'It wasn't a suitable image for the outside of a church wanting to welcome worshippers. In fact, it was a real put-off.
'We're all about hope, encouragement and the joy of the Christian faith. We want to communicate good news, not bad news, so we need a more uplifting and inspiring symbol than execution on a cross.'"
My first reaction was something along the lines of 'but that's the point: that's what the cross is about'. But then it is also worth remembering that Christian symbolism, historically, was late in adopting the cross. It seems only to become fashionable after crucifixion was a regular feature of criminal 'justice'. This would have been, I guess, because of the reasons that the vicar in this case gave: it's a nasty and scary business. Remember the Ichthus symbol was one of the earliest Christian symbols. Remember too that most crosses are symbolic and tidied up compared with crucifixion.
Here's a picture (linked back to the BBC) of the 'offending' sculpture.
I guess it is a bit scary and if you are in a culture which, unlike the medieval, doesn't any longer 'get' the basic image and story, then it may not be the best place to start. Recall that Paul was mistaken once for proclaiming two Gods; Christ and Anastasia (Resurrection), maybe our iconography needs to be more liable to that mistaking than the horror movie version?
So while the Torygraph's commentator may have a point, he doesn't think it through far enough, methinks.
6 comments:
I wish someone would invent an empty tomb symbol so that we could celebrate the resurrection more obviously.
Rachel at Re vis.e re form
Yet it seems that the film of "The passion of Christ" was a box office success, and from what I heard, it spared nothing of the gory details (I didn't see it myself).
So that doesn't seem to have put people off.
I agree with you, Rachel, about the resurrection iconography. Best I've seen is two circles one (a light colour) partially obscuring a darker one.
Steve, I agree though we probably should recall that the figures showed the audiences were very highly made up of the already-faithful and there were repoerts that in non-Christian cultures they really did not get it. See http://nouslife.blogspot.com/2004/05/passion-of-christ-buddhist-audience.html
Andii,
Not having seen the film, I casn't comment on Jewish reactions. And some years ago there was a South African artist, Harold Rubin, charged with blasphemy for a picture titled "My Jesus", which was very much a "suffering servant" one. He was acquitted, after the Anglican monk who opened his exhibition gave evidence, but the fact that he was charged shows that some people don't like such images.
@ Betty. I deleted your comment because it looked more like a way to advertise a financial product. If this was not the case I apologise but suggest that you don't include commercial links in future as my policy is to delete them unless they have some relevance and the comment is a helpful addition to the conversation.
Post a Comment