[Credit to soy_esteban for directing me to this painting and these discussions.]This painting from Jon McNaughton has been making the rounds on both conservative and liberal blogs recently. Liberals are complaining about the extremely sectarian portrayal of America, while conservatives complain about the artist's inclusion of liberals like John Kennedy and Theodore Roosevelt. The artist responds to these partisan criticisms (left vs. right) on his site, where you can also scroll over the painting to zoom in on details, with included commentary.
The commentary lets you know, for instance, that the man in the foreground weeping into his hands is a supreme court judge, while the documents littering the steps are judicial decisions McNaughton finds inconsistent with the Godly roots of our nation. Likewise, it identifies the soldiers in the background, representatives from each U.S. war.
I don't have any strong interest in these conservative/liberal squabbles. But the painting is interesting at a more fundamental level. Nationalism is always in danger of turning to idolatry. This is a fact that the New Testament represents subtly in every page, and a fact which is on display in McNaughton's painting. Here Jesus stands as the new Moses, a lawgiver to a nation uniquely of God. America is the new Israel. Jon McNaughton even refers to the Constitution as "inspired of God," a category Christians generally reserve for scripture.
This recentering of faith away from the church Christ founded to the nation of America reveals itself in the rest of the painting. If America deserves our religious devotion, then certainly killing the enemies of in always service of God, as McNaughton explains when you hover over Jesus' red sash. This America-centered theology is most revealed when you zoom in on the Civil War soldier, who alone of the soldiers is weeping, because that is the only war in which "brother fought against brother."
But a Christ-centered theology knows that Christians are all brothers, regardless of their nationality. Pastor Greg Boyd, commenting on this painting, observes that the Revolutionary War was fought against Christians from England, who "felt a divine obligation to keep Americans under the authority of the King because the Bible says all authority is given
by God and Christians are to submit to the authorities they are under."
Likewise, a Christ-centered theology realizes that gathered around Jesus are people from every "tribe and tongue and nation," not particularly Americans, and that the teachings of Christ are not found in the U.S. Constitution. I am convinced that the kind of nationalism depicted in this painting crosses the line into idolatry, and works against the mission of Christ and his church.
(Click on the picture to see the original portrait with its commentary.)
What is your impression of the painting and the view of America it portrays?
True 
Premium
Comments (47)
My impression from the painting is that laying down your life for freedom is becoming less appreciated by those who are free because of it.
My impression of the painting is that the painter must be a very religious patriot. I think he wants people to choose who you want to be like in the photo, because there are so many different types of people. It's like he wants to honor our country, and send a message to upcoming generations. I like it.
I am sure Jesus is not pointing to the part in the original Constitution that says a slave is counted as 3/5ths of a free white man when figuring relative populations. The Constitution is a human, compromise document, brilliant, but human.
Likewise, a Christ-centered theology realizes that gathered around Jesus are people from every "tribe and tongue and nation," not particularly Americans
But Americans are from every tribe and tongue and nation. That because America as designed by the Founders was truly Christ-centered. America is the pinnacle of Christian-based Western Civilization.
This does not mean America needs to be a theocracy. It means that Americans get there basic rights from God, not monarch or state.
America rose farther, faster than any other civilization. That is no accident. America was designed by great men who knew what civilization was all about.
This painting is the height of religious idolatry. I find it disturbing on so many levels. I don't see Christ ever endorsing or sending a Constitution that made slavery the law of the land or dis empowered women. I don't like this painting. It's disgusting.
p
I feel that this painting is more or less just saying that we need to go back to the Constitution how it was originally written, and that includes giving equal rights to God. We are a nation under God and we shouldn't be taking him out of the picture and this seems to be showing that it will come to hit them one day. It seems as if Jesus is more or less pointing at the Constitution as if to say "This was put into place by us. You shouldn't have changed it." Because the Bible does say that all government and authority is place by God. This is more of a Constitutionalist movement of starting back at the basics.
@Pashe@xanga - Exactly. This one is much better, not to mention accurate:
http://img.waffleimages.com/d38b7d6c07b96752dc6afc9927da8d058610eb7e/cthulhu_flat.jpg
(highlight it in your address bar and press enter to see)
@Pashe@xanga - Agreed. I find this nationalistic idolatry within the church appalling.
How is it possible that Thomas Jefferson can be so prominent next to Jesus? The guy rejected the Jesus of the Bible. He made his own Bible in which Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Jefferson among many of the others in the painting would shocked to see Jesus is Lord. Christians, wake up!! Stop bowing down to the Founding Fathers.
