« When Images Offend | Main | Kaleo Conference on Gender and the Church: Chapel Address »
February 09, 2006
Serrano's Challenge: What Christians Can Learn From "Piss Christ"
While I think that John Piper makes a helpful theological observation in his February 8th article, I wonder if his application is a bit too simplistic. Piper says:
The work of Muhammad is based on being honored and the work of Christ is based on being insulted. This produces two very different reactions to mockery.
After summarizing the divergent Muslim and Christian views of Christ and emphasizing the theological necessity of a humiliated Savior, Piper gives several modern examples of how the (expected) mockery of Christ continues to this day. I haven't watched or read enough to comment on two of his examples, but his mention of Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" is a misapplied criticism.
In 1989, the exhibition of "Piss Christ," a nuanced and richly hued photograph described succinctly by conservatives as "a crucifix submerged in the artist's urine," caused an uproar. Piper fails to mention the evangelical response -- in America and abroad -- to "Piss Christ," a reaction that was far from humble, loving, or winsome. Senator Jesse Helms's diatribe on the Senate floor is well known. The Senator declared that Serrano was "not an artist, he [was] a jerk," and railed, "Do not dishonor our Lord. I resent it and I think the vast majority of the American people do too." Large, not always peaceful, protests were staged, museums that exhibited the piece received numerous bomb threats, and the artist himself received violent warnings. The picture was called a disgrace, irreverent, and profane. But, especially now, we Christians prefer not to think about all that.
We also tend to ignore Serrano's own explanation of his artwork. In an open letter to the NEA, Serrano wrote:
The photograph, and the title itself, are ambiguously provocative but certainly not blasphemous. Over the years, I have addressed religion regularly in my art. My Catholic upbringing informs this work which helps me to redefine and personalize my relationship with God. My use of such bodily fluids as blood and urine in this context is parallel to Catholicism's obsession with "the body and blood of Christ." It is precisely in the exploration and juxtaposition of the symbols from which Christianity draws it strength.
Perhaps in our hurry to be "afflicted" and "insulted," we Christians thoughtlessly assumed that "piss" and "Christ" could not be juxtaposed in a meaningful or reverential fashion. Do we really believe that God became man and participated in all the disgusting, filthy, and thoroughly human stuff that makes up our daily existence? If so, if we do believe in a humiliated Christ, then Serrano's work can actually become convicting... even devotional. God Incarnate means God wallowing in our waste. What if this image was not an attack on our faith, but a challenge to those who claim it? What if we failed? What if we, too, have a history of refusing an insulted Savior?
So, yes, Christians have good theological reasons to react differently than Muslims in the face of humiliation. The reality, though, is that our doctrine often does not inform our actions. We, too, have wrongly tried to preserve a shell of honor, even when true grace springs from ignominy.
Art , Culture, Yo , Faith , Writing | By elissa | 07:06 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://chattablogs.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/29544
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Serrano's Challenge: What Christians Can Learn From "Piss Christ":
Comments
From what I could tell, Piper was merely trying to spell out the fundamental differences between the doctrines of Islam and Christianity, and how Christians "should" and "must" react in light of that. He was not saying that Christians have always dealt with these issues in a way fitting to those who follow the suffering servant. I thought he was just showing that this is nothing new to Christians, that we have been faced with the mockery of Christ since the first apostle preached that Christ is Lord. But I do agree with your viewpoint on Serrano's work, and that perhaps Piper should not have used that example. At the same time, the gospel is offensive, even to Christians who say they believe it!
Posted by: Anna Kaufmann at February 9, 2006 08:38 PM
Thanks, Anna. I do agree that Piper's primary purpose was to show the doctrinal difference between Islam and Christianity, and I think he makes an excellent point. I guess, though, that I'm disappointed that the evangelical response to the whole fiasco has been fairly one-sided: (rightful) condemnation, but without not an acknowledgement that the Muslims are behaving in a way uncomfortably similar to how Christians have occasionally acted in the past. Honestly, a lot of this is probably coming out of my own realization of a personal tendency towards condescension instead of compassion.
Posted by: elissa at February 9, 2006 09:12 PM
i really appreciate this discussion. Not only is it sharpening me, but I feel like I'm hanging out with yall on a daily basis - a nice change from 24/7 Murray Time.
I had some comments I jotted out last night, but Brien and I have been workign on a contract all day and just now got to finish my last thought. I decided to make my comments my blog entry for the day. You can read em here my comments
Posted by: Luther at February 10, 2006 05:01 PM
hello all... I wish to add a short bit to this conversation. I will confront the issue of the Serrano piece. I'm not sure if this was mentioned, but I wanted to point out Serrano's catholic background. Some would consider his piece,"Piss Christ," a commentary on the institution of the catholic church. It openly confronts the idea of the church exploiting and marketing the symbol of the crucifixion to make truckloads of cash. Its a souvenir, sold for pennies. Who's pissing on who here? Furthermore, I see it as a meaningful metaphor for the way we treat Christ. Many contemporary Christians feel guilty when they see the image of a nail going through a hand. Its a new insight to them. "Piss Christ" also brings new insight. My first reaction to the piece was shock and anger. Thats what I should be feeling when I see my own sin. I do, in my own degredation of his perfect life and sacrifice, in a sense, piss on Christ. No its not a nostalgic image of our forlorn self-victimization. It is an outrageous action in which we ourselves are chief participants. We defile him everyday, and often don't have the honesty to admit it because it is such a gross transgression. Thats why this piece is important to me. Its a new light from a different angle. It helps me see my own sin, which in turn reminds me of my need for him. cheers.
Posted by: luke Herron at February 10, 2006 05:55 PM
