During the Reformation many windows, statues and other images were broken. Why? What is your reaction to this sort of iconoclasm?
	Oliver Cromwell and the 'Puritans' come in for knee-jerk condemnation by art lovers. The destruction of the stone Buddhas in Afghanistan by the Taliban might, perhaps, be taken as a modern example of theology and art coming into collision. Islam and Judaism discourage images of God - and it was scriptural prohibitions that lay behind the destruction of images, such as those of God the Father, in stained glass. Statues of saints were destroyed because devotion to them was thought to be at the expense of devotion to Jesus Christ. Beautiful objects such as Rood Screens were dismantled because they embodied the division of the church into two castes - priests and laity. Glass, stone and wood may be beautiful, but for 16th century workmen they were symbols of oppression and wrongness - and for them true worship was more important than beautiful worship. What do the students think? Can Truth and Beauty be in conflict? (despite what Keats said, 'Beauty is Truth; Truth, Beauty') · Theological issues from the 16th century may be difficult to grasp, but certain images are charged with negative meaning in our own society and are therefore repressed. In the Netherlands, a generally liberal society, blacked-faced white people are still an integral part of the Christmas celebrations, welcoming St Nicholas (the 'Black Peters' are thought to be the ones who actually deliver gifts to the houses). In Britain, such caricatures would be thought deeply offensive and racist. In the Netherlands, too, 'golliwog' dolls are much more easily available (as is Tintin in Africa with its caricature black people - England is one of the few European countries that doesn't have a translation of this particular title). In Britain, a well-known jam label famously abandoned its golliwog emblem because of pressure to ditch such offensive images. Such examples are not an exact parallel with earlier theological disputes, but they do help bring home the point that images can be charged with offensive meaning by our own age. What other contemporary examples can students think of?
	On occasion art and religion still come into open conflict. As in the case of Michele Coxon's Naked Christ, a religious image can offend a secular society, but the opposition can come from the other direction too. Blasphemy is still a crime in Britain. It is in America, though, that one of the more interesting recent examples occurred. Andres Serrano's work Piss Christ - a photograph of a crucifix suspended in a phial of urine - caused great controversy when it was exhibited. Politicians called for funding to be withdrawn from the gallery in North Carolina that displayed it. In Australia, pressure from the Roman Catholic Church forced the National Gallery of Victoria to close an exhibition which included it. What do the students think of this image? Is it beautiful - or offensive? What do they think the artist is trying to say? Even if it is taken to be a thoughtful and beautiful image, should it still be banned if it offends a large number of people's deeply held beliefs and their sense of identity? Much more information about this image, its 'meaning' and the issues of free speech, can be found by feeding 'Piss Christ' or Andres Serrano into a search engine. One site including work by Serrano, that may provoke discussion among older students on the collision of modern art and Christianity, can be found on the Sacred and Profane website at:       http://www.sacredandprofane.org.uk/home.html