Bad art, bad theology and ‘that’ Crucifix

Understandably, to be honest, the Rev'd Ewen Souter and St John, Broadbridge Heath near Horsham, have not taken up my offer of a right of reply here at onetimothyfour. They have however posted a statement on their web site - thanks to the Welsh Jacobite for drawing my attention to it. Because I don't imagine they’ll want to leave it there forever, I reproduce it in full below, not least so that I can comment on it.

Following recent publicity about the removal of the crucifix from the outside of St John's Church, the Church Committee feel it is appropriate to publicly support our vicar, and to say that the decision to pursue this course of action was taken by the Committee in consultation with church attendees and members of the local community. In a community survey undertaken in 1998 all the comments about the crucifix were negative; there was not a single comment of appreciation.

Having reached a decision to seek to replace the crucifix, the Church Committee then sought the approval of the Diocesan Advisory Council and the Diocesan Chancellor. Only once their approval had been received and a new design approved, could we take the crucifix down and re-locate it to the local Museum where the Community can continue to enjoy access to it. This action was also discussed with, and received the full support of, the Sculptor's daughter. The Museum Curator was also delighted to give a new home to this local artist's work. The decision has been on-going over the last four years and has not been rushed into.

For those who may have missed Ewen's radio interviews, here are some of the key points he made:

Press reports have been very misleading, suggesting that we are somehow dumbing down the message of the cross and undermining the symbol of the cross in an age of political correctness. The reality is, in fact, the complete opposite. It is precisely because we believe passionately in the significance of the crucifixion of Christ that we felt led to have this particular version of the crucifix removed. What will not be clear to readers or radio listeners who have not seen the crucifix in person is the fact that the artist chose to portray Christ's facial expression as one which indicates despair and hopelessness. While this makes it an interesting piece of art, it also means that this artistic choice made by the sculptor makes this particular crucifix a misleading version of the symbol of the cross, failing to communicate the significance of the crucifixion of Christ as an event which brings eternal and undying hope to this world. Christ did not approach the crucifixion with any sense of despair or hopelessness; he did not suffer on the cross in an attitude of hopelessness; and he did not die in an attitude of hopelessness. Quite the contrary: Christ approached the cross with steadfast courage and determination; he suffered in an attitude of knowing what he was achieving through his death; and he finally faced death with certainty about the significance of his death - the steadfast hope of bringing about the redemption of humankind from the power of sin; the hope of demonstrating the full extent of God's gracious love and forgiveness; and hope that looked forward to the promise of the Resurrection on Easter morning, when the power of death, sin and evil would be broken.

The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus must be held together in tension; it is vital that we know that God in Christ experienced and identified with the very worst suffering of this world - past, present and future - and it is vital that we know that God brought about a resounding victory over that suffering and torment two days later on that first Easter Sunday.

In the light of this message of hopefulness, having a crucifix mounted on the outside of our church that declared a message of perpetual despair and hopelessness would not be faithful to the New Testament account of the significance of the crucifixion. As a church, we want to bring a message of hope and welcome to our local community, and not one of despair, hopelessness and rejection.

First off, I’m glad that this statement has been posted, because it is at least a form of words chosen by the people concerned, rather than an editorial redaction of whatever information was made available originally. Something I think must have been made available to the press because so many reports carried the same quotes word for word.

The first two paragraphs may appear not to say much, but they do establish for the record that Mr Souter did not have a sudden fugue and act unilaterally; he has the support of his PCC, and due legal process was followed. Not right at the heart of the issue, but proper to acknowledge nevertheless.

The next four paragraphs are the substance of the statement, although I would note that they are not a single statement crafted as such, but a pot-pourri of some of the key points that Mr Souter made on the radio.

They are an amalgam of aesthetics and theology and the two need to be disentangled. If the sole point of the whole brouhaha was that the crucifix in question was bad art and should be replaced on that basis, I would, I think have agreed. It is by no means the first modern crucifix I’ve seen that is not particularly worthy on an aesthetic basis of being the focus of attention in (or, in this case, on) God’s house.

