Did any of you read about this matter?
A life-size chocolate sculpture of a naked Jesus will finally be displayed in New York starting in late October, seven months after an outcry by Roman Catholics forced a different gallery to cancel its exhibition.
The chocolate Jesus will be joined by sculptures of several fully clothed saints, but the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights said it will not protest because, unlike before, there are no plans to put the “anatomically correct” Jesus in public view during Holy Week.
The Proposition gallery in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood will present ‘Chocolate Saints … Sweet Jesus,’ an exhibition timed to coincide with All Saints’ Day on November 1. The show will run October 27 to November 24.
Back in March, the chocolate Jesus by artist Cosimo Cavallaro was to be exhibited in a street-level window of the Roger Smith Lab Gallery in Midtown Manhattan, giving casual passers-by a view of Jesus’ private parts.
Protests, including a call to boycott the affiliated Roger Smith Hotel, forced the gallery to scrap the showing.
‘We still don’t approve but the conditions have changed,’ said Kiera McCaffrey, spokeswoman for the Catholic organization.
The new exhibition will take place indoors in a neighborhood full of art galleries, she said.
It is always tempting, of course, for Christ-followers to overreact to such artistic ham-handedness. I hardly consider it to be good stewardship over our emotional resources when we invest a great deal of anger and vitriol in protests over the insensitivity of artistic experimentalists.
When I get over my initial wave of “how dare they,” I am struck by the metaphorical implications of this “sweet Jesus.” More specifically, in the chocolate absurdity of it all, I am painfully reminded of how frequently I attempt to reduce Jesus to something sweeter and more palatable than he really is. When I ignore, for example, or disregard, or “conveniently re-interpret” the harder and more counter-cultural teachings that Jesus places before me in the Sermon on the Mount, is it not an effort to use Jesus as a means by which to satisfy my spiritual sweet tooth? When I see discipleship as being less about a transformed life in Christ and more about my personal contentment with a comfortable creed, am I not using Jesus as a handy source of Christ-related carbohydrates? When I turn a blind eye to very real issues involving the disenfranchisement and marginalization of human souls, am I not turning away from the Christ of the cross in favor of a saccharine messiah, rich with chocolaty goodness?
If I were the Catholic League (which, of course, I am not), I would devote less energy to the protest and more energy to the interpretation of what may very well be a prophetic sign for the contemporary church—a church that, all too often, prefers its savior to be sweet to the taste.
What’s next—a hard candy rosary? Or perhaps Eucharistic bread with cream filling?!
[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]
[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]
Eric:
Your points cut to the marrow of our disease in the contemporary church. A disease of denial about how we marginalize Jesus and attempt to put Him neatly into a context which matches our comfortability.
So convicting are your observations concerning Christ and our stubborn refusal to let the work of the Holy Spirit take us into ever enlightening realizations about His true heart. I write as one who is guilty of that which I speak. Life has a way of taking over our spiritual quest when we determine to abide in complacency.
What is the antidote for this sickness of sweet ambivalence? I believe it starts with the step of admission. Admit that we are not opening ourselves to the growth that God gives us if we will but make the effort. Admit that our diet has become oversaturated with the fatness of contentment. Admit that we have wasted so much time in an hyocritical state of self delusion while claiming outwardly to be a devout and faithful follower of Christ.
The tugging at our hearts will yield incredible fruit within the Spirit if we allow it. Fruit, ah yes, the anthesis of the synthetic man-made sweetnes we have become drunk on. May God bless us and may the Holy Spirit convict us in compelling ways for the sake of our own salvation.
Right on, brother. I too often sweeten (or just ignore) Jesus’ words in order to make my road a bit easier. Woe unto me.
And, by the way, I thought you WERE the Catholic League. My bad.
Great thoughts, Eric.
All attempts to simply make the Christian gospel more palatable to contemporary appetites—whether in terms of social and economic issues, or in issues of personal morality and intellectual honesty–are nothing more than weak appeals to “cultured despisers.”
So you’re absolutely right: The Church is just as guilty of creating a “sweet Jesus” from the pulpits as that artist did. And in my opinion, the Church bears the burden of guilt!
Cheers…………..
hmmm.. I have been a critic of government sponsored defamation (most notably in my blog entitled Piss Christ and Crap Quran.
Now I have not read about the artists intent here, but what is the difference between the naked Jesus and the statue of David. (by the way, is the Chocolate Jesus circumcised?… I digress)
And could we not argue that since Jesus is the Second Adam, is it not theologically appropriate to depict him naked?
Though Jesus most definitely had a sweet side, are we not to keep the image of Christ sacred? How often does God get stuffed into a box of our own making? And how sad that society pushes and we move a little further back? I just don’t get it sometimes. I believe Jesus is all, everything, beginning and end, hero, man extradinaire but I don’t think desecrating his image is acceptable. Call me old-fashioned, but I would rather see the light in his eyes, the smile on his face, and the scars on his hands, open, waiting for me.
Hi Debbie, may I ask you a question? Do you feel the same sense of desecration when you see the painting of the last supper? If this image was carved in marble would it be acceptable to you?
Of course you can ask. But I must warn you, I am very sensitive, very, very sensitive and there is very little I defend as greatly as my christianity; that is my relationship with Jesus.
So to answer your questions, I think that a statue of chocolate could hardly compare to the Last Supper. First, any sculpture in chocolate would be for, “look-at-me, I-sculpted-a-statue- in-chocolate” value. Compared to DiVinci creating a picture of his Lord preparing for his final days on earth, an image made based on theological fact. Second, a naked man in chocolate, please… Does everyting have to revolve around sexual implications?
So this is only my opinion. Maybe someone will be moved to learn more about Jesus. That would be great! And I do value that everyone’s opinion is important. I just love my Jesus, and don’t like to see someone make him less than what he is, in any form.
Thanks for taking the time to post Debbie. I cannot agree with you assumptions, and to preserve your sensibilities dear sister, I wont take the discussion any further.