A shame it doesn't fit the outline as the director envisions. It's a good clip on why the Reformed reject artistic portraying of Christ in any medium
Segment on Images of Christ not making the Spirit & Truth movie cut
- Thread starter NaphtaliPress
- Start date
- Status
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
For one awful moment, I thought that the person in the video was Chuck Schumer. 
Sorry to see that, Chris. I think the topic of the image of God is so foreign to most Christians that it works as a sort of shock-therapy to cause one to think seriously about God's Word.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
I have just watched the video; it was really good at explaining why images of Christ are deeply problematic. Neil Stewart is not someone that I have ever heard of before watching it. He is obviously from Northern Ireland with an accent like that one. Where is he currently a minister?
This link to the same video as in the OP should not require a Facebook login.
https://video-icn1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v...52b5b666771ac3d6d1add87afe616&oe=5CE0CD7A#_=_
https://video-icn1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v...52b5b666771ac3d6d1add87afe616&oe=5CE0CD7A#_=_
It is a good clip. A shame it won't be in the documentary.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
He is a minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, my denomination, serving a congregation in Greensboro, NC.
And, yes he's from Northern Ireland.
Regi Addictissimus
Completely sold out to the King
That is truly a shame. It is a good clip.
I have been feeling increasingly more drawn to the idea of doing a historical study on the topic of images and the Second Commandment for a book. Sorry to stray from the immediate topic but I have been thinking about this quite a bit. I may have to start this project soon.
I have been feeling increasingly more drawn to the idea of doing a historical study on the topic of images and the Second Commandment for a book. Sorry to stray from the immediate topic but I have been thinking about this quite a bit. I may have to start this project soon.
The film is aimed at the broader evangelical church (not saying the Reformed don't need to see it) and the regulative principle will be strange enough to hear I suppose; so, my thought, is why not just go there? It may be that Les simply doesn't have the materials to fill out a segment other than this. I will push one more time at him with's Vic's quote and see.
Regi Addictissimus
Completely sold out to the King
Is the filming finished?
Les recently said he hopes to release in October. He has international filming still to do I think and then a few or at least one final here in the US to fill out to completion.
Regi Addictissimus
Completely sold out to the King
You should inquire if the issue is lack of footage.
I should add, I think there is a further study extension or bonus feature to the movie still to produce and this piece could go there. But still pushing it one more time.
It may be the arc and outline and no place to fill it out without working. He has a plan to use some final US interviews to fill gaps. I'll suggest that.
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Senior
This post is a bit more of a question than a statement. The context of this verse below has to do with the change wrought in the Christian's thought process at conversion. It is not saying (as a few do) that while on earth we knew Christ after the flesh, but now that He is ascended we know Him in a Spiritual sense. Years ago, I thought this but do so no longer.
2 Corinthians 5:16 [ASV]
Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more.
My question is, Does this verse have an application to images of Christ and idolatry in general? Does it represent a carnal desire to still think of Christ from a fleshly point of view? Or, does the verse have no application at all to the topic of this thread? Don't be gentle–I can take it.
Last edited:
Update: After my final plea Les says he will give retaining and filling this out serious consideration.
Kinghezy
Puritan Board Sophomore
Thanks. I could see his argument that that particular topic may be too particular for the audience. Not necessarily agree with the conclusion, but can see the line of thought. Some PCA members could be well served to consider it.
Kinghezy
Puritan Board Sophomore
This post is a bit more of a question than a statement. The context of this verse below has to do with the change wrought in the Christian's thought process at conversion. It is not saying (as a few do) that while on earth we knew Christ after the flesh, but now that He is ascended we know Him in a Spiritual sense. Years ago, I thought this but do so no longer.
1 Corinthians 5:16 [ASV]
Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more.
My question is, Does this verse have an application to images of Christ and idolatry in general? Does it represent a carnal desire to still think of Christ from a fleshly point of view? Or, does the verse have no application at all to the topic of this thread? Don't be gentle–I can take it.
I responded in a new thread, in case this topic becomes a tangent (though could just end with my response) https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/2-corinthians-5-16-images.98255/
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
A movie script is much shorter than most people realize, even for a talk-heavy documentary. It needs to stay focused. This often means cutting out rabbit trails that might distract from the main point, even if they are otherwise good rabbit trails that are smartly presented.
I could easily see that for a movie about Reformed worship distinctives, a discussion of the use of Jesus pictures (which mostly takes place outside the worship service in such circles) might be deemed a rabbit trail. A wise filmmaker might decide he needs to suck it up and make a hard cut, even though he has good material there. A movie needs to retain its focus and not just be a hodgepodge of things you feel a need to vent about, no matter how important each might be.
That said, I agree the interview clip is a good one. I've long thought the most persuasive argument against artistic portrayals of Jesus is that they invariably fail to do him justice. They can't even come close. And so, they always reduce him to less than he is. This violates not just the letter of the law but the reasoning given in key no-images passages, like Deuteronomy 4.
I could easily see that for a movie about Reformed worship distinctives, a discussion of the use of Jesus pictures (which mostly takes place outside the worship service in such circles) might be deemed a rabbit trail. A wise filmmaker might decide he needs to suck it up and make a hard cut, even though he has good material there. A movie needs to retain its focus and not just be a hodgepodge of things you feel a need to vent about, no matter how important each might be.
That said, I agree the interview clip is a good one. I've long thought the most persuasive argument against artistic portrayals of Jesus is that they invariably fail to do him justice. They can't even come close. And so, they always reduce him to less than he is. This violates not just the letter of the law but the reasoning given in key no-images passages, like Deuteronomy 4.
