In the shadow of the Catholic Church’s sexual abuses, Melissa McEwan of Shakesville wonders about the appropriateness of this image of Jesus in an Oklahoma church, while Andrew Sullivan simply comments, “Oh dear”:
(Image via Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Dish.)
In case it’s not obvious, the controversy is about the holy abdominal muscles, which are strikingly … um … erect.
Oklahoma Catholics appear to be split between oh-so-shocked and oh-so-in-denial. But they shouldn’t be. Nor does it make a whole lot of sense to attribute these massive “muscles” to the notion that Christianity is basically phallocratic, as one commenter does at Shakesville.
Instead, I’d read this picture as part of an artistic tradition that depicts the full humanity of Christ, emphasizing the paradox of his being completely human while also completely divine.
Back in grad school, I read a book by noted art critic Leo Steinberg, The Sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art and in Modern Oblivion
You don’t have to be a believer to be convinced by Steinberg’s argument; at least, it worked for me! But if you are a believer, this artistic tradition should get you thinking about the shame Christians too often attach to the body, nakedness, and sexuality. From this angle, we need not see the sexualization of Jesus as something unholy. If he was perfectly human and perfectly divine, his sexuality must be perfect as well.
And if that’s the case, our sexuality must be at least blessed, if not perfect.
Just to give you a sampling of what Steinberg found, here’s the baby Jesus as portrayed by Veronese in the Holy Family with St. Barbara and the Infant St. John (circa 1560). He’s doing one of the things that babies do when they discover it feels good – even better than playing with their feet!
(Image borrowed from the Uffizi catalogue.)
There are also oodles of portraits in which Mary gestures at baby Jesus’ genitals, as in Perugino’s Mother and Child (circa 1500):
(There’s also an artistic tradition of gesturing at the genitals of the dead Christ after he’s taken off the cross, but I had a hard time finding the images Steinberg cites on the Internet.)
These artistic representations of Christ’s sexual nature as proof of the Incarnation are no longer comprehensible to most of us – even (or maybe especially) if we’ve grown up within a Christian church. I remember the sour-faced reaction of the clerk at Cornell’s campus bookstore when I purchased Steinberg’s book: “He should be ashamed of himself!” That was in the mid-1980s in a liberal college town.
I can’t claim that the crucifix in Oklahoma is necessarily within the tradition Steinberg describes. I do think though, that one can legitmately read it as an expression of the Incarnation. Judging from the reactions it’s gotten, it looks like sexuality is still far from being reclaimed as not just compatible with Christianity but a blessed part of it.
Patron cat of Kittywampus (1985-2001)
I have a feeling that I’d learn the answer if I just read Steinberg’s book, but I know I won’t, so I’ll bug you instead. How does this evolve out of a Christian tradition that is so distrustful and contemptuous of the body? Granted, I’m coming from a laywoman’s survey-course-here/documentary on PBS-there knowledge of Christian thought on the body, but it seems that starting with Paul and really getting going with Augustine, sex even within marriage was, at best, a necessary evil.
So how do we get to …
Far from being sacrilegious, these portraits underscored an important element of Christianity then in ascendance: the human side of the Incarnation.
… From this angle, we need not see the sexualization of Jesus as something unholy. If he was perfectly human and perfectly divine, his sexuality must be perfect as well.
And if that’s the case, our sexuality must be at least blessed, if not perfect.
I had to go back and take a quick look at Steinberg’s book. He says that Renaissance artists’ commitment to realism helped to push sexualized portrayals to the fore. Theologically, the emphasis on Jesus’ sexuality had to be confined to his birth and his death because he was believed to have been chaste throughout his life. His ability to control his innate human sexual impulses (which are portrayed only in infancy and death) thus became proof of his divinity.
So emphasizing Christ’s sexuality didn’t mean suggesting he actually had a sex life. It only underscored the mystery of the Incarnation.
Does that make sense? I don’t know if I can clarify much more without spending some serious time with Steinberg.
Thanks. That helps. Or rather, the way in which it remains confusing is tied up in the way Christian theology has a foreign quality to me, but it makes more sense than it did before.
My post is a little bit tendentious in that I’m trying to locate potential sex-positive traditions within Christianity, and yet if you believe the four canonical gospels, Jesus remained chaste, and his ability to sublimate his sexuality (as we post-Freudians might say) becomes proof of his godhood.
