Trying to Be Funny In Misunderstanding the Trinity

This picture, on the surface, may get some chuckles out of even the strictest Christians, simply for the fact at how ridiculous it is. Now, I say that in a pretty cynical fashion, as it is clearly made by someone who: 1) misunderstands the Trinity, and 2) desires to mock Christianity.

This picture essentially demonstrates a misunderstanding of how the Persons of the Trinity interact, and how exactly the Trinity exists, especially while Jesus was here on earth. Of course, the false premise of this picture, or as it's referred to on the internet, "meme," is that there is actually no distinction between the Persons of the Trinity, and therefore, communication is contradictory and utterly nonsensical. Of course, the Trinity is a great mystery and boggles the human mind tremendously as to how exactly God, maintains His unity while existing as three distinct Persons. Though, the maker of this meme has clearly not thought through nor really cared to understand the Christian perspective or understanding of the Triune God. Of course, while Christ and the Father share in the same substance, they are distinct Persons and therefore, communication between the Persons is not contradictory nor nonsensical.

The redemption of this image may only come about through thoughtful engagement on the issue of the Trinity. A proper understanding and demonstration of the Trinity, as described in the Athanasian Creed, would have to be defended and thoroughly explained, in order that the misconception and false representation of the confounding of the Person may be dealt with. Jesus, while being God, is not the Father, and therefore, His praying to the Father is not contradictory nor nonsensical, it is representative of Their eternal, intimate, and communal relationship.

Isa: When the Records of Jesus' Followers Just Won't Cut It

If you were to take a look at the picture on the right, you will notice that the man looks awfully familiar. You will also notice that there is Arabic writing as well as a turban on his head. Oddly enough, if you thought that picture resembled many images made of Jesus, you're actually not far off. This painting is the Muslim depiction of Jesus, or as they would call Him, Isa. One interesting trait that I noticed abotu this picture is how light Jesus' skin looks, He's pretty much white, which causes some concern. Islam originated in the Middle East, very close to where Jesus was born and lived. It is shocking that a faith which was literally birthed and propagated from the same region as Jesus would depict Him in such a way. But, I must digress.

It is also noticeable to see how the Muslims have put their Islamic twist on how Jesus would have looked and dressed. He is wearing a a turban and is standing in front of what looks to be a mosque. Written in the top right corner, is the name of Allah in Arabic.

Now, it is interesting because Jesus is revered in Islam as a mighty prophet, who is spoken of multiple times and in very powerful ways throughout the Qur'an. Many miracles are attested to Jesus in the Qur'an, and most Muslims would interpret the Qur'an as saying that Jesus never died. He is a great prophet, and delivered the words of Allah to his people. One major difference between Islam and Christianity is that Jesus did not die, especially not on the cross.

When it comes to redeeming Jesus, and more specifically the "image" or idea of Jesus in the minds of Muslims, we certainly have a solid basis to work from. They have the concept of Jesus in their minds, however false and misrepresented He may be. We should seek to understand how Jesus is depicted in the Qur'an and in Muslim thought, and work from there.

One interesting concept, which gives Christians the upper hand in our presentation of Christ, is that we have a representative for our sins, who has given Himself for our sins and has guaranteed salvation for us. In the Muslim view, they do not have a mediator, and therefore they live in a perpetual state of uncertainty about whether they have done enough righteousness to tip the scales and be saved, and even then, they do not have full assurance. It is with this thinking that we should strive at understanding their perception of Jesus, and work from there to present the Christian view of Jesus.

While not spoken of, but certainly one of the greatest stumbling blocks to Muslims is the idea of the Trinity, and how Jesus can be God. This is certainly a tremendous barrier that we will have to overcome, but I just wanted to make it clear that I understand this, and will only be mentioning it in passing.

Baby Jesus: It's Time to Grow Up!

As we are currently in the season of Advent, looking forward to the celebration of the Saviour's birth, it is only fitting to examine the imagery of the season--a baby Jesus. It is on December 25 that the Western world has decided to set a day aside in rememberance of the Messiah, the Son of God, who took on flesh and humbled Himself to being born of a woman, in a manger, totally dependent on human parents. This imagery comes to us as a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is very positive, and on the other hand, it is very negative. Let me elaborate.

Baby Jesus: The Positive

You see, the imagery of baby Jesus brings to mind many positive ideas. The most prominent aspect of this is that it reminds us that the eternal Son of God, the Logos, took on human flesh and humbled Himself to being born as a baby. It reminds us that Jesus, as miraculous and divine as He is, was also at one time a baby; a creature totally dependent on His parents for sustenance and survival. This is good news indeed, for it reminds us that Christ indwelt human flesh and lived through the human experience. His becoming fully man and experiencing our humanity is vital to Him relating to us, thus qualifying Him as the perfect High Priest that we need (see my Major Paper!).

Baby Jesus: The Negative

Of course, there can be extremes adopted in the minds of people when it comes to viewing Jesus as a baby. First of all, it can instill in the minds of people this idea of a weak and frail Jesus. A Jesus who is merely human, and therefore only a "good man." Of course, it must be said that this reasoning is dependent on a lot more than simply the image of baby Jesus, but it certainly does not help to be reminded constantly (and almost singularly) that Jesus was a baby.

The images of Jesus, especially in Roman Catholicism (as is the one used for this blog) almost unanimously depict Jesus in two situations: 1) As a baby in His birth, or 2) as a suffering man in His death (crucifixion). It is for this reason that many Roman Catholics with whom I have interacted often have a very anemic view of Christ. They are so used to seeing Him in these two depictions, that He is either a helpless baby, or a helpless victim. Of course, a proper reading of Scripture will clarify this much more.

Redemption!

We must not retaliate to these negative perceptions by going to the other extreme and discounting the birth, humbling, and humanity of Christ. The birth of Christ is the moment (if we are going to include His conception) where the incarnation is realized. The fullness of redemption shone through when God the Son had finally taken on flesh. The glory of Almighty God, here, in flesh, "tabernacling" with fallen humanity. What a glorious thought... What a glorious moment! When Christ was born, He was also destined to die. That was it, no turning back! Redemption was going to run its full course and He was going to save His people!

It is for this reason that we must glory in the birth of our Saviour. Though, we must remind both ourselves and those around us that Christ is the eternal God, who existed in eternity past as Almighty God, and who exists now as the God-man in full glory and reign. He is no longer a baby, helpless and dependent on His earthly parents, but He has been given the highest place, seated at the right hand of God, where all authority and power has been given to Him! Let us redeem any view of a weak and frail Christ, and let us marvel at the wonder of God contained within the frame of a baby boy. What wonder, what magnificence!

A Statue of Jesus That Will Make You Laugh

This statue of Jesus has made its rounds on the internet in the last while, and I've seen some pretty funny jokes attached to it. This concept of attaching a sort-of "one-liner" to an image has become an internet phenomenon known as meming (the image is called a meme). There have been some funny pictures saying things like, "Need an ark? I Noah guy." When you attach a joke like that to a statue that looks like this, you can't help but laugh. I find this image very amusing, and it seems to lighten up the attitude we often have of Christ.

This statue gives us the perception of Jesus being laid back and easy going. It also shows us a possibility of Jesus having a sense of humor, which is actually healthy. Being someone who values good humor, I do appreciate the emotion evoked from this statue. While it could lead to a certain sense of irreverence, I do believe that when one has a balanced view of Christ, this is a great way to laugh.

Since these images have circulated the internet quite thoroughly, and I'm sure many people have been introduced to them in some way or another, it's a great conversation starter. Especially given the light-hearted nature of the image, it would be really easy to even begin a conversation based on a joke that someone has attached to the image. While this statue was perhaps made, and even adapted by the internet, with a sense of mockery, we can easily take it and use it to our benefit. After all, if we are made in God's image, and Jesus became man, would not humor be a valid and shared experience of us all?

Did You Know Jesus Was... American AND Republican?

American's have a long history of idolizing their nation, and as it turns out, they are even willing to go as far as making Jesus into their own image. Americans are a funny breed of people (of course, I am speaking in terms of a "sweeping statement"). They claim that their foundations are built upon the Bible, and therefore, everything American must be Christocentric... right? Well, as it turns out, a lot of what America prides itself on is actually the opposite of what Christ envisioned. A capitalist economy which prides itself on making the rich richer at the expense of the poor; a strange hunger for war; always going bigger, better, faster--leading to most Americans actually being obese; and of course, the abuse of freedoms which are actually leading to the degradation of human development. Now, of course, most conservatives do not side with things like same-sex marriage or abortion, but nonetheless, they are part of what is become the moral fabric of America.

Republicans, arguably more so than any other political party, pride themselves on their Republican economic structure. While Jesus Himself did not establish an economic system, I do believe that some principles were made quite clear. Things like: clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the jailed, take care of the widows and orphans, and so on. Now I understand that these things are ultimately the Church's mandate, and not the responsibility of the government (especially with all the corruption that has involved our tax dollars), but if a nation claims to be Christian, should not everything then flow from a Christian worldview? This leaves us with two options. 1) America's claim at being a "Christian" nation is actually a desperate attempt at justifying their actions, or 2) America is not actually a Christian nation. There is nothing wrong with the latter, just be honest with us. If you want to have an economic system that allows for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer, then fine. It is not the nation's mandate to follow biblical principles, especially when the church has done such a poor job at doing it herself. Here in a Socialist nation (Canada), we depend on the government to take our tax dollars and do those things for us, which those with a Capitalist mindset would call "theft." I do agree to a certain extent, but if you are allowed to keep your tax dollars (especially as a wealthy individual), as a Christian, you should fulfill your biblical mandate.

When it comes to war, I do respect America for fighting for human rights and freedoms worldwide. This a position they have been thrust into by the UN, but nonetheless, they are responsible for their actions. With that being said, there is an unhealthy pride that comes with their military endeavors, to the point of glorifying war. This, I believe, is not healthy. Again, if you choose this, just admit you are not a Christian nation, and all is well.

Finally, obesity. While this is a touchy subject, I will just address the issue of gluttony. America is known as gluttony-central. While I will admit that most people are obese due to poor eating habits (and really poor food quality), that does not negate the amount of food Americans have. Again, the gluttonous nature of America is actually condemned in the Bible, especially in light of not taking care of the poor. This argument is very basic, and would require a much more thorough fleshing out, but I will leave it at that.

The point is, Jesus is not American, and quite frankly, I do not believe that He agrees with much of America's values. I find it rather insulting, to be quite honest, to attach Jesus to a nation, especially one that is known for the things listed above. I do not believe that Jesus would identify proudly as an American, and I don't think He would identify as a Republican either.

When Ignorance Leads to Blasphemy

Recently, the Christian community has become the focal point of ridicule at the hands, or rather, the camera of a very presumptuous and outspoken vlogger named Joshua Feuerstein. Joshua, who is a Oneness Pentecostal, has become an internet sensation with his loud-mouthed, obnoxious and highly uninformed videos which have circulated over social media over the past few years. He has been the source of much ridicule and much annoyance on the part of Christians and unbelievers alike.

Recently, he has raised one of his most ridiculous controversies to date. He made a video ranting about how Starbucks has declared a war on Christmas by removing any graphics from their Christmas cups and left them only a plain red color. Honestly, you can't make this stuff up. He was invited onto CNN, and utterly embarrassed. Christians have been in an uproar, combating the nonsensical musings of Feuerstein and those who agree with him. All this, because he decided to make a video ranting about Starbucks' choice to make their Christmas cups plain red. Yes, this is the sad state of what we have become. We are bored, pitiful, and just downright stupid.

This is not what I want to focus on though. A comic artist, who also has a respectable following on social media, who goes by the name The Oatmeal, has come up with a graphical response to Feuerstein and the other anti-sensible Christians who have taken his side. In a very satirical manner, he has come up with a response to appease these "Christian bigots." His response? Photoshopping the Starbucks mermaid (or siren?) to be crucified on a cross with a look of horror on her face. This is a clear mockery of Christ, which is not surprising given that he is an avowed atheist who uses his platform to mock Christianity in toto. His response is offensive, graphical, and downright blasphemous, though I did not expect much else from his depravity. Feuerstein and his followers have set themselves up for ridicule, and those who are just waiting to jump on every opportunity have taken it.

Of course, redemption begins with opposing Feuerstein and actually being rational and sensible on dealing with this matter. First of all, the Church is the one who is supposed to "keep Christ in Christmas" and to promote the Gospel, not some secular (and very secular, might I add) corporation. Secondly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Starbucks' choice of using a red cup, as red is one of the many colors of Christmas. Thirdly, Starbucks never had anything Christ-related on their products, so how on earth can removing reindeer and snowflakes from their cup design be the means for them "declaring war on Christ and Christmas." Honestly, it hurts to even have to argue these points. There is, in all honesty, no redeeming the graphic and blasphemous response from The Oatmeal, since it is just that. Though I must say, I am not called to judge those outside the church, but those inside. If Feuerstein is going to be speaking on behalf of Christians on the internet, I must judge him and oppose him. I personally do not consider him a brother in Christ (being a modalist, I side with the Athanasian Creed in denouncing those who deny the Trinity), but the world is viewing him as such, and so we must correct this false perception. He is a wack-job who feeds on sensationalism, who is untrained, illogical, and naive. He does not represent Christ, nor His Church, and therefore needs to be denounced. We will only achieve rightful dialogue when we first gain the respect of the world around us, and we do this by being respectful, logical and knowledgeable.

Dr. Carson's Jesus Among a Shrine to Himself?

Recently, some interest has been generated on the internet surrounding a shrine in the home of Republican candidate Dr. Ben Carson. Not only is there a shrine in his home demonstrating many of his portraits, awards, achievements, and life events, but there is one significant portrait which caught the attention of many, especially those from the evangelical camp.

This portrait of Dr. Ben Carson includes a figure who is meant to portray Jesus, with a hand on Carson's shoulder and the other hand reaching out. Jesus is a middle-aged white male, with a short beard and long hair. The Jesus of Carson's portrait resembles the many misinterpretations and caricatures that have been made of Him over history.

Carson, being a Seventh-Day Adventist, has caused many in the evangelical camp to question his interpretation of Christianity and theology. While Carson could be said to already be walking a "fine line" with many evangelicals, this surely does not help his case. He has been critiqued, perhaps unjustly, for his many awkward and unorthodox claims in the past, and this certainly piles on to that list. It is one thing to have a picture of Jesus (many evangelicals would say that is already too far and even unbiblical), but to have a picture of you and Jesus causes one to raise to some questions.

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of this portrait, is how it is embedded in a shrine that Carson has erected of himself in his home. Rather than Jesus being the "center" of Carson's life, it appears as though Carson is the center of his own life. Jesus is sort-of added into the mix.

Now I am willing to give Carson the benefit of the doubt, that he truly wants to demonstrate the importance of Christ in his life. That may be a fair assumption. Though, I do find it hard to believe. This portrait gives us the idea that Jesus is Carson's friend, a sort-of "Jesus is my homeboy" attitude. Carson's attitude towards Christ may be a little bit too relaxed and irreverent, which sheds some light on how we should view him in regards to his Christian values. This is a portrait, done by an artist, at the request of Carson, and seems to identify more with Carson than it does with Christ Himself. This is the Jesus of Carson's mind, or even of the artist's mind, and we should not expect much authority to be derived from such a painting.

A Jesus So Soft You'd Think He Was Stuffed

Many, when they think of Jesus, will conjure up some sort of notion of the Jesus found in this painting. Many see Him as gentle, soft, passive, and warm. When most are asked to think about Jesus, more often than not they will imagine in their minds an image of Jesus compassionately holding a lamb in His arms.

Positively speaking, we must not downplay the compassion or even gentleness in Jesus, most often portrayed in His loving-kindness and patience towards us sinners. Of course though, a Jesus who's attributes end here is anemic and deprived of the biblical reality.

When we read the Gospels, we are acquainted with a man who teaches with authority, a man who is constantly showing frustration towards his uncomprehending disciples, and who even overthrows tables and chases people with whips in the Temple. Naturally, this is not all that we see of Jesus, as we are demonstrated His kindness, grace and mercy frequently, but we must not be so biased towards one side of His attributes to ignore the rest.

When we open up the book of Revelation--the greatest depiction of our risen, ascended, glorified and exalted Lord, we see a very different Jesus than Him who cusps a lamb in His arms with a passive peace on His face. We see very clearly that the wrath of the Lamb is so fierce that those who go through it are crying out for their imminent death to avoid it (Rev. 6:16). We must understand that Jesus was both present and in full agreement in the judgement of the flood (Gen. 6-9) and the judgement of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19). That is, unless you deny proper Trinitarian doctrine which associates the Son as being co-eternal and co-existent with the Father (and the Spirit, might I add). Finally, we see this most clearly in Revelation 19, where Jesus enters the scene on a white horse, with a sword coming out of His mouth, descending to earth to wage war with all the evil and wickedness in the world. Both references, to the beast (satanic or demonic forces) and to kings/nations (humans and human institutions), imply that He is judging and waging war will all of His enemies, and yes, that includes people.

What I am saying then, is not that we need to forsake the tenderness and gentleness of Christ, but that we need to understand Him in His fullness in order to appreciate the special love that He shows towards His own. We do not worship a soft, passive Messiah, but rather the King of Kings who wages war with the wicked and avenges His saints. He is a conquering King, and He has set a day where He will judge the earth. We must understand and present a cohesive and full Gospel message if we are to honor our Lord and see people truly saved, putting their faith in the Jesus of the Bible.

A Jesus So Jewish It's Shocking!

"The Gospel of John", released in 2014, follows the pattern set out by "The Visual Bible: The Gospel of John" which was released in 2003, where the biblical text is narrated over the various scenes which are being acted out. The 2003 movie used the Good News Translation (GNT) while this 2014 version uses the New International Version (NIV). The biblical text of the gospel according to John is read from front-to-back, word-for-word (according to the translation being used), which leave it being the most faithful to the text.

One of the most notable features of this one is that Jesus actually, for once, resembles a middle-eastern, first-century Palestinian Jew. He's not attractive, has a fairly rugged beard, and while we could argue that his hair is longer than it most likely would have been, it does not flow down past his shoulders looking luscious and well-maintained. His hair is rugged, rough, and greasy. His nose is fairly large, and his face is quite "manly." Throughout the movie, his composure is one of seriousness and frustration, especially towards the Jewish leaders of his day, which aligns quite well with John's description of Jesus.

The entire movie is narrated in English, but the characters speak in Aramaic. This makes the movie feel authentic and real. What I love the most about it is that you are visually brought into the scene, into the world and life of Jesus, while at the same time being fed audibly the full account of John's gospel as written and translated in the NIV.

I find that this movie, over all the other movies I have watched, does the best job at depicting Jesus. He's described as doing many things and experiencing many emotions in the gospels, but we see him frustrated and serious most of the time. Many of the other depictions leave us with an impression that Jesus was a happy-go-lucky, take it as I go, life-is-great kind of guy, where we see very little, if any of that, in the narratives.

