One aspect that I've found fascinating about the impassioned discussions around the recent controversy concerning Bill Henson's photographic art: nowhere is there to be found any defence of Henson from openly Christian (nor indeed any other religious) art critic or afficionado.

There's been numerous negative comments about Henson, his art and those who appreciate and defend it, over the various OLO discussions on this topic. Some of these have come from openly Christian contributors at OLO. However, most of the objections and indignation about Henson are curiously, almost stridently secular: variations on the theme of "what about the children", rather than invoking anything overtly Christian in the current confected controversy.

On the other hand, each and every argument in support of Henson's art is implicitly if not avowedly secular. It seems striking that there appears to be absolutely no defence of Henson's art from a Christian perspective at OLO or elsewhere - nor, indeed, from any other religious perspective.

I find this quite curious. Aren't there any art lovers out there who believe in Jesus who are prepared to go into bat for Bill?

Well_well_well! at_LAST mr Morgan brings a thought out topic for discussion rather than snide, smelly suspicion and sniping :)

Putting it in down to earth language Hoo-blardy-ray!

CJ.. for my part, I don't think I've actually condemned Hensons art, but raised questions about his motives in an 'if'-then.. scenario.

If you want a "Christian" perspective on 'his art' that would be impossible. On 'particular' works.. it would be possible.

Nakedness of children on public display is an area which always causes heated debate, and as you point out, most of the attack has come thus far from secular sources against secular supporters.

The only references I know of regarding 'nakedness' and its moral implications comes from the old Testament and Noah. When he was drunk, his son Ham saw his nakedness and the other 2 brothers, entered his tent and with their backs to him, and covered Noah.

In the New Testament, Revelation has a passage about the spiritual condition Laodicaean_Church described as "blind poor and naked", but this again seems more about 'lacking the spiritual wherewithal' rather than declaring nakedness 'evil'.

The nakedness of small children would normally be a non issue, as we all have pics of our offspring in that state I guess.

The only problem with nakedness is how it is portrayed and 'context'.
I personally can't see any beneficial purpose in displaying naked children of pubescent age as I think the beginnings of breasts and hips hold the greatest reproductive promise to a man. (the younger she is, the more offspring she can bear)

Jesus said "It is not what goes into a man which defiles him but what comes out, from the heart" and in the list of things included was 'sexual immorality'.

Given that he also mentioned "Whoever looks at a woman with lust, has already committed adultery with her"... the Christian position would be that anything which hastens people towards improper lust is not exactly good.

I think you secularists can beat each other to death over this one :)
But I'll be interested in any other Christian contribution for sure.
...enjoy

CJ perhaps the dearth of "Christian" commentary is because it's not a theological issue. I certainly defended Henson here http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003100.html, here http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003107.html and here http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003116.html.

It is a free speech issue, and you'll find that the most persuasive arguments for that were made out by Christians starting in the Renaissance and including Martin Luther and John Milton.

Forgive me for asking BOAZ, but I'm extremely curious.

Given the content and volume of your contributions to this forum every day, do you do anything else but read the bible and sit in front of your computer all day dispensing your religious philosophies ?

This reminds me of the Christians that went around breaking the penises off naked statues centuries ago because they were personally offended. (one of the Popes?)

from DB

Given that he also mentioned "Whoever looks at a woman with lust, has already committed adultery with her"...

well that assumes the pervert, the woman or both are married??

what if married to each other? it cant be adultery

This Bible sounds a bit dodgy to me