Sacrilege and Blasphemy

[AndyE]

So, look, I’m not all that interested in defending my position here. But, I actually do have explicit scriptural prohibition.

Deuteronomy 5:8 (ESV) You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Is God in heaven above?

The context is the 10 commandments. And yes, the danger is that you would worship that image rather than the one true and living (v 9). But, the command is not just, don’t bow down to the image, it is don’t create the image at all.

Andy, I’m not asking you to defend your position. I just want the biblical principles people use to arrive at their conclusions. In the case of Deut 5:8, it forbids an image or likeness of ANYTHING. To be consistent, do you take pictures of anything? Your wife, children, your pets, scenery, etc.? What pictures do you keep on your phone or computer? Aren’t these images in violation of Deut 5:8 according to your interpretation?

Edit: nevermind

Dave is right. The first 2 commandments are prohibiting false worship and/or idolatry. They aren’t prohibitions of visual art in general.

If that is the case, then we must next ask the question: Can someone visually depict God (i.e. the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit) without inducing false worship and/or idolatry?

[AndyE]

If the representation of Christ is disrespectful or mocking, de-glorifying, or in some other way shows Christ or God at odds with revealed scripture, all that is wrong. I use “de-glorifying” in the sense above as taking something sacred and turning it into something common, or novel, or cute, or anything the lowers the dignity and majesty of God. We could probably explore this last idea more to some profit. I would not expect the other two ideas to be controversial, but what do I know.

The Bible says that God is invisible spirit. Does that mean any visible representation of God the Father is at odds with revealed Scripture and wrong and “de-glorifying”?

If all sculpture is prohibited, then we’ve got an interesting issue with the pomegranates, bulls, angels, and the like depicted in the Tabernacle and Temple, no? Regarding depictions of the Spirit (ruach, “wind”) of God and the Father, that would run into the reality that apart from Christ, we have no real idea from Scripture whether they can be visually represented. And with Christ, we’ve got Isaiah 53; either you’re faithful to that, and people suggest you’re blaspheming Him by making Him ugly, or you’re unfaithful to that, and people point out Isaiah 53. The artist cannot win there.

And then if you take some of the miracles, you’ve got a situation (e.g. Acts 2) where one would be tempted to make a rather cartoonish rendition along the lines of “God’s Gym” t-shirts. Avoid that, and you’re going to make things so subtle that people don’t get the point.

I’m a fan of some Christian art—the Dutch Masters often did a nice job, I appreciate a fair amount of medieval art, and then Marc Chagall’s stained glass at St. Stephens’ in Mainz is exquisite—but if one tells me it’s hard to do good Christian art, I won’t argue that point.

[dcbii] I’ve always wondered about whether we should understand that commandment in the absolute sense, given that even in the making of the tabernacle and the priestly garments, some images/likenesses were used, at a minimum cherubim, pomegranates, and almond blossoms. (The bronze serpent would be another case.) It has always seemed to me that it meant we don’t make or use images that we worship in any sense, even as a representation of the true God (just as you said the danger was), but that the making of images couldn’t be completely forbidden, given that God commanded them to make some. Either those were exceptions, or an absolute prohibition on making any images is not the right meaning of that commandment.

[T Howard]

The Bible says that God is invisible spirit. Does that mean any visible representation of God the Father is at odds with revealed Scripture and wrong and “de-glorifying”?

[AndyE]

T Howard wrote:

The Bible says that God is invisible spirit. Does that mean any visible representation of God the Father is at odds with revealed Scripture and wrong and “de-glorifying”?

Yes, absolutely, outside of Christ. Can you provide a counterexample?

Maybe not entirely related to God the Father, but the church during the Apostle’s time, used the Dove to represent the Holy Spirit. The two Greek letters, X and P interlaced to signify Christ, a fish to signify Jesus Christ, and a Shepherd to signify Christ. These are all images that represent a part of the Godhead, which were inscribed on the catacombs dating before 60AD. There is little if any, in the way of the actual God the Father, that I am aware of. The closest is the visual representation of God seated on His Throne in Isaiah 6. While it gives no physical representation of actually God the Father, the visual imagery is so robust that it is difficult to read the passage without visualizing something in your mind, as the imagery is clearly in place to generate an imagery in someone’s mind.

[dgszweda] Maybe not entirely related to God the Father, but the church during the Apostle’s time, used the Dove to represent the Holy Spirit. The two Greek letters, X and P interlaced to signify Christ, a fish to signify Jesus Christ, and a Shepherd to signify Christ. These are all images that represent a part of the Godhead, which were inscribed on the catacombs dating before 60AD. There is little if any, in the way of the actual God the Father, that I am aware of. The closest is the visual representation of God seated on His Throne in Isaiah 6. While it gives no physical representation of actually God the Father, the visual imagery is so robust that it is difficult to read the passage without visualizing something in your mind, as the imagery is clearly in place to generate an imagery in someone’s mind.