While I do believe that this movie does a very fair job at depicting Jesus, there could be some inherent imbalances adopted in the mind of the viewer. The viewer could walk away thinking that Jesus is always frustrated and over-serious and that joy is non-existent in His being. This is simply not true, and this is where an accurate depiction of Jesus must be balanced with the rest of the biblical understanding of His person, work, and mission. We are told that joy is a fruit of the Spirit. Jesus tells us that He came to give us life and joy. Now, naturally, our understanding of "life" and "joy" are more informed by our culture than it is from the Bible, but nonetheless these characteristics are part of the Christian faith. I do not fault this movie for leaving us with that impression, as this is the overarching theme of Jesus' ministry, but we must now go from this understanding based on the film to a more holistic, biblical understanding based on the rest of the gospels and the fruit of Jesus' work in Acts and following. This movie, I believe, is a must for those who want an accurate depiction of Jesus' life and ministry, and is a great start for the unbeliever.

Mel Gibson Screams Bloody Murder!

Perhaps one of the most popular movies about Christ to ever hit the theaters was "The Passion of the Christ" by Mel Gibson in 2004. This movie focused primarily on the last 12 hours of Jesus' earthly life, showing in great detail His agony, suffering and crucifixion. This movie had a production cost of $30 million and brought in over $600 million. The film is the highest grossing R-rated film in the United States, as well as the highest grossing religious film and non-English film of all time.

There are many positives to this film, such as the use of historically languages such as Latin, Aramaic and Hebrew. The entire movie is spoken in these three languages, and while the accuracy of Latin being the truly dominant language could be called into question, it certainly is more accurate than English, or any other modern-day language for that matter.

Another positive would be focus on Christ's suffering and crucifixion, which was central to this movie. I say this because when we read the gospels, especially that of John, we notice that the last week of Jesus' life, especially the events surrounding the betrayal, crucifixion, and resurrection, are central to the gospel writers' accounts.

Many have critiqued the movie for being far too bloody and gory, and with right reason. Mel Gibson seems to have spent over half of his budget on cinematic blood, loaded up a fire hose and sprayed Jim Caviezel, the man portraying Jesus, continuously. It's no wonder that this movie received an R-rating for the amount of blood, gore and violence found within.

While we may rightly critique the movie for its seemingly excessive use of violence, blood, and gore, it is quite plausible that Jesus would have received a beating as gruesome as this one. Romans were ruthless and barbaric killers, and even more so towards criminals. The crucifixion is commonly referred to as the worst method of execution in the history of mankind, and so we can only imagine what other concoctions they dreamed up in the preliminary abuse leading up to this final stage.

With the film focusing on the last few hours of Jesus' life, we spend the movie seeing Jesus mainly in a frantic state, almost as if he is living the torture to come every moment leading up to it. When he is hanging on the cross, we see him in the light of defeat, anguish and suffering. While this is certainly a positive, as it causes us great emotional reflection, it also can overpower the other realities of Jesus which are equally true. We are not given a full account of Jesus' life leading up to the cross, nor are we really shown the truth or the victory of His resurrection and ascension. This can lead to a distorted view of Jesus' person and work.

In seeking the redemption of Gibson's version of Jesus, we are provided with a great baseline. The horrors and realities of Jesus' crucifixion allow for an emotional response and a sense of appreciation for what He went through for us. This, in light of Jesus' earthly ministry, His eternal existence as the second person of the Trinity, His victorious resurrection and ascension leading to His intercession for us followed by His return will leave the viewer with a holistic understanding of Christ. We must understand that Jesus was not the victim of a corrupt government murder scheme, but that He purposed to go to that cross and in doing so, bought us back in victory.

Vidal Sassoon Jesus

Recently, the television screens across the world were enamored with the recent creation of Roma Downey and Mark Burnett--the Bible. This series featured 10 1-hour episodes which took the viewer consecutively from Genesis through to Revelation. The series was praised for its cinematic finesse and alluring imagery, which it produced using it's $22 million budget. All-in-all, it is said that over 100 million cumulative viewers watched the series.

