{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032492997198879554, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01568627450980392, 'mean_word_length': 5.355871886120997, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The material representation of the ethereal

“Heavenly Creatures: Angels in Faith History and Popular Culture” St Mungo Museum of Religious Life and Art, Glasgow, Scotland, 10 February 2015–17 April 2016. Now extended until Summer of 2017. “Heavenly Creatures” the recent special exhibition at Glasgow’s St Mungo Museum of Religious Life and Art was cleverly designed to appeal to visitors of all ages and dispositions. For the more mature visitor it included some exceptional objects and provided an opportunity to reflect on the material presentation of the ethereal. For younger visitors it was well designed to spark the imagination. The combination could perhaps appear superficial or kitsch, but repeat visits convinced me that “Heavenly Creatures” succeeded surprisingly well for such a small exhibition. The exhibition included a beautiful painting of an angelic musician by Edward Burne-Jones (Figure 1), and two stained glass windows designed by Burne-Jones. The sensuality of these images underscores a fundamental question concerning the Christian imagination of angelic beings. What is the nature of the angelic beings (“messengers”) mentioned in scripture and how are we to understand their material representation? The issue has dogged Christianity since well before the iconoclasm controversy of the eighth century. Scripture assumes the existence of angels, but key passages assert their elemental and non-material nature: “fire and wind” (Psalms 104:4), “a flame of fire” (Hebrews 1:7). The second-century theologian Theodosius distinguished the fire and spirit of angels from everyday fire by calling it “intellectual” and non-corporeal (Peers 2001, 2). Commenting on an image of the archangel Michael, the eleventh century theologian John Mavropus, put it this way: