamishness about portraying Our Lord in the buff - is that his circumcision would mark him out as unquestionably Jewish.

I guess the hierarchy didn't get the memo....
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
I believe that people were crucified naked. One theory as to why Jesus is never portrayed in this way - apart from squeamishness about portraying Our Lord in the buff - is that his circumcision would mark him out as unquestionably Jewish.

I guess the hierarchy didn't get the memo....
Um...everyone knows Jesus is Jewish, and the Catholic hierarchy certainly knows that. What makes you think that anyone suggested otherwise?
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
The long history of persecution of Jews after the Roman Empire made Christianity the state religion.

The book, not the film, Constantine's Sword, does a good job of tracing this. From the erection of a Christian cross at Auschwitz back to Constantine's vision of a chi-rho. It is the history of supersessionism, which we have yet to resolve.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm suggesting that visual art has the capacity to have a very profound and powerful effect indeed; a capacity that can be used - both intentionally and unintentionally - in order to propagate falsehood and communicate spiritual error if it is not managed carefully and intelligently.

I would agree. I would also say the same about hymns and songs. Witness some of the bizarre goings-on in worship sessions in certain charismatic circles. The antidote to misuse of art is not non-use.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm suggesting that visual art has the capacity to have a very profound and powerful effect indeed; a capacity that can be used - both intentionally and unintentionally - in order to propagate falsehood and communicate spiritual error if it is not managed carefully and intelligently.

I would agree. I would also say the same about hymns and songs. Witness some of the bizarre goings-on in worship sessions in certain charismatic circles. The antidote to misuse of art is not non-use.
True. Not everyone who sings the same words believes they mean the same thing. And not everyone who looks at a picture will experience the same affections and think the same thoughts. However, it is the duty of the faithful minister of God's word to teach God's people what the words of songs mean via their teaching of what scripture says. Conversely, it is not the duty of the minister of God's word to immerse God's people in the sea of subjectivity and speculation which art, both good and bad creates.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :
 
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".
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Here's an older looking BVM. Not particularly wrinkly but still looks in her forties to me.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
(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.)
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
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....
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
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.

Semi-nude I've no problem with. I may have a problem with attractive and definitely have a problem with artistically windswept.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
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.

While I agree with what you say in the above, the original context of Galatians 3:28 is exclusively soteriological and serves to affirm that all Christians are saved by the same person (namely Christ) in the same way. It says nothing specifically ontological about humanity.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
You are right, mdijon, I made what was perhaps an over-assertion as my opening gambit which you've been asking me to clarify. And that's fair enough. However, I think I've fleshed out what I'm saying enough for you to know what my position is and I'll get to the question you asked in your last post in a bit.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
Has anyone has ever set out accurately to depict the historical Jesus in a work of art, or aid to worship? I think the answer is no, and that even those images that we consider to be "traditional" depictions of Jesus include a range of degrees of symbolism.

Also is an image of Jesus one where the maker of the image has intended to depict Jesus, or one in which the viewer of the image sees Jesus? There are a number of Antony Gormley sculptures that I think are sculptures of Jesus. "A hole at the heart of the world" is the obvious one, but "Untitled for Francis (1985)" bears the wounds of Christ, and "Mould, Hole Passage" is worth consideration. I know the sculptures were created using a cast of the artist's body and therefore cannot physically resemble Jesus but that does not stop them from being images of Jesus.

So I wouldn't draw an arbitrary line that would rule out depictions of a female, or genderless, Jesus.

John's gospel forces us to deal with the paradox that the man, the Word made Flesh, is also the Word that was with God in the beginning. So I see nothing inherently wrong with images that conflate the incarnation with Wisdom or the Spirit.

I am also drawn to Adeodatus's reference to depicting absence rather than presence. Rather like Van Gogh's chair and pipe - that too could be an image of Jesus.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
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?

I'm saying that I would prefer Christians not to use artistic images of Christ in their buildings for the purposes of public worship for the reasons I've already outlined.

quote:
Or that art might have a place but not artistic representations of Christ?
Again, I think that art does have a place in church buildings but not for the specific purpose of pubic corporate worship.

However, I can see the possible use of visual art, perhaps even in public church buildings, for private devotional purposes although it's not a practice that I would personally encourage or in which I would personally engage. This is because I do not believe in church buildings as 'sacred spaces' in which encounters with God are to be sought purely by virtue of the building itself or its physical contents.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
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.

I rest my case.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
While I agree with what you say in the above, the original context of Galatians 3:28 is exclusively soteriological and serves to affirm that all Christians are saved by the same person (namely Christ) in the same way. It says nothing specifically ontological about humanity.

I believe it does. Reconciliation is part and parcel of salvation, and therefore any conflict that exists between Jew and Gentile, male and female, rich and poor etc has been nailed to the cross, and the old false dichotomies of the world have been done away with. Note how we refer to the 'opposite' sex; we use a word that also denotes conflict and contradiction. The correct term consistent with the gospel should be the 'complementary' sex. In Christ there is no conflict between male and female, and the church should be bearing witness to this aspect of salvation. Salvation is an experience of this life, as well as the life to come, of course!

We know from the entire testimony of the New Testament that Christ is the only Saviour, and if that is all Paul is telling us then the wording of Galatians 3:28 is really quite superfluous.

Having said all this, I am pleased that we have managed to find some agreement on something after all our recent discussions on another subject!
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Again, I think that art does have a place in church buildings but not for the specific purpose of pubic corporate worship.

That typo has just made my day, and has made me want to reread the rest of the thread in a similar comical light. [Smile]

I agree that individuals should not expect Christ to be just like them and in a unique personal relationship with them that is disconnected with His marriage to His entire mystical Body. That said, Christ is still being crucified: the inequalities and injustice that people face because of their sex or gender is still great in just about any part of the world you look (though in some more than others). And there is no image of Christ that you can use in worship that is going to be historically accurate. I still fail to see how depicting Christ as female is a greater untruth as depicting him having an ethnicity that is obviously not 1st-century Galilean Jewish. Although people have written here that sex is more fundamental aspect of who someone is than race or ethnicity, no one has explained why.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
[Eek!] [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
While I agree with what you say in the above, the original context of Galatians 3:28 is exclusively soteriological and serves to affirm that all Christians are saved by the same person (namely Christ) in the same way. It says nothing specifically ontological about humanity.

I believe it does. Reconciliation is part and parcel of salvation, and therefore any conflict that exists between Jew and Gentile, male and female, rich and poor etc has been nailed to the cross, and the old false dichotomies of the world have been done away with. Note how we refer to the 'opposite' sex; we use a word that also denotes conflict and contradiction. The correct term consistent with the gospel should be the 'complementary' sex.
I think there is something in this although I wouldn't buy into the idea that opposite necessarily means adversary. The opposite side of the road and spectral opposites come to mind. I do, however, like the suggestion regarding complementarity. However, it may open you up to criticism particularly from those who will object to being defined with reference to anything other than themselves.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Daronmedway, I'm not sure that those who do use art in the context of public worship (or in the context of that other form of worship which you mentioned ...) do so because they believe there is intrinsic value in the buildings themselves or the contents ... rather it's that the buildings and contents derive value from the purpose to which they are put.

I used to be fairly Puritanical in this regard but I'm a lot less so now. I don't have a problem at all with the idea of sacred places, altars and iconography and so on ... although I still baulk at some aspects of that.

But I'm pretty comfortable with icons and the use of imagery/art in worship - after all, there were examples of it in the Tabernacle and so the Temple. Sure, there was the example of the bronze serpent Nahustan and so on ... but the more I looked the more I realised how much visual imagery there was in OT worship contexts.

Sure, it's hard to find NT examples but that's a different issue.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Gamaliel, I agree that the antitypical relationship between the richness of OT Temple imagery and the church, the body of Christ is important. I guess the question is whether what was represented physically and artistically in the OT should have a spiritual fulfilment in the NT church and whether it is right to represent that fulfilment through the visual arts or whether to look solely for the spiritual realities of which those OT antitypes so eloquently speak.

However, I do grant you that an overly legalistic suspicion concerning the visual arts can be as spiritually and intellectually deadening as an uncritical over emphasis on the same can be spiritually and intellectual confusing.