But we are told that Mr Souter said on the radio that the crucifix is ‘a misleading version of the symbol of the cross’, thereby taking us out of the sphere of art criticism and into theology. I continue to question whether it is this crucifix that is objected to in particular, or crucifixes per se. Despite mention in the statement of ‘this particular crucifix’, I strongly suspect the latter (‘ ... having a crucifix mounted on the outside of our church ... ’).

What seems to be at the heart of what Mr Souter says is that the crucifix ‘indicates despair and hopelessness’ and it is this that made it inappropriate for display on the outside of his church.

He says that:

‘Christ did not approach the crucifixion with any sense of despair or hopelessness; he did not suffer on the cross in an attitude of hopelessness; and he did not die in an attitude of hopelessness. Quite the contrary: Christ approached the cross with steadfast courage and determination; he suffered in an attitude of knowing what he was achieving through his death; and he finally faced death with certainty about the significance of his death.’

This statement requires a bit of examination and thought, and a look at the biblical accounts of the Passion and Crucifixion.

First, if Christ did not suffer human fear and apprehension at the very least knowing what was shortly going to happen to him, then what are Matthew 26:39 (“And going on a little further he fell on his face and prayed. ‘My Father,’ he said ‘if it is possible, let this cup pass me by. Nevertheless, let it be as you, not I, would have it.’”) and Luke 22:44 (‘In his anguish he prayed even more earnestly, and his sweat fell to the ground like great drops of blood.’) all about?

Second, if Christ simply ‘suffered in an attitude of knowing what he was achieving through his death’, then what is Matthew 27:46 cf. Mark 15:34 (“My God, my God, why have you deserted me?”) all about?

Saying that ‘Christ approached the cross with steadfast courage and determination’ seems to portray him as an unreal lantern-jawed super-hero of a 1950s Marvel comic, not the one who:

‘did not cling to his equality with God but emptied himself to assume the condition of a slave, and became as men are; and being as all men are, he was humbler yet, even to accepting death, death on a cross’ (Philippians 2:6-8)

I am afraid to say that the more I read the St John’s statement, although it starts off by denying that it wants to be PC or dumb down the cross (nb, cross not crucifix), I become increasingly convinced that they have displaced a crucifix not because it is bad art but because it is a crucifix, and in stating more fully their reasons for doing it, they have not made sense of a misreported bit of re-ordering but more conclusively cheapened our Lord's real, human and awful suffering for us.

Follow through the reasoning of St John’s and Mr Souter, and Christ did not really suffer at all, or anything else so sordid – he was to busy being steadfast, courageous, determined and certain. Maybe they think that the man Jesus suffered on the outside but the Christ inside didn’t – wait a minute, did Nestorius just come into the room?

Forget your penal substitution theory; forget your satisfaction theory; forget your ransom theory; forget your Christus Victor theory; forget in fact any theory of atonement you like – for what we have here full-blown is the liberal /post-modern sunny-side-up theory of atonement of happy smiling everyone – except of course those who were closest to Jesus, nearly all of whom were so horrified and downcast that they ran away.

I am sorry Mr Souter, the crucifixion was horrible, despairing, painful and frightening - not just for Christ but for many thousands of others. Our salvation was bought at a very real cost – and it does no harm, and in fact a lot of good to major on that.

Removing Christ on the crucifix to have an empty cross – however aesthetically pleasing and whatever your rationale may be – is just plain bad theology.


January 9th: 11.00am - a footnote to St John’s point about not wanting to project a message of ‘despair, hopelessness and rejection’ - are they not aware of the Christological dimension of Isaiah 53:2-5 and its relevance to the Crucifixion – and even perhaps to all those local voices in Broadbridge Heath and Horsham who support them in removing the crucifix:

‘Without beauty, without majesty (we saw him), no looks to attract our eyes; a thing despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and familiar with suffering, a man to make people screen their faces; he was despised and we took no account of him. And yet ours were the sufferings he bore, ours the sorrows he carried. But we, we thought of him as someone punished, struck by God, and brought low. Yet he was pierced through for our faults, crushed for our sins. On him lies a punishment that brings us peace, and through his wounds we are healed.’

St John’s states that it wants to be faithful to what is its understanding of ‘the New Testament account of the significance of the crucifixion’ – is this to be at the expense of the Christological prophecy of Isaiah, or is the Old Testament somehow superceded by the New – wait a minute, has Marcion just come into the room?