This series provided Bible-believers with many question marks as to the liberties taken in its production, both with leaving out crucial elements and even adding or altering others. While this is not the purpose of this blog, I will focus on their portrayal of Jesus.

The Jesus that Roma and Mark created was a modern-day hippie. He has a soft-complexion, a very finely groomed beard, and luscious brown locks that flow down past his shoulders. Chris Rosebrough, the host of "Fighting for the Faith" on Pirate Christian Radio, described him as "Vidal Sassoon Jesus." He has a gentle smile, and seems to be more enamored with the attention he is getting than anything else. He was drooled over by women from around the world, and even received the unofficial title of "Hot Jesus." He's quite the attractive man, and his soft-spoken, gentle composure had female viewers dreaming of cuddling with this Portuguese star. Diogo Morgado, the man selected to play Jesus in this series, has a history of modelling of starring in soap-operas in his native country of Portugal. What does this mean? He has a history of seducing via media. Perhaps one of the most obvious historical issues with him though, is that he is quite clearly European, whereas Jesus was middle-eastern.

Why do I point out all of this? Well it's quite self-explanatory when I consult Isiah 53. Looking at verse 2 in the New American Standard Bible, we read:

For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
And like a root out of parched ground;
He has no stately form or majesty
That we should look upon Him,
Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. (emphasis added)

I find it quite ironic that in a messianic prophecy such as this one, we should read that the Messiah will not have anything in His appearance to make us attracted to Him, yet the Bible miniseries decided to use a Portuguese model and actor. The Hebrew word translated here as "attracted" also implies desire and coveting. Have Roma Downey and Mark Burnett accomplished Isaiah's description of Jesus? I'd like to argue that they've done the complete opposite.

Now, how do we redeem such a mess of a Jesus? Well, we must begin by offering a proper, biblical understanding of Jesus' appearance and composure. The happy-go-lucky, nonchalant Jesus of Roma and Mark's imagination is simply not the one you draw out from Scripture. The series is a good primer for the unbeliever, as it introduces them to the biblical narrative, but there is much that needs to be corrected. We can use the knowledge gained from the guide the unbeliever into deeper and more accurate truth about Jesus, as well as allow the series to stir up any thoughts or questions they might have and use it as a jumping pad. We must get it out of their head that Jesus is a Portuguese model, and understand that He was a first-century builder (either carpentry or masonry) of Palestinian Jewish descent. He did not use shampoo, nor was it likely that he had long hair--but that will be an issue taken up later on.

A Primer on my Stance Towards the Use of Images or Depictions of Any Member of the Godhead

Before I begin my weekly blogging throughout this semester engaging in the various depictions and images of Jesus Christ for my Christology class at Master's College and Seminary in Peterborough, Ontario, I want to iron out a few concerns of my own and lay the foundation of my position. I believe that most of us do not give enough thought to our culture's ideologies of Christ, and the seemingly nonchalant attitude in supplying a myriad of artistic portrayals or theatrical depictions of the one, true, and unique Son of God. I believe that there is a reason why Jesus did not leave us with an image of Himself, and that should be cause enough for us to consider our position when faced with images our culture throws at us.

Firstly, I understand that in this assignment, it is required to critique or offer insight upon a specific, chosen image or depiction of Christ, and to conclude by redeeming it in a way in which we can use it for the sake of evangelism. While I will seek to accomplish this, I will also state that there is no image nor depiction of Jesus which is accurate, which is worthy, or which is presently relevant to the Jesus that now exists; resurrected, glorified and exalted with the name that is above all other names. It is with this that I approach with great caution our attempts at making images of Him, and I believe that the Bible also gives us reason to avoid, at all costs, the depiction of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Being a subscriber to the historic confessions and catechisms of the Reformed branch of Christianity, I am compelled to affirm their stance on the issue of images or portrayals of God in any of His three persons. The Westminster Larger Catechism states:

109. Q. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.

Furthermore, the Heidelberg Catechism also states:

96. Q. What does God require in the second commandment?
A. We are not to make an image of God in any way, nor to worship Him in any other manner than He has commanded in His Word.