[ 04. December 2013, 15:37: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
While I agree with what you say in the above, the original context of Galatians 3:28 is exclusively soteriological and serves to affirm that all Christians are saved by the same person (namely Christ) in the same way. It says nothing specifically ontological about humanity.

I believe it does. Reconciliation is part and parcel of salvation, and therefore any conflict that exists between Jew and Gentile, male and female, rich and poor etc has been nailed to the cross, and the old false dichotomies of the world have been done away with. Note how we refer to the 'opposite' sex; we use a word that also denotes conflict and contradiction. The correct term consistent with the gospel should be the 'complementary' sex. In Christ there is no conflict between male and female, and the church should be bearing witness to this aspect of salvation. Salvation is an experience of this life, as well as the life to come, of course!

We know from the entire testimony of the New Testament that Christ is the only Saviour, and if that is all Paul is telling us then the wording of Galatians 3:28 is really quite superfluous.

Having said all this, I am pleased that we have managed to find some agreement on something after all our recent discussions on another subject!

Except that 'complementary' brings up complementariansim which is pretty repugnant to most women including myself.

In any case, it still enforces a gender binary which does not exist in real life - there are more than two genders.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
However, I do grant you that an overly legalistic suspicion concerning the visual arts can be as spiritually and intellectually deadening as an uncritical over emphasis on the same can be spiritually and intellectual confusing.

Nicely put, and a reasonable compromise for my money. I get the development of your thoughts up thread now, thanks.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
The funny thing is, I'm a stickler for traditional liturgy, even though I know it emerged from a patriarchal culture that oppressed non-western races and the poor. At least for those of us in the West, it has the richness of being ancient, an appreciation for beauty and sense of mystery and awe that has largely been lost in much of modernism. (See my comments on the inculturation thread in ecclesiantics for the whole issue of liturgy in non-Western cultures or in marginalized cultures within the West.) With women, though, you have a sex that in our culture and many others has been under a jack boot for thousands of years, and still is in many ways. Hearing God exclusively referred to as "He" and exclusively depicted in art as male simply cannot fail to communicate that maleness is closer to the divine than femaleness. Where female or gender-neutral pronouns for God (not just similes that say God is like a woman at times) and imagery (by this I mean a non-ancient image of God as a woman used in a worship space) have been used, it has either been on the liberal periphery of the mainstream (looked down upon by many even in the same denomination) or it has been against the rules (as it is for us Roman Catholics).

The female corpus on a crucifix used in worship is just a thought experiment. I think that mixing female and gender neutral pronouns for God and allowing female imagery of God to be used in worship (worship that is in full continuity with Liturgical Tradition, if I have anything to do with it) would go a long way to making the Kingdom more present in terms of healing the hurt suffered by womanhood in many cultures. I'm not a woman and I can feel this hurt every time I hear God called "He" and only "He" - every time I hear my progressive neighbor say "all God's Holy Church" in response to the Orate Fratres and I say "His" because that's what the rules say and I'm not going to pretend that the rules have changed but am instead going to suffer with them until I and others succeed in awakening the Church leadership to the reality that they need to be changed.

Jesus happened to have a body that resembled mine in terms of sexual characteristics, as far as I know. I don't really see why that matters, but I'm not really bothered by seeing a male body on a crucifix. But the dearth of references to and represenations of female divinity in Church worship is something that must be changed.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The funny thing is, I'm a stickler for traditional liturgy, even though I know it emerged from a patriarchal culture that oppressed non-western races and the poor. At least for those of us in the West, it has the richness of being ancient, an appreciation for beauty and sense of mystery and awe that has largely been lost in much of modernism. (See my comments on the inculturation thread in ecclesiantics for the whole issue of liturgy in non-Western cultures or in marginalized cultures within the West.) With women, though, you have a sex that in our culture and many others has been under a jack boot for thousands of years, and still is in many ways. Hearing God exclusively referred to as "He" and exclusively depicted in art as male simply cannot fail to communicate that maleness is closer to the divine than femaleness. Where female or gender-neutral pronouns for God (not just similes that say God is like a woman at times) and imagery (by this I mean a non-ancient image of God as a woman used in a worship space) have been used, it has either been on the liberal periphery of the mainstream (looked down upon by many even in the same denomination) or it has been against the rules (as it is for us Roman Catholics).

