Over the past few weeks my doctorate cohort has read several books that deal with ethnography, iconography, visual methodology, and religious cultures and their interaction with these elements in theory and practice. This week I finished reading The Sacred Gaze: Religious Culture In Theory and Practice, Written by Davis Morgan. I am struggling with writing about this book not because I have a problem with its content but I cannot keep from thinking about one section of the book that dealt with visual images in places of worship. So I think that this post I will try and uncover some predispositions I have towards imagery and its relation to my own religion’s context.

Last September my doctorate program traveled to Kenya and Ethiopia to study theology, leadership, and culture from various vantage points. Perhaps the greatest learning experience for me was learning about the Coptic Ethiopian Orthodox Church. During our stay in Addis Abba and Mek’ele we sat under numerous hours of lecture, during these lectures it was evident that oral tradition played a major role in their faith. For a Southern Baptist Minister there were times that I felt uncomfortable with just how much value oral tradition actually has for them. I have always believed that solo scriptura is foundational to our Christian belief system because within that lies the Bible as supreme authority on all matters. You may be reading this post and already have several things going through your mind about this very topic, it is not my desire to make this entry a case for Biblical authority but to make a point about something I learned.

As we traveled to meet the Pope of the Coptic Ethiopian Church we visited a museum that displayed Art work from generations of artists that told the story of the Ethiopian Church from the time the Ethiopian Eunuch was saved until present day. In fact, they even had pictures that represented the Ethiopian people all the way back to the beginning of the Old Testament. These images told a story, a narrative of faith, culture, tradition, heritage, sacrifice, and God’s grace. While walking though I found myself thinking all kinds of thoughts about what I saw, from what parts of these stories are true to how do I feel about this artwork. For the first time in my life I realized something, I realized that I associated certain types of paintings and artwork as a part of some sort of religious inaccuracy and not a representation of the truth of Scriptures. Let me try to explain a little better. When I see a cross and Jesus upon the cross in some sort of painting I automatically think of the Catholic Church. When I think of that church, I think about things that I do not believe about that church and as a result I reject that painting in some way because of what I believe/interpret it represents. Now, do not get made at me if you think, “wow I cannot believe you think of that when you see art of Christ on the cross.” If you are honest you have your own thoughts when you see certain images.

Morgan states that like any medium of communication, images can be laden with information, densely encoded with ideas, values, or feelings that certain viewers are able to discern. Images can also be interpreted in ways their makers or original users did not intend, serving to corroborate beliefs or desires important to a viewer or a group of viewers. In either case, an image is a visual medium that can act as an instrument of influence. (67-68)

Now its time to tie this together, “the final operation of images that I want to outline here consists of the fear or resentment of them in all religions, which often leads to the damage, destruction, or removal of rival images.” (71) Iconoclasm involves abuse or elimination of images to displacing or discrediting a rival. Morgan gives this great story about an evangelist that was trained in Ethiopia that took down a piece of art in the church he was serving in stating that “there was no compelling reason to use images for religious purposes other than for their usefulness as book illustrations in teaching children.” (71) The painting he took down was of the Crucifixion. The interesting thing was that nine other images were represented in the church but did not elicit the same reaction. “He insisted that images were inessential and even harmful, pointing out that Ethiopian Orthodox believers kiss and bow to pictures…in the future we will try to get pictures out of here.” (73) The church that this happened in was the Lutheran Headquarters.

This Ethiopian Protestant, who had been shaped by a polemical inter-Christian rivalry in a nation dominated by Coptic Orthodoxy, which was largely absent in the provinces, images signified the wrong allegiance. Removing or ignoring them was a strategy of purified thinking and ideological opposition.” (73).  

Getting back to what I learned, I realized that I do the same thing. Certain images I associate with things that may or may not be accurate and my response to those images may both hurt, or help the individual(s) that I am dealing with depending on their perspectives and places of origin. Part of this program is Leadership and Global Perspectives, how do we lead people from all over the world to a saving faith in Jesus Christ and how do we lead the global body of Christ in service to their King. This has helped me to uncover what is underneath the surface and to understand how images can create a multitude of feelings from numerous people from all over the world. Hopefully, I am a better leader for it.

So what are your thoughts on images, worship, church, culture, and our interpretation of those areas within the context of seeing visual pictures, art, and various other iconic displays? Are there any areas you can identify with me in?