97. Q. May we then not make any image at all?
A. God cannot and may not be visibly portrayed in any way. Creatures may be portrayed, but God forbids us to make or have any images of them in order to worship them or to serve God through them.

98. Q. But may images not be tolerated in the churches as "books for the laity"?
A. No, for we should not be wiser than God. He wants His people to be taught not by means of dumb images but by the living preaching of His Word.

Naturally, these confessions and catechisms are merely the work of men, and not inspired nor authenticated by the Holy Spirit, yet they are the work of faithful men who sought to interpret and define the clear teachings of Scripture for the benefit of the Church. It is with these statements, backed up by the clear teaching of Scripture, that I am compelled to the making of any images related to God and Jesus Christ.

Now, in order to prove that I am not ignorant of the other views or interpretations on this matter, I understand that many may argue one of two things: 1) These images or portrayals of Christ aid in the telling of the story or the recounting of the biblical accounts, and 2) As long as people do not worship these images, then there is no violation of God's Law. I will address these each in their own order.

First, the aiding of storytelling with the use of images seems to be not what God had ever intended. God's truth has always been passed down through the use of text, and this is what we see today. Icons and images were not adopted into Christendom until the later centuries, where many orthodox traditions were being overthrown by the legalization of Christianity amidst a pagan Roman culture and society. There is no description given to us of what Jesus looked like, nor can we find any images, and therefore the images are clearly unimportant. If we make pictures, images or icons of Jesus, we are, whether consciously or subconsciously, attaching those images to the Lord Himself, at least in our own minds. This leads me to the second point.

Second, the assertion that as long as the images are not worshiped they are acceptable can run a pretty convincing argument, though I think it severely undermines the subconscious ability of man to adhere to and be informed by images. Whenever I think of Jesus, I am immediately reminded of the actors who portrayed Him in various movies or television series, or I am even reminded of the paintings or carvings found in the Roman Catholic churches I have visited. All of these are false depictions of Jesus, and we can unknowingly use these as a basis for worship. It is very hard for us to imagine Jesus without having a cultural image stirred up, and I believe this has perverted our worship, even if it can be explained as unintentional ignorance. The images often depicting Jesus are so far removed from any plausible possibilities, that we are led to think of Jesus, at least physically speaking, as someone He most certainly was not (I will address these perversions to His cultural and ethnic features throughout my future posts).

Finally, it should be clearly stated that virtually every single depiction we have made of Jesus is of Him as a mere man (in physical form), which, at one point of history was true, but is no longer true and will never be true again for all of eternity. The same Jesus that appeared to the disciples post-resurrection, the Jesus who appeared to John in his visions recorded in the Book of Revelation, are clearly nowhere near what Jesus looked like physically while enthralled in His earthly ministry. The disciples did not recognize Him until He opened their minds to who He was. We have no record of what He looked like when He appeared to them at the end of the Gospels and in the book of Acts, therefore the only post-resurrection/glorification account we may draw from is that given to us in the Book of Revelation. I can assure you that the Jesus who now exists, in the present physical form in which He is, is nothing at all like what we imagine when we think of Him, and this, I fear, is a result of our cultural conditioning and not from an inspired account of the Scriptures.

While I am willing to dialogue about the telling of the Gospel accounts through mediums such as cinema or theater, I will be very firm in that our depictions of Jesus must be accurate to the culture and ethnicity of Jesus and His contemporaries, as well as the description in Isaiah that He was not attractive in physical appearance. If we are going to portray Christ for the sake of using a medium more common to our day-and-age, let us least provide the viewers with a cultured understanding of who this first century, Palestinian Jewish carpenter from Galilee may have looked like.