They Are Just Images, Aren’t They?
“Visual images are powerful creations indeed. For into the depths of one soul does the image fall, impacting the very essence of the man.”
From those images that offer “the poignant evocation”[1] of an experience to those that train us in transcendences-ness, all images are powerful causing emotions that lead us to passion, love, and even war. In his book The Sacred Gaze: Religious Visual Culture in Theory and Practice, David Morgan brings us through the labyrinth of religious artistry and the power that religious images have upon all viewers who, through those images, are impacted for better or for worst. The worst being, moved to violence, as one Indonesian Christian clergyman knew all to well. He chose to display Jesus through the art of Javanese shadow theater in order to avoid attracting the scorn and possibly provoke an attack on churches from Muslims antagonistic toward the use of images.[2] Yet, they are just images, aren’t they?
How is it that we humans have come to value images, and the proper treatment of our images, so much so as to even justify the killing of anyone who we think has, according to our cultural standards, desecrated or devalued the same image we esteem so highly. Such was the case with the Cuban natives who buried and then urinating on the Catholic images brought to them by Columbus’s men. The horrified Spaniards responded by having the men burned alive. But in their defense, the “planting” and the “personal physical offerings” from the farmers were believed to be “incorporating” the new images of the new gods into their own visual practices and thus assure a great harvest. Their actions were innocent, even honorable, toward the new graven images of the gods that the Spaniards brought to them. Unfortunately the Spaniards did not see it that way and the Cubans paid with their lives. But they are just images, aren’t they?
Morgan states, “Seeing…is an act of worship, an observation of awe, but also a constructive act that transforms the spiritual into the material.”[3] Yet in what culture Morgan? Were not the Cuban farmers doing a much more visceral constructive act of transforming the spiritual into the material? By planting the images they believed that the spiritual would in fact bless/honor/esteem the material, i.e., their crops. Yet in our understanding that is not a suitable “constructive act of transforming” art. For us it is more appropriate to place the image on our walls or museums where others can venerate and be tempted to mistakenly worship that which God commanded us not to worship. Has not God said, “You shall not make idols for yourselves; neither a carved image nor a sacred pillar shall you rear up for yourselves; nor shall you set up an engraved stone in your land, to bow down to it; for I am the Lord your God.”[4] And, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God.”[5] But God, they are just images, aren’t they?
I appreciated gaining a better understanding as to how one interacts with an image. Morgan quoting Gossaert explains how there is a “triadic configuration: the celestial, the artistic agent, and the viewer who sees what the artist images. Each is, in one sense, the medium of the others.”[6] If the celestial is involved then at what level is it recognized? Meaning this, a young child draws a picture in which she is walking with Mommy, Daddy, and Jesus, the viewer recognizes the celestial guidance and the artistic agent, and cherishes the image. Someone else may simply throw away the same image as a childish scribble. When does the image become so honored that it would be a crime to tarnish, destroy, or “plant” the image? It’s just an image right?
Yet, if that young child was to die tragically there is no end to the effort that those parents would do to keep that “childish image” unharmed and preserved in its original design. Woe to anyone who would dare to separate that image from the mother. Now that I understand. The image bears very personal meaning, deep emotion, and love. But an icon that is a representation of my God is not my God. There is no personal meaning, deep emotion, nor love beyond that which the image itself generates when I look upon it. I am no iconoclast I am just a missionary attempting to find the true incarnation of my Jesus in and through all the peoples that I come in contact with in my travels. “We, all of us, are distracted by so many practical things that we miss the mystery. We should stop at times and consider the mystery.”[7] Often that mystery is evident when looking upon a work of art that, in a symbolic way, gives voice to feeling and I am impacted deep in my soul. How would you answer the question, they are just images, aren’t they
[1] David Morgan, The Sacred Gaze: Religious Visual Culture in Theory and Practice (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2005), 96.
[2] Ibid., 157.
[3] Ibid., 20.
[4] The New King James Version. 1982 (Le 26:1). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
[5] The New King James Version. 1982 (Ex 20:4–5). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
[6] Morgan, The Sacred Gaze: Religious Visual Culture in Theory and Practice, 20.
[7] Ibid., 100.
About the Author
Mitch Arbelaez
International Mission Mobilizers with Go To Nations Living and traveling the world from Jacksonville Florida10 responses to “They Are Just Images, Aren’t They?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Mitch, what a thoughtful and challenging post. You always sound so hesitant before you post, than you write such amazing insights. From your many questions, I sense that you have not bought into the place images or icons for spiritual edification. Your point is well taken, that when images bring such violence and suffering, there must be something no quite right. I think this is especially highlighted in your question on when and by whom do images take on such power that they would be considered a crime to debase in anyway? It think this is a very important point, which Morgan refers to as a covenant. It is an agreement that a person or group makes that allows something to have a voice or influence (often, it comes as part of a community’s understanding of who they are and what is important). I would suggests that this doesn’t just apply to images or icons, it also is true of some many aspects of Christianity, for instance how we view the Bible, our particular dogmatic stand (predestination, salvation, justification, the Trinity, forms of worship, authority) that also have resulted in extreme violence and division throughout church history. All of us allow or accept certain things to have stronger influence in our lives than others, based the influences of our community, those who have authority in our lives, and what we are used to. What I think is important is first that we examine why we believe and follow what we do – i.e. what does influence and inform us. And, second, because we are formed and influenced by a number of various sources, we might want to be sensitive to others who have other sources of influence than what we are familiar with and try to understand where they are coming from.
You bring up some really challenging issues that I am still working through and seeking to understand myself. Hope my thoughts will give you more to think about as your thoughts have stirred up my thinking!
Wonderful John! Appreciate your comments. I have not used images per say for the purpose of worship, but I have had images that caused me to worship. I love art and love a beautiful image of any sort. I agree that beauty reflects the glory and goodness of God, be that found in a painting, a sculpture, a out door scene, or a beautiful person all can lead one to worship the creator behind all that is beautiful.
As I read your comments, I thought of how love is the chief of all. If my brother would be offended at me doing _______ then because of love for my brother whom Christ died for I will not do _______ when I am with him. This would work for how one deals with images that others have come to honor as well as doctrines. I often wonder how many of our pet doctrines that other “brothers in the Lord” disagree with will be changed once we fully know as we are fully known. That is why I do not get hung up on such issues. Bless you my friend.
The tension between images and the power of the imagination is captured well by your words, Mitch. I certainly don’t come with a deep sense of understanding regarding art or image. I appreciated your comment: “There is no personal meaning, deep emotion, nor love beyond that which the image itself generates when I look upon it.” What I like about this comment is that it’s a reminder to remember that the meaning and value is not in the art or image, but it in the relational connection the art or image allows you to have with, in our case, Jesus. Is there a particular image or piece of art that points you to a sense of worship of Jesus?
Back in Texas when I was a youth pastor at a large church circa 1990, I was given a picture of the tabernacle in the wilderness http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-74796531084266_2270_795009
When I was working for AIMS, a missions agency, and attending Regent University (circa 1994) I got into an elevator with a guy carrying that same picture of the tabernacle. I told him how I was given that picture and how it was in my home now. I told him how I loved the way the Shekinah glory was coming down on the tent of meeting. He said, “That’s great. I am the artist.” Indeed I got to meet Norbert McNulty and through that introduction I had him come and speak to our mission agency for chapel. As we visited he gave me 4 copies of his own work. My favorite is at this link http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-74796531084266_2270_7836144
It is Jesus walking on the water and saving Peter as he attempted to do the same. I have it hanging in my home above our family breakfast table in the dinette/kitchen area. As Norbert shared with me he always has a story or as he called it “a sermonette” that accompanies each of his paintings. I really like this picture of Jesus walking on the storms of life and have made a series of messages around that picture/event of Peter coming out to Jesus. I have entitled them Lessons from the Storm. My wife and others have encouraged me to make a mini book out of it. We will see. In responding to your question Deve, I discovered that Norbert passed away in 2009. He loved Jesus and sought to magnify him thorough his work. I believe he has done that as my children visually see the story of both Jesus’ power and love in his pictures that hang around our home.
Hi Mitch
A great thought-provoking post! In answer to your closing question, I think I would say how images, at the end of the day, are simply meant to point us to something greater. It’s meant to inspire us to greater faith, connection with God and worship of Him. They’re not an end in themselves, which is often where people gets things wrong.
Amen Liz, images are not an end to themselves! They are to point us to the True beautiful one. Thanks!!
Great thoughts, Mitch.
I think you rightly point out that the meaning of the image is deeply attached to our own sense of connection or identity with that image. Our visceral reaction – of joy, indifference, or even violence – ties to our own sense of self. And how deeply that image connects to our personal identity seems to be what evokes the response. When a white person who has always identified with images of a white Jesus (note John’s post) sees an image of Jesus as Black or Native American, they may have a deep reaction, something akin to judgment. “That’s wrong!” they may exclaim. And of course, their reaction must be challenged. Why is the image wrong? Because it’s not white? Neither was Jesus.
I liked your inclusion of the story of the Cubans who buried the images to produce better fruit. It made sense to them – they identified with the images by connecting them to their own practices and culture. But it was an abomination in the eyes of the Spaniards. Because of their cultural beliefs and standards. Because of their own identity.
That it’s just an image takes maturity and self awareness to recognize. That perhaps is less common than we may think,
Thanks Julie, the story of the Cubans really hit me as I am studying all this Cultural Intelligence. Had both the Cubans and the Spaniards had more CQ they might both have acted different and lives would have been spared.
Brother Mitch great post. You the nail on the head. “Often that mystery is evident when looking upon a work of art that, in a symbolic way, gives voice to feeling and I am impacted deep in my soul.” That is a compelling case for the fact that they are not just images.”
Thank you
Indeed Michael! There is something spiritual going on here with these images that certainly open the windows of heaven if we are willing to look through them. Looking forward to being with you in Cape Town.