This matters to me not so much personally, anymore; I grew up in the liberal UCC but in a very conservative town, and I now consider myself a “hopeful agnostic” whose brain and heart benefit from Buddhism. But I teach lots of college-aged people who remain religious and are trying to reconcile a liberatory sexual ethics with their faith.
Also, it was fun to have a chance to revisit what we called “The Baby Jesus Peepee Book,” back in our oh-so-mature grad student days. Guess I haven’t progressed much further, because I still get a little zing of childish pleasure at being naughty and roiling the Sunday School teachers …
Such an interesting post. But I have a difficult time seeing the Oklahoma representation of Christ within the tradition of Renaissance painters – it is neither realistic nor aptly metaphorical – I find it weird and downright ugly and I don’t want to look at it at all. That’s just me.
Re: the conversation here in comments I just have to add – it really was female sexuality that was repressed by the formal teachings of the Church. The adequate repression of women’s sexuality was thought to be sufficient for curtailing men’s sexual urges, since woman was the temptress. We don’t see any representations of Mary’s genitals referring to her human incarnation. Which leads me to believe that there are some unconscious feelings about the power and potency of the penis in these old paintings. And that’s what strikes me in the new one too.
You’re of course right that the OK Christ (hmm, sounds like a fundamentalist slogan?) is neither aesthetically nor theologically in line with those Renaissance depictions. It is not “realist” in the same sense. Also, the Renaissance tradition showed Jesus’ genitals either at birth or at death, whereas the OK picture appears to show the risen Christ – the “King of Glory” triumphing over the cross, no longer suffering and dying on it.
The commenters at Shakesville pointed to an earlier picture – the 12th century San Damiano crucifix – that the OK Christ seems to have been modeled after. So there may well be other traditions that actually include a mondo erect penis. The Renaissance did occasionally show an infant erection, but I don’t recall seeing any adult erections in Steinberg’s book, and if they did exist, they certainly weren’t on this porn-start scale!
If you think back to Jerome and Augustine, male sexuality was seen as a problem, too. Certainly by the Renaissance the female temptress was a major trope. But the church really does have multiple traditions when it comes to sexuality. And even though I can’t think of any orthodox figure in the history of Christianity that took a positive view of women’s sexuality, the church had to contend with popular scientific notions that held a woman had to orgasm in order for conception to occur.
Theologically, Mary’s position was somewhat different, since there’s no question of her humanity. Certain Catholic notions, such as her intercessory role and her immaculate conception, raise her above the rest of humanity. To the extent that those ideas have been reflected in art (and I really don’t know enough to be sure), I’d expect her semi-divinity to be stressed, not her humanness.
Finally, I’d never discount feelings about the power of the penis/phallus! Someone needs to interview the artist and ask “WTF???” But apparently she is a local OK gal and totally mortified by the whole brouhaha. She’s going to “fix” it, according to subsequent news coverage.
And maybe not so unconscious!
[...] but this is apt to squick those of us who’ve seen infants discover boyparts and girlsparts. (Baby Jesus, for instance!) Let’s just stipulate: no virginity loss for the sippy-cup [...]
To say the Church is biased toward men, sees sex in marriage as a necessary evil at best, or discourages sex within the context of marriage is an unfortunate understanding. To assist any interested person on specific positions I would urge you to reference the catechism of the Catholic Church it is a book which contains official teachings. Also, look into Pope John Paul II’s teachings on the theology of the body. Just to bait you a little He says husband and wife should climax at the same time when possible. Or how about Pope Pius X (I think) who in the 1950′s wrote an encyclical warning artificial contraception builds a barrier between man and woman, divorce rate would go up, broken families would become more common this was in spite of the propaganda that the pill and condoms would do the opposite He went on record while under pressure to cave in to popular demand. before 1950 every chrisitian church condemned artificial contraception but now it is only the Catholic Church it’s 2010, which forecast was accurate and showed genuine love?
I don’t think these 2 examples of leaders in the Church during our time show a Church hostile at all to sexuality. Contrary, it is defending it from those dangers and misunderstandings which lessen sex.
I let this comment through, but hello? Does this post say anything about marriage? So no, I’m not going to take the “bait.” If you care to comment in the future, have the courtesy to respond to what the post actually said. Future comments that fail to do so will not be approved, and I will not engage in debate about why I choose to keep them off my blog. Trolls are not welcome here.
As for any theology that *mandates* simultaneous orgasm – it might sound pro-sex in theory, but any standard that must be “achieved” is actually oppressive to both partners. Ugh.