The female corpus on a crucifix used in worship is just a thought experiment. I think that mixing female and gender neutral pronouns for God and allowing female imagery of God to be used in worship (worship that is in full continuity with Liturgical Tradition, if I have anything to do with it) would go a long way to making the Kingdom more present in terms of healing the hurt suffered by womanhood in many cultures. I'm not a woman and I can feel this hurt every time I hear God called "He" and only "He" - every time I hear my progressive neighbor say "all God's Holy Church" in response to the Orate Fratres and I say "His" because that's what the rules say and I'm not going to pretend that the rules have changed but am instead going to suffer with them until I and others succeed in awakening the Church leadership to the reality that they need to be changed.

Jesus happened to have a body that resembled mine in terms of sexual characteristics, as far as I know. I don't really see why that matters, but I'm not really bothered by seeing a male body on a crucifix. But the dearth of references to and represenations of female divinity in Church worship is something that must be changed.

See, I am a woman and a feminist but feel massively uncomfortable with female pronouns (or even gender-neutral pronouns) being used to describe God, and with a female representation of God the Son. A female representation of the Holy Spirit as Holy Wisdom or Holy Silence (never heard of Holy Silence until this thread and I love it). I cross myself at the invocation of the Trinity. A couple of weekends ago I was at a church which used 'Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer' and it just felt wrong to cross myself there. I don't know exactly why I don't like it (perhaps because of the association with churches that veer into goddess-worshipping paganism, although I venerate the BVM and can't honestly say that's had zero pagan influence over the centuries) but I just...don't. Just feels uncomfortable.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The funny thing is, I'm a stickler for traditional liturgy, even though I know it emerged from a patriarchal culture that oppressed non-western races and the poor. At least for those of us in the West, it has the richness of being ancient, an appreciation for beauty and sense of mystery and awe that has largely been lost in much of modernism. (See my comments on the inculturation thread in ecclesiantics for the whole issue of liturgy in non-Western cultures or in marginalized cultures within the West.) With women, though, you have a sex that in our culture and many others has been under a jack boot for thousands of years, and still is in many ways. Hearing God exclusively referred to as "He" and exclusively depicted in art as male simply cannot fail to communicate that maleness is closer to the divine than femaleness. Where female or gender-neutral pronouns for God (not just similes that say God is like a woman at times) and imagery (by this I mean a non-ancient image of God as a woman used in a worship space) have been used, it has either been on the liberal periphery of the mainstream (looked down upon by many even in the same denomination) or it has been against the rules (as it is for us Roman Catholics).

The female corpus on a crucifix used in worship is just a thought experiment. I think that mixing female and gender neutral pronouns for God and allowing female imagery of God to be used in worship (worship that is in full continuity with Liturgical Tradition, if I have anything to do with it) would go a long way to making the Kingdom more present in terms of healing the hurt suffered by womanhood in many cultures. I'm not a woman and I can feel this hurt every time I hear God called "He" and only "He" - every time I hear my progressive neighbor say "all God's Holy Church" in response to the Orate Fratres and I say "His" because that's what the rules say and I'm not going to pretend that the rules have changed but am instead going to suffer with them until I and others succeed in awakening the Church leadership to the reality that they need to be changed.

Jesus happened to have a body that resembled mine in terms of sexual characteristics, as far as I know. I don't really see why that matters, but I'm not really bothered by seeing a male body on a crucifix. But the dearth of references to and represenations of female divinity in Church worship is something that must be changed.

See, I am a woman and a feminist but feel massively uncomfortable with female pronouns (or even gender-neutral pronouns) being used to describe God, and with a female representation of God the Son. A female representation of the Holy Spirit as Holy Wisdom or Holy Silence (never heard of Holy Silence until this thread and I love it). I cross myself at the invocation of the Trinity. A couple of weekends ago I was at a church which used 'Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer' and it just felt wrong to cross myself there. I don't know exactly why I don't like it (perhaps because of the association with churches that veer into goddess-worshipping paganism, although I venerate the BVM and can't honestly say that's had zero pagan influence over the centuries) but I just...don't. Just feels uncomfortable.
"Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" is not a valid Trintitarian formula, since all three Persons of the Trinity create, redeem, and sustain. The RC Church has ruled baptisms done with this or similar formulas invalid for this reason.

