"My Sweet Lord"

A 6 foot high sculpture of Jesus, with arms outstretched, was to have gone on display this week at the Lab Gallery at the Roger Smith Hotel, Manhattan, New York.

The figure, called "My Sweet Lord",  is anatomically correct, totally naked - and made out of 90 kg of milk chocolate.

I say "was", because the display has been cancelled after protests by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. The director of the gallery has resigned in consequence. You can find the story at the BBC , and at CNN.

The protests seem to have been based around three issues:

1. The figure of Christ is naked.

2. It was to have been on display in a very prominent position, where passers-by and children could have seen it.

3. It was to be on display in Holy Week.

But why chocolate? It sounded at first glance like a stunt of some sort, but, having read further, I 'm sure it's not.

The figure has been depicted with restraint - far less horrifically or grotesquely than, say, in some of the art in the (wonderful) "The Christ We Share" pack put out by CMS. The use of chocolate gives rise, of course, to the punning title of the piece. But there may be something else here - though it's hard to tell without having seen it. Something about a contrast between the humiliation of crucifixion and the way we approach Easter in our Western culture, chocolate eggs and all? A comment on the sourness of this death and the saccharine nature of our cultural celebrations?

Whatever, the protests have missed the point totally. It would be laughable if there weren't rather significant implications.

This is clearly a crucifixion scene. There is no way of getting round the fact that the crucifixion of Jesus was, like all Roman crucifixions, horrific, obscene and humiliating. Humiliating because it was a criminal's death and because, as Martin Hengel points out in his 1977 book Crucifixion (p87), the person crucified hung there stark naked in full view of those who passed by. (Nakedness was particularly upsetting in Jewish culture of the time.)

Arguably, a depiction of the Crucifixion where the victim is not naked is both historically inaccurate and theologically questionable. Aren't these protesters in fact attempting to sanitize the crucifixion of Jesus - to emasculate it of its power?

And I would have thought that Holy Week was just the time to have put such an artwork on display (though the organizers say this was coincidental). What better time could there be?

I could just leave it at that, and say that it's tiresome to see Christians bleating and posturing like this. But there's more to say.

The Crucifixion is not the property of us Christians. Jesus is not owned by us. It, and he, are owned by no one - or, else, by everyone.

It's not this sculpture that's distasteful - but the sight of Christians treating the figure of the crucified Christ as a kind of trade mark: 'This is ours, we can say what should and should not be done with it, and, since this particular depiction or use of it wounds our sensibilities, we can insist that no one gets to see it...'

Taking offence at a so-called "assault on Christian sensibilities", as certain Christians have done here, is a way of saying that your human rights have been violated and that, therefore, you can take control of a situation which is not to your taste and dictate what should or should not happen.

But the cross of Christ defies being controlled by anyone.

Instead, we should be glad that icons of the crucified Christ are still in the public arena and doing their public work. Far from being lost in the mists of historical time, this figure of Christ has, it seems, still the power to move and shock and make people pause for thought. We should rejoice at that. God needs no defending, as far as I am aware.

Comments

[fizzog]

Since I wrote this, I've spotted a blog on this with interesting comments and links: http://www.hyperliterature.com/?p=1267

[Samantha]

Thank you for sending me the link to this. You make a valid point it the trademark that Christians feel they have on the Crucified Christ and yet another, in my opinion, stronger point in that they should be happy that people are still thinking of Christ instead of easter bunnies. I grew up with easter eggs and chocolate until I was a teenager and brought to church. In recent years people have lost faith and reason for religion and put their faith into appearances and materials. To see someone take the image and make a statement like this is one to be applauded. I know I would.

[fizzog]

Thanks for the comment, Samantha - and I appreciate the thoughts you offer.

[benj]

I'm not christian so I can't be that offended. :) I find the sculpture odd, though. Without the cross, the position looks really awkward.

[fizzog]

Perhaps the absence of the cross is meant to give a focus on the contortion of the body involved in crucifixion? For me, it's more powerful for not having a cross explicitly depicted.

[Mark]

Thanks for the trackback. I do appreciate it.

I think you and I came to similar conclusions about this whole debacle, except in my post I outright attacked Bill Donahue for his idiocy.

But you're right, radical Christians, and radical believers in any faith really, all share the common belief that they have the exclusive right to censor how others interpret their religion. This, to me, is due to two factors:

1. Fundamentalism. For the most part, fundamentalist movements are all about reaching to an "ideal" past as a way to avoid change. Of course, that "ideal" is nothing more than an illusion, but for people that fear what the future holds, it's a comforting illusion.

2. Power and Control. I contend this is Donahue's only driving factor. Parker and Trey did a much better job of driving that home than I ever could, but a look at how he has run the Catholic League during his tenure clearly illustrates that his attacks on others are calculated for political effect, and not necessarily for the religious sanctity of Catholicism.

That, and Cavallaro's kind of a flake. That didn't help him much.

And kudos to you for showing restraint and avoiding using words like "dipshit" and "douchbag" when discussing this whole thing. You are a better man than I.

[fizzog]

Thanks, Mark, for the generous and helpful comments. I agree entirely with what you say about an obsession with ideal pasts and with power and control. There may be something about an ungenerous political conservatism in there too, but I'm not familiar enough with the US scene to be able to comment on that.

I suppose I'd slightly question your use of "radical", in that it need mean no more than someone who wants to go to the roots of a thing, and that's probably no bad idea at all. I'd settle for "fundamentalist", I think - though that term's not very useful in relation to, say, Muslims.

Having looked around at the Catholic League a little, I think the last thing on their leader's mind is sanctity: the first is winning the game.

[zaphod]

A very interesting blog and very much about a Vibrant Lent. The crucifixion is not some bland, historical event and Cavallaro has gone a long way, I think, in depicting this - and the point you make about Christians not 'owning' either Christ nor his crucifixion is critical and good - he lived and died (and rose) for everyone - and yes, there is something powerful in there being no cross in the sculpture because that does emphasis the distortion of a body on the cross - it looks more painful and because that image is less familiar (and therefore rather taken for granted) it strikes afresh.

[fizzog]

Zaphod, thanks, and I really appreciate the link between this post and "vibrant Lent". I'm all for trying to see the cross through new eyes - it's too easy for its 'scandal' to get old and tired, with familiarity. I think Cavallaro has done us a good service here - as have, oddly, the Catholic League by being scandalized by the wrong thing and getting the whole story publicized in a way that would never have happened otherwise!