Skip to main content

On Having a Blackened Halo...




This is a photograph of the East window above the altar-table at Church. It is a piece of religious art I both love and hate. I hate it because I'm not very keen on Victorian depictions of the last supper, on the whole, because they tend to be quite miserable and Jesus is always pale and English-looking. The disciples are all bearded men, dressed wholly inappropriately, and are also pale and English-looking.

But, there's always a "but" with this sort of thing for me: I love this stained glass window because it is quite unusual. It's a bit small to see the full detail in the photograph, but one of the disciples has a blackened halo. Often on a Sunday morning when I look at Judas I feel quite sorry for him in this image: permanently marked out by the artists as the betrayer, one whose holiness and faithfulness is called into question so very publicly every week. As if to make it more obvious, the artist has represented Judas facing away from Jesus, and away from the fellowship of all those who are called to share in the supper, almost away from his salvation.

It's an unusual image. There are very few stained glass windows showing Judas in this way; the local historians say only three in the UK and less than a dozen across Europe. What startles me about it is the boldness of the artists to continually name and shame the one who betrayed Jesus, and to do so very publicly. Sometimes I think this must be a great act of cruelty. Other times I wonder if the artist wanted to send home a message to the congregations who sit and face the image each week during Holy Communion: none of us is guiltless.

For me, the presence of Judas with his black halo is quite a comfort - precisely because he is present. Sure, he is on the edge, turning away, marked out as one who is quite unworthy to receive, but he's there. Jesus has not yet sent him away - not before first dipping bread with Judas. Not before sharing something with him. I'm humbled by this. I know what's coming, what Judas will do, and what Jesus will encourage him to do. But here, moments before all that, Jesus eats with Judas - the betrayer and the betrayed. How easy it is to move from being present with Jesus, to acting against Him. How easy it is to point out continually the failure of others, to expose blackened halos. How easy to forget that I am and can be and will be Judas, and that Jesus, knowing all of that, shares his bread with sinners.

- Posted from my iPad

Comments

Jeza said…
Jesus shared his bread with sinners - Fantastic news for me & you! Jesus spent a lot of his ministry with a guy who he knew would betray Him - it beggars belief - but is a level of grace slightly beyond my human comprehension. wonderful!
ElsieJoy said…
Our church also has a window that portrays Judas with a black halo

Popular posts from this blog

What Do You Call a Group of Theologians?

I think the answer should be "an argument", but perhaps that's unfair. I can test my theory this next week, which sees the start of the annual Society for the Study of Theology (UK) conference on the theme of Holy Writ? (The question mark is very suggestive). It looks really good, and the list of plenary speakers is great: Alex Samely (Manchester); Morwenna Ludlow (Exeter); Henk van den Belt (Amsterdam); Walter Moberly (Durham); Anthony Thiselton (Nottingham); Hugh Pyper (Sheffield). The conference lasts several days and is convening this year at York University. I hope to be able to blog a few thoughts from the conference and some info about the plenary sessions, but I shall be presenting a paper at one of the themed seminars on Wednesday afternoon on the interpretation of Barth's ethics of responsibility so may be a bit distracted until then. So watch this space for more info...

Barth on defining the authority of scripture, and issues in the Anglican communion

Barth is notorious, particularly amongst evangelical scholars, for his view of the authority of scripture. He is right, I think, to argue that scripture's 'authority' is relative to the authority of Christ. This is precisely why his threefold definition of the Word does not privilege scripture, but acknowledges its principal witness to the 'wordiness' of Jesus (John 1 - a passage of which Barth was very fond). Where I think his approach to scripture becomes more complicated, and difficult to understand, is in passages relating to moral authority, such as this one: All biblical imperatives - and we do not say this to impugn the authority of the Bible but to define it - are addressed to others, and not to us, and they are addressed to others who differ greatly among themselves, to the people of Israel in different situations, to the disciples of Jesus, to the first Christian churches of Jews and Gentiles. Their concreteness is that of a specific then and there...This

My new book! Faithful Living: Discipleship, Creed, and Ethics

I’m a little late flagging this up here, but my book Faithful Living: Discipleship, Creed, and Ethics was released by SCM Press in December 2019 — a little bit earlier than expected (and hopefully in time for a few last-minute Christmas presents!). The basic premise of the book is a bit of a thought-experiment: I am interested in the kinds of decisions and actions that may be inferred or implied for those who believe and regularly recite the Nicene Creed. I don’t pretend this is an exhaustive moral commentary, nor that the basic approach isn’t without some qualification, but I do try and join the dots between the confessional substance of the Christian faith (with which many worshipers are familiar because of liturgical confession) and the every-day choices that most Christians are required to make. It comes from the conviction that doctrinal commitments implicate our moral lives. The blurb summarises it as follows: How can the things we do and say in Church impact our lives and s