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - That's incredible. I think our nation needs to turn back to Cthulhu. I believe he's coming back in our lifetime. Obama is the anti-Cthulhu.
Also, the second soldier over looks suspiciously like Admiral Ackbar there.
that picture is like a conservative-Christian/Christian-conservative's dream. i like that he included the soldiers as if they are diametrically opposed to the liberal judge crying, as if they're some kind of "Jesus warriors". i support our troops 100%, but they have nothing to do with Jesus. we're not Templars fighting some holy war, we're Americans fighting for whatever those people in congress tell us we're fighting for. if this were truly a Godly nation then we wouldn't have a military at all. it always seemed to me like Jesus was against war. but then where would we be? thus we come to the pseudo-controversial topic of separation of church and state.
@soy_esteban@xanga - Christians, wake up!! Stop bowing down to the Founding Fathers.
The Founding Fathers bowed down to God. Good Christians follow the lead of the Founding Fathers.
Shouldn't Jesus be giving the constitution to Glen Beck?
@Pashe@xanga - @ed408@xanga - I wouldn't be so sure about Jesus's judgement of slavery, given the bible's clear support and promotion of slavery.
@xsimplepleasuresx@xanga - If Jesus' teachings on the good Samaritan are any indication of how one should treat the foreigner or outcast in your land then I would not be so sure of that.
p
@Pashe@xanga - I am aware of the story, and the meaning it is meant to portray, but that doesn't mean that it negates the various references to slavery.
@xsimplepleasuresx@xanga - Nor does it endorse them.
p
@Pashe@xanga - Isn't the bible considered the written word of god to christians? Which would mean that it does endorse those references.
@xsimplepleasuresx@xanga - This gets sticky but Jesus reversed a lot of what the old testament said. Case in point the bible is clear about an eye for an eye, but Jesus says turn the other cheek. The rabbis forbade Jesus to heal on the Sabbath, Jesus called them hypocrites. So again Jesus never endorsed slavery. In the case of the good Samaritan he calls for mercy and justice not servitude. The Samaritan could have made the Jewish man a slave or indentured servant in some way to pay off the debt of taking care of him but he did not. In that parable Jesus showed how we should treat anyone that is hurting regardless of their status and in essence reverses Old Testament law.
p
@Pashe@xanga - Slavery was not only mentioned in the old testament though, there are several references in the NT as well. I would give bible quotes, but I seem to have misplaced the file that contained them. I will have to search for it. The Good Samaritan does not directly mention slavery, it may speak indirectly towards it, but there are other areas that directly speak to the acceptance of slavery.
I think the painting stimulates thought, conversation, discussion. Which is what good art is supposed to do. Yes, there are a lot of political implications, theologic challenges, etc with the characters and how they inter-relate. This is good, causes you to think and ponder others' points of view, no matter how ridiculous. This is a good portrayal of "art".
Sure beats a cross in a cup of piss.
@Pashe@xanga - Actually, when you understand the context of what's going on, Jesus didn't really change anything (other than the apostate ways that the Pharisees and Sadducees morphed the Law of Moses into being). What the Savior did was give them a higher law to live. He gave them the Spirit of the Law. For example: The letter of the law was "Don't commit adultery". The Spirit of the law is "don't look upon another woman to lust after her, or you will have committed adultery in your hearts". It's a higher law to live. Justice will win out. Because of what the Savior did, we have the opportunity to have mercy, so long as we work with Him consistently to ensure what He did for us individually.
@Pashe@xanga - Too many people like to twist verses to mean what they want them to mean when there aren't inspired men of God to let us know.
Slavery was never in the Constitution when it was originally drafted, that didn't come until the height of the Civil War.
@J_Goldens_Shadow@xanga - Actually this is simply not true. Article 1 Clause 9 section 1 reads:
Section 9.The migration or
importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall
think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to
the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be
imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
That references slavery.
p
@J_Goldens_Shadow@xanga - Actually Jesus did change certain parts of the old testament law like changing the eye for the eye part to turning the other cheek. That is a change.
p
@xsimplepleasuresx@xanga - True Paul talks about it. But Jesus makes it clear that we are to treat people w/ more respect than that. The New Testament is a very complex series of books, legends and narratives. Jesus never would have supported the forced importation of Africans to build this nation or the massacres that killed of first nation folks. He just would not have done that. He would not have led a movement to stop it either but he would have encouraged all to love your neighbor.
p