The first Person of the Trinity is called Father and I don't think there is any gender neutral alternative we can use - you can call the Godhead in general "Mother" but calling the first Person specifically Mother is a bit confusing, especially for Catholics who usually call the BVM Mother.

I'm big on pronouns though. There is nothing specifically male or female about God the Father or God the Holy Spirit, so there is no need to call either He, or to call the Godhead in general He. You can call God He, or She, or God (It seems too impersonal). I don't think hymns should be changed to be politically correct - but new compositions should use a variety of pronouns. As for Liturgical texts when they are not sung to a specific chant tone or setting that makes a particular pronoun work better - I don't see the harm in changing pronouns from time to time there.

It's also fine to not portray God the Father with a human figure at all, and to only use a Dove if anything to represent the Holy Spirit. Those Persons of the trinity are incorporeal, after all. That does just leave you with Jesus' male body as a represenatation of God, though, which I commented on earlier.

I'm not female, and frankly I don't think that a person needs to be female to see that there is a deliberate exaltation of the masculine and marginalization of the feminine in Abrahamic religious language and icnongraphy. Where the feminine is exalted, it is in a controlled, subservient role. The only exception I can think of is Holy Wisdom - which seems to me to be similar to the feminine language used for the Church as the "desired" one viewed through the male gaze.

Hearing gender neutral language, female language for God, and seeing female images of God in worship makes me uncomfortable, too. A year ago, it would have made me apoplectic. I seem to have reverted to my storm-the-bastions radicalism that I was raised in, though, at least when it comes to gender righteousness (note how I avoided saying equality or justice? [Smile] ).
 
Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :
 
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?
I once saw a painting of Jesus riding a bicycle in a Gay Pride parade. He was wearing a robe and the bicycle had rainbow ribbons entwined in the wheels. A very startling image and not one I liked or disliked... wish I could find the link to those pictures... give me a minute...
 
Posted by Xifer (# 17819) on :
 
I am currently carving a processional crucifix for a bishop as an artist in residence in a small western church. It means i get to address a block of mahogany with a bent chisel and bent gouge. There is a lot of time to think as you work on the corpus of the Christ.

If i put the block of mahogany on a stick and give it to them, they would say "That looks like a lot of planed mahogany. If i work on it and waste away some of the wood, they will say it looks like a puppet. But if i let all the memories of years and stories enter into its making as the chips fall, i invest it with the Christian mythos as i understand it and the stories that i grew up with and my experiences of how a human body curves and how my own body is put together. I can make it very representational as in Michelangelo or more schematic as in some of the medieval crucifixes. Cartoonists say that if you leave a little less detail it allows the people seeing it to lose themselves in their stories and their thoughts. And that is a reward for me to see them forgetting about the nice finish on the mahogany and losing themselves in their own religious reflection as i was lost in mine. My reason for using a male body is that it immediately transports them into their stories as they are. But i will drape my crucifix as i do not want to chance the distraction of gender issues from the unity of their experience. In another place and time i might be more graphic. Crucifixion is about sadness and harsh suffering and about thinking of good reasons to stop the continuance of tortures in the world.

That being said, there were many females in my stories that were the presence of the Christ to their world. My boss is such a one who is a choir director. There were female martyrs,religious teachers in Africa from the early missionaries who were crucified. I would guess that in some part they were the Christ to the people they taught. I hope that in some way i can be Christ for those around me

I think the idea of portraying Christ as a Hen trying to gather his chicks under him and them refusing would make a good subject for a painting or icon.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Hello Xifer and welcome to the Ship. That's a fine first post!

If you haven't already done so, please take a moment to check out our local Ten Commandments and board posting guidelines - we hope your enjoy your voyage with us. You can also say hi on the Welcome aboard 2013 thread on the All Saints board if you wish.

Eutychus
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's a fine first post!

