Continue reading »]]> Oliver Crisp is a name serious evangelical thinkers should know.  He’s written some incredibly brilliant books on the Incarnation, and his style of writing is something I greatly appreciate.  I really struggle with reading theologians who write such obfuscated prose, and Crisp certainly does not do such.  He’s an analytic theologian, who basically means he uses logic and argument carefully in his theology and sets it out as such.  Oh, and he’s also a fine artist.

Anyway, here’s a brilliant interview with him regarding: theology for the church, creeds, election, Christology, theological method, zombies, religious art, and blogging.  Here’s a snippet from the full interview:

Q: How do you see the relationship between your work in academic theology and the Church’s task of proclaiming the gospel?

A: Theology that is not done in the service of the Church is seriously defective, in my view. Although I work in a so-called ‘secular’ university, I am very conscious of the need to address the Church in what I do. I hope that in some small way my own work may be of use to the Church through the trickle-down effect of students of theology and prospective ministerial candidates getting trained in theology and reading the sort of stuff I write. I have taught in both secular and confessional contexts in the UK and North America, and I think effective theological education is of vital importance for the life of the Church. If we want an educated and effective laity, we need an effective and educated clergy to teach them.

Q: You are an artist and the cover of God Incarnate features your painting, “Jesus of Nazareth”. What is the theological reasoning behind your attempt to portray Christ in that way? I mean, isn’t it Nestorian to try and depict Jesus’ humanity apart from his divine person?

A: It would only be Nestorian if I said ‘this is a picture of a human person called Jesus of Nazareth’.  But this is not supposed to be a portrait of a human person; it is supposed to be a portrait of God incarnate.  So I’m not really sure why this is Nestorian. I think more Protestants should read St John of Damascus’ Three Treatises on the Divine Images.  There is much more there to challenge Protestant sensibilities about religious art that one might think.  As to the theological reasoning for my portrait of Christ, I wanted to depict Jesus as a Semite (not a white European) and in an aspect that emphasized the seriousness of dealing with the God-man. I was tired of seeing the sort of saccharine, ‘Gentle Jesus, meek and mild’ portraits of Christ one often sees in popular religious devotion and on the cover of books.