Ben Chomp
Puritan Board Freshman
I think that the clip is a really great clip. I do believe that any image or dramatic portrayal of Jesus will always fall short of representing him and will even be misleading. But could someone explain how this does not also apply to the preaching of the word? When we say: "Thus saith the Lord" do we not also become vulnerable to the same criticisms?
TheOldCourse
Puritan Board Sophomore
To put it simply, the Lord has given us his Word and a command to preach it, he has not given us his image. Moreover, we have the promise of the Spirit to quicken both the preaching and the hearing of the Word. We have no such assistance (at least, from above) in the imagination and apprehension of images.
Though, in our frailty, the words of man in preaching be as the babbling of babes, they have strength because the Holy Spirit enlivens them. In representing our Savior visually, we instead presume on the ingenuity of man rather than the power of the Spirit.
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
Preaching entails the interpretation and explication of God’s word, which is commanded. Whereas images are forbidden. Even if we don’t understand why God has made this distinction, we still must submit.
I think the distinction is clear enough, which can help us submit with understanding. We don’t have to submit blindly in faith.
When the preacher opens up God’s word, he is striving to interpret God. He is not acting as though he is God.
Regrading acting as God, I blogged this five years ago:
Jesus Movies, Images of Christ & the Second Commandment
Many Christians believe that the second commandment has always only been against making an image of God and using it as a worship aid, like Roman Catholicism promotes in practice. (The Eastern Church’s icons are usually up for grabs.) A growing number of Protestants who avoid crucifixes and such will say that the commandment is addressing carved images or possibly God’s divine nature but certainly not Jesus’ human nature acted out in a movie.
Are Christians going to a Jesus movie merely to get a glimpse of the Lord’s humanity, or are they looking to be spiritually edified by a visual depiction of the God-man? If they're looking for spiritual edification, then the accompanying sin is that of false worship through the mediation of an image of Christ, which is forbidden under the second commandment. If the aim is not spiritual edification, then the pursuit is a vain thing and, therefore, forbidden under the third commandment. If the second commandment refers only to false gods and not the living God, then the second commandment collapses into the first commandment leaving us with nine commandments, a monstrosity indeed.
What I think is most times overlooked is that Jesus’ personality is that of the Second Person of the Trinity and not just any human personality. God couldn’t have given the incarnate Christ my personality for instance, and we reject adoptionism. No, the incarnate Christ has the personality of the eternal Son while being fully God and fully man. It had to be that way since the Son, the Second Person, became man. Added to this, an actor, no matter how good, cannot help but project his own personality (blended with a scripted personality) onto the screen. He cannot portray the personality of another perfectly - let alone the personality of the Second Person of the Trinity even approximately. Therefore, the actor who would dare play the Christ cannot but project a false image of God even if he sticks to the written script of Scripture. It’s not as though verbal tone and body language do not proceed from personality. In fact, the reverse is true. Reactions of persons convey ideas that are propositional in nature. These picture-words are being passed off as God's communication.
I know how unspiritual it can be to use theological terms, but it’s my Blog.
The idea of perichoresis as it relates to the hypostatic union is relevant to this discussion and should inform our thinking on the second commandment as it relates to images of Christ in movies. As Oliver Crisp astutely notes, we can rightly say that the divine nature penetrates the human nature (yet without commingling or confusion of the distinct natures of Christ). Although the two natures of Christ are indeed distinct (i.e., there is no transfer of properties), the divine works of the Second Person, though they do not originate with the human nature, are performed through the human nature by the divine Son. (Similarly, the three persons of the Trinity although distinct, mutually indwell each other and "share the same divine space," as it were. Jesus was full of the Holy Spirit, Luke 4:1; the Father indwells the Son, John 14:10, etc.)The divine nature precedes the human nature in the incarnation. The Son of God became man. Accordingly, although the omnipresent divine nature penetrates the human nature in this most qualified Crispian sense, the reverse is not true. The human nature never penetrates the divine nature. In the time of Jesus' humiliation, no less than now as the exalted Christ, this divine penetration results in Jesus’ tone of voice and body language. May Jesus be accurately portrayed as effeminate or would his divine nature forbid such a penetration to his human nature? Would He grin or appear disappointed in the same way and over the same things as any mortal actor? We must also remember, the human nature of Christ could never be observable in isolation from the divine person and hence His eternal nature. This human nature belongs to a divine person who is as fully God as he is fully man. To see Christ the human being is to see God in the flesh. To see Jesus thirst is to see the Second Person thirst in His humanity. And so, to see the divine works of Jesus is to see them through the workings of Jesus the human being. So, we may not say we're going to see a movie on Jesus' humanity, as if something is not being alleged about His divinity. One of the goals of the incarnation is that upon gazing on Jesus we might also exclaim, "my Lord, and my God!" John 20:28 (As an aside, we might note that the crucifixion is being put forth in such depictions but not the work of the cross. Propitiation is neither a RC doctrine nor able to be captured in cinematography.)
What possibly intrigues me most in all of this is that when I watch a good movie I have no problem suspending my beliefs so that the actor may “become” for me the character. So, Al Pacino becomes The Don and Anthony Hopkins becomes C.S. Lewis. No necessary sins there I trust. Do Christians do the same when watching Jesus movies? If they shouldn't, then what should that tell us? Obviously, Christians are to be on their guard because they should realize that the actor will not be faithful to the Second Person. But that presupposes a false image, a violation of the second commandment. We don’t know Jesus’ facial expressions, etc. but such expressions from an actor often speak a thousand words. Are those words consistent with the Son of God? More to the point, are they His words? If not, then how are movies such as this not putting words in God’s mouth? How is that not to construct a false image?
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Henry Bullinger on images of Christ, which deals with the objection from the incarnation (an updated version of a post from several years ago).
- Status
