Quotes and comments;
A. In his book 'Darwin's God' Cornelius Hunter talks about a painting called 'Christ in the house of his parents' that caused a lot of controversy among the Victorian elites. (Including a negative review from a certain Charles Dickens.) Before I include any comments, you might want to take a look.
Charles Darwin (I mean Dickens) called the painting "mean, odious, revolting and repulsive." [1.]- What did the Victorians object to in this painting? Don't they betray a distaste for the Bible, and the simple gospel? Don't they show a distaste for the real God and a preference for abstraction? Jesus is real in this painting; not a wisp of smoke, or a trace of celestial gas. He's a real person, and this I think is the offense of the painting.
They didn't want a real God, and one way to get this 'bloody' character out of the house (as it were) was to deconstruct the idea of a creator and a creation. If they could persuade people the doctrine of creation (in its current or Biblical form) wasn't true, they could take the Creator by the ear and remove him from society's sitting room.
A real (personal) God is someone who makes demands, and to whom one might be responsible; but a divine spirit or Mind (Deism) was too distant to be that, and wouldn't concern itself with such banalities.
The attack on creationist ideas was one and the same as the attack on biblical theology, and that horrid bible. (The bible was considered obscene, and in as much need of concealment as the naked legs of a piano.) The Victorians wanted to be judged solely by their own standards; and certainly not by those of Christ. This being the case all 'supports' for biblical Christianity had to go. This meant biblical creation had to go.
As Deism had been 'proved' by showing how evil the god of the bible was (with examples Richard Dawkins still uses) so evolution was 'proved' by showing how evil the creation was (with examples Dawkins still uses today). In Christian terms, they preferred their ideas and speculations to reality, and didn't want anything intruding on their comfortable view of things.
The Deist god is as far from the God revealed in this painting ("He was wounded for our transgressions...") as the doctrine of evolution is from the doctrine of creation. In Victorian theology Jesus and his wounds (along with his family) are removed, so that all that remains in the the scene are the sheep. (Who are given smiles no doubt.)
Jesus famously said, "I work and my Father works..."
"Not around here you don't," said the Victorians. "Not without a government stamped work permit. Get thee behind the scene, behind the curtain." They wanted a god that wouldn't interfere with their lives, a god limited by their standards.
The title of the painting reminds me of the famous hymn 'In my Father's house'. Whether it was titled to draw this connection I don't know. Victorians like Charles Darwin didn't want anything to do with such a notion. In fact they wanted God out of their house.
Summary; these few remarks can't begin to deal with such a complex phenomenon as the Victorian reaction to this painting. A book could easily be written on the subject. But it gives us a glimpse into the mindset of the people who rejected Biblical creation for Evolution. As Hunter points out, their decision to do so was based more on religious (metaphysical) motivations than it was on an investigation into biology.
M. Johnson [frfarer -at- gmail.com]
Notes;
1. Darwin's God: evolution and the problem of evil - Cornelius Hunter/p.130
- I recommend this book highly. It's one of the best I've read. It gives a lot of background on the Origins debate that's fascinating.
2. "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." - John 5:17
3. What the 'ordinary' people of the time thought about the painting I don't know.
4. Gertrude Himmelfarb wrote a worthy book on the Victorians called 'Darwin and the Darwinian revolution'.
5. I wonder if anyone's written anything about Dickens and Darwin. They seem very much of a pair. I'm not surprised Dickens reacted to the painting as he did, as I can't remember any biblical Christianity in any of his novels. (Think of 'A Christmas Carol')
6. Christian 'liberals' of our day are little different than the Victorians. The god they present to us has little (if anything) to do with the God presented in the Bible. (They get as offended by young earth creationists, as the Victorians did by this painting.)