Those are interesting examples. I would say that letters and symbols are not really the same thing as an image. We are allowed to use words to refer to members of the godhead. A fish is not really intended to be a visual representation of Christ. You wouldn’t look at the fish and say, that’s Jesus. A shepherd? Maybe. And the dove example is also interesting. I’m not sure what to make of that. We could explore in more detail what exactly counts as an image. I haven’t thought through everything.

Regarding Isaiah 6, getting a vision of God via revelation is exactly how God wants to be revealed to us.

[Bert Perry]

Yes, saying “a music form born of irreverence….” does amount to a guilt by association fallacy—you can look it up—and yes, regrettably, fundamentalists in general and the FBFI in particular seem to love them.

A guilt by association fallacy would be something like the argument I once heard about listening to music performed by Mantovani’s orchestra. Allegedly he had an alternate lifestyle, therefore, his music should be avoided. That is guilt by association.

On the other hand, when rock-music (anachronistic term) was developing, its leading composers claimed the music was about rage, rebellion, and sex. They said that’s what it communicates. You can argue with that if you like, but if they are correct, opposition to using contemporary forms of music isn’t merely guilt by association.

So try again.

[Don Johnson]

On the other hand, when rock-music (anachronistic term) was developing, its leading composers claimed the music was about rage, rebellion, and sex. They said that’s what it communicates. You can argue with that if you like, but if they are correct, opposition to using contemporary forms of music isn’t merely guilt by association.

Why would he be correct? That’s an odd notion. Why should one pay him anymore attention than if Isaac Asimov said that science fiction is all about “a return to paganism,” or some such?
At best all it tells us is how he understood his music.

Cynically speaking, if I wanted to market my music to a bunch of young people I can’t think of a better way to get their attention.

[AndyE]

T Howard wrote:

The Bible says that God is invisible spirit. Does that mean any visible representation of God the Father is at odds with revealed Scripture and wrong and “de-glorifying”?

Yes, absolutely, outside of Christ. Can you provide a counterexample?

Andy, Scripture is full of anthropomorphic descriptions of God even though “God is not a man…” In other words, Scripture describes God using human terms in order for us to better understand him. The God-man Jesus is the epitome of this. Obviously, we can never fully understand God. But, we can truly understand God because of how God has chosen to represent himself in the Scriptures.

By depicting God using anthropomorphic visualization (e.g. Michelangelo’s creation of adam), is not the artist helping us to better glorify God and his creative work?

[T Howard] Andy, Scripture is full of anthropomorphic descriptions of God even though “God is not a man…” In other words, Scripture describes God using human terms in order for us to better understand him. The God-man Jesus is the epitome of this. Obviously, we can never fully understand God. But, we can truly understand God because of how God has chosen to represent himself in the Scriptures.

By depicting God using anthropomorphic visualization (e.g. Michelangelo’s creation of adam), is not the artist helping us to better glorify God and his creative work?

[AndyE] I feel like we are getting hung up on this one point, one that I’ve already conceded is a minority view. I probably should not have mentioned it at all. My only reason for bringing it up was to point out that some people, probably not many, don’t think we should go down this road at all in regard to artistic visualizations of God or Christ. If you really want to get me, you could say that I’m very inconsistent, because I have taken pictures of my girls at their performances in the BJU War Memorial Chapel, and the big painting of the ascension of Christ is right there in the background.

Fair enough. What biblical principles (not your minority view or opinion), then, should we employ to determine whether a particular piece of art depicts God (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit) in an appropriate way, given the reality that we can never fully / accurately visually describe God?

By the way, it’s not just visual representation that falls short. We can never fully / accurately describe God in words either. The Christian hymns that many of us cherish, love, and sing also face this same dilemma. God is indescribable; yet, we attempt to describe him every Sunday AM in our songs, hymns, and spiritual songs.

Here are principles you’ve laid out above:

[AndyE] If the representation of Christ is disrespectful or mocking, de-glorifying, or in some other way shows Christ or God at odds with revealed scripture, all that is wrong. I use “de-glorifying” in the sense above as taking something sacred and turning it into something common, or novel, or cute, or anything the lowers the dignity and majesty of God. We could probably explore this last idea more to some profit. I would not expect the other two ideas to be controversial, but what do I know.

We’ve already conceded that we can never describe God as he truly is. Therefore, we are left with how to best describe God visually given our finite understanding of God.

Can someone clearly and explicitly tell me and I am sure other readers, what happened or was shown at this fashion show at BJU that is being called blasphemous or sacrilegious? I have no idea. All the veiled references mean nothing to me. This whole thread seems pointless unless you clearly state what happened.