To be or not to be iconoclastic, that is the question. Not really though. As a Free low-church evangelical I have no problem with using artistic renditions of Jesus, and many other biblical and Christian characters and events that have significance within the Christian story. Indeed, this more broadly brings up the issue of how Christians ought to use pictures and art within their own narratival schemas and presentations. For me, an issue has been on how or if I should use pictures of Karl Barth. If you have read me for any season of time it is clear to you by now that I am a huge benefactor of the theological themes, categories, and grammars developed by Karl Barth. But as we all know (or most of us do), Barth comes with his own barnacles; many would consider them to be totally disqualifying of him as a Christian theologian. The primary issue with Barth, of course, is his relationship with Charlotte von Kirschbaum; his live in ‘second wife.’ I have virally engaged with this matter back in 2017, which you can find an index for here. More mildly than that particular sin, Barth was also a smoker; not a chain smoker that I know of, but he smoked nonetheless. From the Fundamentalist-evangelical background I have grown up within smoking is one of the three deadly sins.[1] And so to share a picture of Barth, which I have said picture, showing him with a “cigarillo” in hand could be another stumbling block for folks’ reception of Barth all by itself.

Should I share pictures of Karl Barth without opprobrium; or should I share pictures of Barth simply because I respect his theology, even if I reject his sin? I typically share pictures of Barth when I am engaging directly, or even indirectly with his theology. This seems to be an appropriate usage of said pictures. Currently, there are some pastors, who also have reach on X, who are under fire for “slandering” other high-profile leaders among them; whether this is done anonymously (in Josh Buice’s case), or in person (in Bryan Chapelle’s case). Indeed, these folks are losing their ministries for their ostensible slander of others. Should their disqualifying sins keep people from engaging with their past teachings, or should they still be respected; insofar that said teachings are respectable and truly bear witness to the living Christ? Should they be referenced, and even pictured in days to come; even in the name of showing them respect, insofar that their prior witnesses commend that?

What remains the case, whether we are iconoclasts or not, is that we have all sinned (and continue to) and fall short of the glory of God. Should I share pictures of Karl Barth in an honoring way, or should it only be when I am critical of the man and his sin[s]? Is God’s witness and work in the lives of His people greater than the person themselves; even while including the person being worked on? Indeed, greater is He who is in us than he who is in the world. While we are simul justus et peccator (despite Jason Staples’ critique of said doctrine), it can be said that those who are Christ’s are Christ’s indeed, insofar that Christ is for us rather than against is. That even when we fall into, or even live in particular sins (consciously or unconsciously), His mercy and grace in the face of Jesus Christ triumphs over all of it. It allows us to look at the fly in the ointment, and still see the beauty and value of the ointment; to understand that ultimately the overwhelming of Christ’s “ointmented” body floods into the sinners’ life pushing out and dissolving said flies that might seek to putrefy the work of God in the person of Jesus Christ.

I understand this is a bit stream of consciousness, but hopefully something coherent has come through. Sharing pictures of Barth for me is just a brute fact in a certain way. He just is who he is by the grace of God in Jesus Christ. The lesson we might derive from this is that this same grace applies to us and our “flies” just the same. Soli Deo Gloria.

[1] Personally, I think smoking is a deadly habit with some nasty side-effects associated with it; both science and experience bear this out.