Friday, May 21, 2010

Is It Unethical To Have Pictures Of Jesus? (Part 1)

This is part one of a ten-part series in which I shall argue for the position that, in our present position in redemptive history, we ought not to make, have, or endorse any picture or image of Jesus Christ (I will refer to this position as “The abrogation of images of Jesus" position). When I qualify this position with “in our present position in redemptive history” I am not suggesting that it was morally permissible to make, have, or endorse pictures of Jesus during his earthly ministry. Rather I make this precise qualification in order to reject the notion that it was wrong for those who had first hand experience of Jesus to form mental images of him.

I will begin by giving five arguments in favor of the position, followed by 5 arguments against my position with some possible responses. Only on the last post will I provide full bibliographical details. Here is the first argument in favor of thinking that it is unethical to have pictures of Jesus:



Argument 1: Ethical dilemma of Pictures of Jesus


The first argument for thinking that the abrogation of images of Jesus position is true is the immoral ethical dilemma that the person is put in when he encounters an image of Jesus. If someone were trying to create an image of Jesus with the intention of making it an accurate depiction of what Jesus actually looked like then when a person is confronted with that picture he has two options: 1) he can either bow down, and worship it, or 2) he can treat it as any other image that lacks religious significance . 1 is clearly unacceptable because it is a violation of the second commandment (Exo. 20:5) . However, 2 is also unacceptable because it treats the image, which is intended to accurately portray Jesus, as a common object. It is wrong to treat a representation with the intention of accuracy of the person of Christ as common because the person of Christ was not common, but rather he was the unique human expression and revelation of God (John 1:14, 18; Col. 2:9). We would treat the propositions conveyed by God as having more unique value than those propositions that are merely conveyed by man, if this is true of propositions it would also be true with respect to visual imagery and expressions. Hence, we ought not to have pictures of Jesus because we are forced to treat the unique revelation of God through human flesh as any other common picture.

14 comments:

  1. Two questions:

    first, why think they second commandment refers to the second person of the Trinity? It is at least plausible that the reason graven images of God are forbidden is because the first and third persons of the Trinity are Spirit and have no body. In which case, the second commandment would not necessarily apply to the Christ.

    Second, why are the two options -- worship or no religious significance the only two options? Can't something (even items) have religious significance and not be worshiped?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello Michael,

    Good questions by the way.

    I would take the second commandment to be referring to the divine (which would include all the divine persons) and not to any specific persons of the trinity. I would say that the reason why graven images are forbidden is because it is a worship of the creature rather than the creator (Rom. 1:20-25).

    Your second question implicitly makes a strong point. This is what I was thinking would be a legitimate way out of this argument. I am not totally sold on no images of Jesus, but I am flirting with it. But here is how someone might respond: Do the scriptures teach that images of Jesus are to have religious significance? In other words, if one thinks that sola scriptura is true then scripture and scripture alone is to tell us what things are religiously significant (1 Cor. 4:6) and since the scriptures do not teach that we are to have images of Jesus as a matter of faith and practice then we ought to not have them. This response seems right to me, but the worry I have is that it seems to be a different argument altogether. So it seems that this argument is insufficient by itself. Again, good question.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let me try to strengthen Michael's false dilemma objection. Suppose you think that it is appropriate to show respect by certain ceremonial gestures (e.g., bowing) in the presence of an English monarch. So, if Queen Elizabeth walked into the room you would bow, and you would do so because you believe you ought to. (Ignore, for the moment, the question of what kind of 'ought' that is.)

    This combination of belief and practice does not, by itself or in combination with any plausible moral principles I can think of, commit you to the claim that you should bow before pictures of English monarchs. Why should this follow in the case of Christ?

    By the way, I hope that in this series you will deal with the classic arguments of John of Damascus and others to the effect that iconoclasm involves an implicit commitment to docetism. According to this view, God is not to be depicted insofar as God is immaterial and so cannot be accurately depicted; however, if the Second Person truly became flesh, then the Second Person has an appearance that can be accurately depicted. (It seems that your next post is at least indirectly relevant to this, but I haven't read it yet.)

    I've discussed the question of what the proper Protestant attitude to icons should be a few times myself, and my own reasoning has been similarly inconclusive.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is Aaron again.

    I'm glad Kenny mentioned the Damascene because I was going to bring him up also. Like Kenny as an Evangelical I sort of affirm the seventh council because I don't see any way out of affirming certain heresies without it. Though I don't think it requires we become iconodoules just simply affirm the theology behind the decision.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kenny,

    I do not think that really strengthens his argument by the queen of England thought experiment because Jesus is divine revelation visually whereas the Queen of England is not (John 1:14, 18; 14:9).

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  6. Aaron again.
    I thought about it a little more and I think this is a good way to describe an Evangelical's minimalist affirmation of the 7th council without just saying "We're not Nestorian etc".

    Lets say somebody brought you an actual photograph of Christ. Could you answer that this is a picture of God? I think that's the real issue. I know this isn't exactly related to the thread going on right here but I think its an important part of this discussion. Obviously the 7th council goes much farther than that but we don't follow canon law etc. Really just the Christological principles generated by them. So I think thats part of the issue. And we wouldn't have to be iconodoules to affirm that. We could actually follow I think all Nate's arguments so far and even be Iconoclasts and still affirm the seventh in that way. Sorry for a bit of a detour.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Aaron,

    I Answer all the pictures of Jesus and mental images of Jesus in the objection section which will be in a week. So we can hold off on this until I post the objections section.

    Thank you for your understanding!

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  8. Aaron again

    Okay cool. Just don't turn into a Nestorian before then!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nate--

    Do you think that there is a kind of religiously significant honor that can be given to a person without worshipping him or her?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey MG,

    Yes, I think so. What do you mean by honor?

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nathanael- Obviously there are many many important points of disanalogy between Christ and the Queen of England. Which point of disanalogy do you think is relevant here? My point was that from the fact that it is appropriate to give a certain type of honor to a person, it does not follow that it is appropriate to give the same type of honor to a picture of that person. I don't see why the analogy shouldn't hold on this point.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nate--

    To honor someone is to treat them as having a kind of derivative worth or value relative to God. They aren't valuable underivatively like God, because they get their value from God. Yet because they have real worth (both as a result of necessary qualities as humans and personal achievement) they can be praised for their qualities. In a religious context, this could involve an acknowledgment of the existence of God's blessing of Christian virtues in a person.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Kenny,

    I think that the point of relevance here is that Jesus reveals the invisible God whereas the queen of England does not. However, one wonders if this really defeats your strong point altogether.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  14. MG,

    I understand your point but one wonders if Protestants hold to SS if they would be okay with saying that praising human beings would be appropriate in worship. It seems that thanking God for human beings is appropriate to me but anything more than that the Protestant may need to see some scriptural warrant for such a claim.

    But I do think this argument is a terrible one after further reflection.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete