A small article from an April 2009 "Church Around the World" pamphlet/newsletter:
"A large sculpture of Christ on the cross was removed from outside a church in West Sussex, England, after its vicar said it was 'scaring young children.' The Reverend Ewen Souter said the 10-foot crucifix, which was designed in the 1960s and made out of coal dust and resin, was 'a horrifying depiction of pain and suffering.' The sculpture, previously located on the side of St. John's Church in Broadbridge, has now been given to Horsham Museum. It will be replaced with a new stainless steel cross. In a survey carried out by the church, every comment about the sculpture was negative."
...Wow. Just...wow.
Really?
Really, now.
You took it down because it was scaring children and was a "horrifying depiction of pain and suffering?" That's funny, because I always thought the pain and suffering was, oh, I don't know, part of the point. And after keeping it up there for almost fifty years, no less. (cue a big fat sigh)
I realize that religious iconography is a tricky thing, because any symbol has potential to become just an image, and override its own meaning through that. I think it's sort of neat sometimes that some religions put strict limits on their iconography--Muslims, for example, forbidding visual depiction of Mohammad to avoid idolatry. Because a lot of times it seems like the cross, like here in this example, can become just a picture, just a symbol that stands for something generic, like a company logo, rather than a reminder of one of history's most brutal execution methods and the most recognized person who suffered under it, for a supernatural, selfless, and sacred purpose. The crucifixion was not a happy affair. There was screaming and death and blood and mutilation and all sorts of unpleasant things going on with pressure in wrist tendons because there's a railroad spike going through your wrist. My own wrists ache just typing it.
Stainless steel? If you're using that as a metaphor for the purity that comes with the aftermath of the crucifixion, then fine, but somehow I get that's not what the intent was here. Jesus' kindness and gentleness is well-documented, yes, but it seems like more and more places of worship are focusing just on that, just on the Bible's warm fuzzy moments and watering down moments like Christ's death because it's "too violent" or "frightening to kids." The Bible is not a warm, fuzzy bedtime story full of giggles and snuggles. Oh, of course there are happy moments, and peace, and hope and grace and all the wonderful things of that nature regularly celebrated about it, but when those are overemphasized, overall scope is lost and there's no longer anything to contrast those happy moments against (not that happy moments need contrast to exist--but it helps for comparison purposes). That's where we get what I call "White Jesus." You've all seen pictures of him--sitting there like a Renaissance portrait, sometimes holding a little lambkin, usually for some reason looking up and off to the left and very aloof, white as cottage cheese despite his Mediterranian origins (not that is race is actually that important to his identity, but I'm riding the stereotype train all the way to Example Station, so choo choo). This is the same guy who, when mounted up on a cross, only looks vaguely uncomfortable, if even that. A lot of this stems from the Rennaisance, since I mention it, and times where it would have been thought of as somehow sacriligious to portray Christ as anything but this stoic statue of a guy, to recognize his holiness. That's great and all, but to also ignore his humanity--the fact that he was fully capable of experiencing pain and suffering and did--detracts a lot from his overall significance within Christan doctrine.
So, St. John's Church of Broadbridge, I hope you're happy with your shiny metal logo-cross. Passerby will look up at it and go, "wow, that sure is a church." Perish forbid they discomfort people or stir up any trouble, goodness no.
Holden Out, and making a weird dissatisfied face
PS: Regarding categories...what even should constitute the difference between a piece labeled "Editorial" and an "Overreacting" piece? Should I just lump them together into one category?
1 comment:
Lots of stuff goin' on here. First, a grammatical note. I don't know which school of thought you were raised in, so this in no way says that you are wrong, but as someone who gets to be nitpicky with others, I will jokingly be nitpicky with you. When referring to Jesus, as you would when referring to God-the-Father (Them being the same and all), it is generally considered respectful to capitalize Him, His, etc. "...despite His Mediterranean origins..." and the like.
You know what bothers me even more than the shiny happy depictions? LED Reader boards. It makes churches look like supermalls. It's appears grossly consumer-oriented. Come to our church because we are shiny!
I mean, seriously.
Post a Comment