Indeed. I found myself quite moved (or lost in my own stories) just hearing about the work, leave alone seeing it.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Responding to the OP:

Yes, I can see no inherent objection to depicting Christ as a female, but I would ask why anyone would wish to depict an historically known male person as female.

As for the multitude of current depictions of Christ and their attractiveness (or not) of the male figure - I think this is down to more artists preferring to paint attractive people than not, and that, by-and-large, the notion or accepted standard of attractiveness has remained fairly constant for a very long time.

I do have one other point about most extant portrayals of Christ :
quote:
posted by mdijon
Semi-nude I've no problem with.

I do have problems with semi-nude because people were crucified naked, not with some tsteful drapery or loin-cloth.

And there was a reason for them being naked: the whole point about crucifixion was that it should be as degrading and humiliating as possible so no victim would be allowed a covering for their genitals, it just wouldn't happen.

By insisting on covering Christ's genitals religious art has kept hidden the obvious truth - Christ has no foreskin because he was Jewish. It could be argued that this deliberate hiding of Christ's religious and ethnic identity was the first instance in the long, shameful history of Church anti-semitism.

Perhaps before we start worrying about odd desires to portray a female Christ we should first exert ourselves to the issue of showing a Jewish Christ?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Xifer: I think the idea of portraying Christ as a Hen trying to gather his chicks under him and them refusing would make a good subject for a painting or icon.
That's interesting! Has that ever been done?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Stanley Spencer for one appears to get close.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Responding to the OP:

Yes, I can see no inherent objection to depicting Christ as a female, but I would ask why anyone would wish to depict an historically known male person as female.

As for the multitude of current depictions of Christ and their attractiveness (or not) of the male figure - I think this is down to more artists preferring to paint attractive people than not, and that, by-and-large, the notion or accepted standard of attractiveness has remained fairly constant for a very long time.

I do have one other point about most extant portrayals of Christ :
quote:
posted by mdijon
Semi-nude I've no problem with.

I do have problems with semi-nude because people were crucified naked, not with some tsteful drapery or loin-cloth.

And there was a reason for them being naked: the whole point about crucifixion was that it should be as degrading and humiliating as possible so no victim would be allowed a covering for their genitals, it just wouldn't happen.

By insisting on covering Christ's genitals religious art has kept hidden the obvious truth - Christ has no foreskin because he was Jewish. It could be argued that this deliberate hiding of Christ's religious and ethnic identity was the first instance in the long, shameful history of Church anti-semitism.

Perhaps before we start worrying about odd desires to portray a female Christ we should first exert ourselves to the issue of showing a Jewish Christ?

Here in the US showing Him as circumcised would not identify him as Jewish, as most men in this country were circumcised for a very long time. If He were portrayed uncircumcised, it would make Him look more like a European (as opposed to an American), not like a gentile.
 
Posted by Xifer (# 17819) on :
 
Most excellent Eutychus, I thank you for the reference to the work of Stanley Spencer as it is a body of painting of which i was unaware, and will have to study it. He reminds me a bit of Singer Sargeant at first glance. The painting of Christ and the chicks is exquisite and worth close acquaintance.

L'Organiste, Marc Chagall did some wonderful paintings of life and love and sex and gender and Christ as a Jewish person like him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHA2oVnsfMs

I am an old man, and one thing that strikes me of the icons of John the Baptist and his oousin is how thin and young and vulnerable they look. It brings to mind the youths of both genders that we send off to learn murder and go to war in distant lands and to die before they have had families, which by Jewish law should not be. I grew up in a time when the feminine was saved for the last defense as a shield maiden when the parents had already been lost. A crucified women in the myth would speak of too great a loss of human potential, and i am glad it has not entered into the canon except perhaps as Judith.

Heironomous Bosch had a painting of a crucified female queen, http://www.flickr.com/photos/24364447@N05/7983859395/in/photostream/ and there are other medieval representations of crucifixions of females, clothed or not. I would suggest that the sight of them tends to transport the imaginations to rich reflections, however in a less controlled fashion than something that intends primarily to remind someone of a particular story such as the story of the Passion.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Great Chagall slideshow! It has some beautiful works I had never seen.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0