THE CASE FOR AN EMOTIONAL JESUS

CHAPTER ONE

Classical Ideals of the Divine

  My hypothesis is that artists have rarely portrayed Jesus as an emotional character because certain emotions are deemed inappropriate for him. I believe there are exceptions such as the scene where He is angry at the corrupt moneychangers in the temple, and the scene picturing His agony in the garden before His crucifixion. Why do I believe that few of Jesus' emotions have been pictured throughout the history of art? This chapter will elaborate on one of my primary assumptions.

      The ideals of beauty, strength and composure which would be attributed to a God have been handed down to us from classical antiquity. I believe they account for much of the iconography of Jesus' image. Jane Dillenberger, in discussing a Greek statue of Apollo writes; "What other characteristics are seen in the APOLLO, the example of classical art? The idealizing of the human face and figure is another notable characteristic. The artist has not represented one particular human figure with all of its idiosyncrasies and irregularities. He has presented us with an image which is Godlike, all details which might betray frailty or transitoriness having been eliminated". (Dillenberger pg.3). This belief that the ideal was attainable by the gods dates back to the writings of Plato. Dillenberger also expounds on what the Greek concept of ideal emotional states were. "The gods and goddesses depicted by the Greek artists have a nobility and command appropriate to their divinity. Even when they intervene in the affairs of men, as is the case when Apollo dictates the victory in the struggle between the Lapiths and the Centaurs, the gods remain aloof and uninvolved. Thus the emotional range is limited for the most part during the classical period to the expression of nobility, grandeur, dignity, command, serenity".( Dillenberger pg. 37).

 In contrast to the ideals of Greek mythology, Dillenberger states that ancient Jewish literature portrayed an entirely different ideal. "The God of the Old Testament makes himself known to his people in acts which are taken to symbolize a relationship. Relationships between the gods and mortals are not present in Greek art (and, indeed, are seldom present in their mythology)." (Dillenberger, pg. 37).

      John Sanders has written a book which has provided a springboard for my body of work. Sanders' work dramatically altered my concepts about Jesus and God. He proposes that, in order to gain genuine exchanges of love with us, God and Jesus allowed themselves to be vulnerable to us. "Love is vulnerable because it surrenders into other hands the final outcome of love's aspirations. Whether love results in a deep interpersonal relationship or is scorned by the beloved and results in suffering for the lover is not under the control of the lover. There is much the lover can do, but the success is not guaranteed. In the case of God it may be that God sovereignly elected to be vulnerable in creating a world of creatures with whom God could enter into loving relationships. God did not remain anonymous (in contrast to some classical theists views) but revealed himself to us, made himself accessible for us. God is open to us and for us. God makes it possible for us to cause him grief or joy, suffering or delight."(Sanders, John pg. 178).

     Andre Chastel, in expounding on the work of Masaccio,says; "Just as he avoided Gothic charm; so he abandoned the false nobility of Classical-type poses: his figures, seen on a level (their heads are all the same height) have a peasant reality which imparts a mysterious solemnity to their ultra simple but forceful gestures." (Chastel, Andre pg. 47 History of Painting edited by Robert Maillard). I will include an example of Masaccio's work in Appendix A because his work has inspired me to portray Jesus in a more human manner.

CHAPTER TWO

Doctrines and Philosophies Engendered to Define Jesus' Nature

      Sergiusz Michalaski, in his book entitled, The Reformation and the Visual Arts, spends chapter upon chapter delineating centuries of heated and often bloody debates over the subject of Jesus' nature. Richard Rubenstein has written a book entitled When Jesus Became God - The Epic Fight over Christ's Divinity in the Last Days of Rome. Despite its title, this book never challenges the idea that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. The book explains how the early church factioned over the subject of Jesus' inherent nature. According to Webster's new World Dictionary Third College Edition, the Nicene Creed is a confession of faith for Christians, originally adopted at the first Nicene Council (A.D. 325) and later expanded to forms widely accepted in Christianity. It was written, according to scholars such as Rubenstein and Michalaski, in an attempt to clear up the confusion surrounding the nature of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. For me, the wording of the Nicene Creed is confusing, and I believe it has played a role in befuddling artists for centuries as to how Christ should be portrayed. Rubenstein writes; "What was needed to clear up this confusion was something that the Nicene Creed alone could not supply: a doctrine explaining how God could be One and yet consist of two or three separate entities." (Rubenstein, pg. 206). Rubenstein continues, "Gregory of Nyssa summed up the doctrine with characteristic sharpness. God is three individuals sharing one essence. Both the unity and the tripartite division of the Godhead are real. If this seems paradoxical, so be it: (and here Rubenstein sites Gregory of Nyssa's writing) "The difference of the hypostases does not dissolve the continuity of their nature nor does the community of their nature dissipate the particularity of their characteristics. Do not be amazed if we declare that the same thing is united and distinct, and conceive, as in a riddle, of a new and paradoxical unity in distinction and distinction in unity." (Rubenstein, pg.207). 

