Many beliefs around Christ center around him being a savior figure. There is less emphasis on approaching Christ as an object of compassion. In this article I object against the use of Christ within what Carveth calls the construct of the ego-ideal. It is argued to approach Christ from the perspective of conscience.

One figure who acted out of conscience and was compassionate towards Jesus was Joseph of Arimathea.² He was said to be of wealth and a secret follower of Christ. He was a member of the council of the Sanhedrin that convicted him. He opposed their decision to crucify Christ. He defied the mental state of superego, and followed instead conscience. After Christ got crucified, he asked Pontius Pilates to get him off the cross, which he was supposed to have done with Nicodemus, and wrapped him in linnen.

Joseph had planned for his own death by having a tomb built in a garden. Upon the death of Christ, he generously made this tomb available, that had not been used before, so that Christ could be buried in it.

Starting from a couple hundred years after his death, Christ is often depicted by himself on the cross.³ He is often approached from fulfilling a function in what mentally can be seen as an ego-ideal: a mental function as to what the perfect self (or sacrifice) would be. Regardless of the use for an individual to idealize, or to have some story which facilitates that idealizing, the question is what the significance of that is for the person who is idealized. Perceptions steer persons into a certain direction. If one has to endure or sustain idealizing perception continually, that may very well be a burden.⁴ It is therefore helpful to cultivate perceptions to persons that one has faith in that are wholesome and beneficial to that person, thus approaching them from perspective and a relationship of conscience. From this perspective, the crucifixion is disagreed with, and there is a disposition of care and compassion around the figure. One wishes peace for Christ, to get him off the cross alltogether.

1. Picture from: https://www.bethlehemwoodcarving.com/p_2163/joseph-of-arimathea-taking-jesus-down-from-the-cross/ ↩︎
2. https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/joseph-arimathea ↩︎
3. In the first centuries of Christ after his death he is depicted in a wholesome and communal fashion, between people or as a shepherd. https://www.fabriziomusacchio.com/weekend_stories/told/2025/2025-01-15-early_depictions_of_jesus/ ↩︎
4. It is based off of the idea that perceptions move and condition the world. If someone perceives someone a certain way, that person is pushed a certain way. Ayya Khema talks about this and I write about this in more detail elsewhere. It means that perceptions, intentions, and consciousness move in an interdependent cycle that develop each other. It can turn into a set pattern, becoming a motif or a structure of a school of thought or religion.
   
   A good example is feminist theory. In such theories, there is criticism about how certain perceptions, views and expections condition behaviour. Such theory is aimed at cultivating mindfulness (knowing an unskilfull perception as an unskilfull perception), the wisdom to discern its unskilfullness and the wisdom to develop a skilfull alternative, followed by an effort to move to a different direction. Even though such faculties protect and give freedom against perceptions that are unskilfull, it would nonetheless be a burden to have to protect against that.
   
   If this process works in this way, the idealized perceptions of the Passion or suffering of Christ privilege faith above compassion. ↩︎