      Joan O' Grady writes, "In studying these controversies and the Councils that attempted to settle them, It often seems that their endless dissensions, condemnations and counter-condemnations were merely theologians' quarrels about detailed use of words and about minute differences in the expression of the inexpressible." And she continues; "St. Hilary of Poitiers, writing to the Emperor Constantine complained that "Every year, nay every moon, we make new creeds to describe invisible Mysteries. We repent of what we have done, and defend those who repent, we anathematize those whom we defend. We condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves or our own in that of others; and, reciprocally tearing one another to pieces, we have been the cause of each other's ruin." (Hilarius and Constantium, I ii c 4, 5, quoted in Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Vol. II). "Attempts to make concise logical statements about invisible Mysteries inevitably lead to logical difficulties. Every formulation brings its own contradiction, or else says virtually nothing."(O' Grady, Joan pg. 89).

      O' Grady explains that the Byzantine culture was essentially a religious one, and that churchmen and ordinary citizens alike had passionate interest in the heavenly world and his hopes and fears were of far greater importance to him than the political and economic affairs of his city. (paraphrased, O" Grady, pg. 90). Next, O' Grady quotes C. Dawson on the subject from his book, The Making of Europe. "No less an authority than St. Gregory Nazianzen has described how, if you went into a shop in Constantinople to buy a loaf, the baker, instead of telling you the price, will argue that the Father is greater than the Son. The money-changer will talk about the Begotten and the Unbegotten, instead of giving you your money; and, if you want a bath, the bath-keeper assures you that the Son surely proceeds from nothing." (O' Grady, pg. 90). I have an anecdotal story from my own life that is a modern day version of this wrangling about words. A few years ago I was having a conversation with a Christian friend when he expressed serious concern about my view of Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit.. I knew that he believed they were One. And he knew that I believed they were three separate entities. Trying to alleviate his concern for my soul, I asked him if he would feel better if I said that each entity was thirty three and one third of God. His voice lowered and became parental in tone. "No, Kata," he scolded, "I will only feel good about our relationship once you realize that they are each one hundred percent God."        

     The other extra-Biblical doctrine which I would like to mention is predestination. According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, predestination is defined: "2: the theological doctrine that all events throughout eternity have been foreordained by the divine decree or purpose: esp.: the fore-ordination by God of each individual's ultimate destiny particularly to eternal life." This doctrine was advanced through the writings of John Calvin and has managed to penetrate the thinking of Christians for centuries. I assert that this doctrine has repercussions which can be devastating in that they deprive the believer of a full understanding of free will. John Sanders carries the predestination doctrine to its logical end and the results are terrifying. "If Susan has a job with excellent benefits, it is because God specifically wanted that to happen and it serves a specific good purpose in God's plan, even if Susan does not know it. If Susan is raped and dismembered, it is because God specifically wanted it to happen and it serves a specific good purpose in God's plan, even if Susan does not know it. For proponents of specific sovereignty there is no such thing as an accident or a genuine tragedy." (Sanders, John pg. 212).

      The Jesus I visualize is genuinely interacting with people in real time and is vitally involved in their lives; He is creatively working along with them to help them recover themselves from the adverse effects of sin and evil which were introduced by His Father, (God's) arch-enemy, the devil; who is also referred to as the serpent in Genesis, Isaiah, Revelations, and elsewhere in the Bible. "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD GOD had made." (Blue Letter Bible, Genesis 3:1). "In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish the leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan, that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that (is) in the sea," (Blue Letter Bible, Isaiah, 27:1). "And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years," (Blue Letter Bible, Revelations, 20:2). "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." (Blue Letter Bible, Revelations 12:19).

     "The new theologians also have no way to explain why evil exists, and thus are left with the same problem the Hindu Philosophers have; that is they must say that finally everything that is is equally in God. In Hindu thought one of the manifestations of God is Kali, a feminine representation of God with fangs and skulls hanging around her neck. Why do Hindus picture God this way? Because to them everything that exists now is a part of what has always been a part of that which the Hindus would call God; therefore cruelty is equal to non-cruelty. Modern humanistic man in both his religious forms has come to the same awful pace. Both have no final way to say what is right and what is wrong, and no final way to say why one should choose non-cruelty instead of cruelty." (Schaeffer, Francis A. pg. 177-178). The Jesus of scripture views those who are ensnared by sin, evil, and ultimate physical decay as unwitting victims, and he sets out to free them. "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." (Blue Letter Bible, Acts 10:38).

      In my artwork, Jesus is always an ally, friend and a companion to those who want his help, but he is in opposition to those who resist the truth he stands for. In my opinion, within our modern culture it is a bold statement to declare that there is such a thing as truth. The Bible declares that death is the final blow of the devil, and death is the last enemy which Jesus will destroy. "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." (Blue Letter Bible, 1 Corinthians 15:26). Many in our culture deny that death is an enemy. Twenty years ago I visited a morgue to study anatomy. I could not find anything good about the decaying lifeless body which I saw on the slab. I believe in a God who defines Himself as love, light, holy and spirit. These are all benevolent terms. There is no darkness in the God whom I know, and in His Son who calls me His friend. "Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." (Blue Letter Bible, John 15:15).

      John Sanders believes that God has sovereignly limited His own capacity to see the future in order to design a world in which his beloved children can enjoy true and genuine free will. Sanders compares God to a loving human father who is able to predict what his child will do for the next few days, weeks, or months, but has limited knowledge beyond that point, for the simple reason that the child has not made those decisions yet. Sanders makes wonderful analogies for God. He compares Him to a master weaver who understands that his children will make mistakes as they weave, but in His genius, He still manages to produce a beautiful weaving. Sanders also makes the analogy of a master chess player, who does not know every move which His opponent will make, but is ingenious enough to win the game in the end.

      My predilection is that Jesus is often depicted stoic, unemotional and in control because many people believe that he already knows the end of the story. If Jesus already knows the outcome of every situation and in fact has ordained it, he would have no reason to express emotions. Why would he react to a situation he had pre-arranged with surprise, disappointment, or even joy?

      During a recent visit to the National Gallery of Art I was looking at some religious paintings from 14th and 15th century Sienna in the M. Gallery and I came across this short discourse which is provided by the museum. "In the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries a greater emphasis on human experience and perceptions prompted artists of many kinds to begin speaking in the vernacular. Poets in Sicily invented and perfected the sonnet, and Dante wrote the Divine Comedy; not in Latin but Italian. Also, for the first time, sermons were given in Native Italian dialects by members of influential new religious orders, in particular the Franciscans and Dominicans, who left the shelter of monasteries to preach in cities and towns. Religion focused increasingly on human and humane concerns. The simple virtues of the early Franciscans who renounced worldly possessions and identified strongly with Christ and his suffering helped to shift the emphasis onto the human nature of Christ and to demand of religious art a new and closer identification with people's experience. Artists responded by embracing the sense of particular time and place with detailed settings familiar to their viewers, by expanding the range of gesture and emotions and by embroidering their narratives with anecdotal details." (National Gallery of Art. Printed information provided in the M. Gallery, 2004, Anonymous).

      This parallels my excitement about the influence of Sanders' writing on my paintings. I believe that in every culture and age since the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ there have arisen preachers of the gospel who have encouraged a clearer understanding of Jesus. I also believe that these preachers and expounders have a great effect on the artwork of the time. It seems to me that Luther's preaching in Germany helped spawn many German artists who painted Jesus in the vernacular of their own time and place. I have examples of some of these artists work in Appendix C.