Homo-erotic images of Jesus - The Judas Kiss

Top: Elizabeth Ohlson-Wallin - "Kiss of Judas". Middle: Giotto: "Kiss of Judas"; Bottom: Becki Jayne Harrelson: "Judas Kiss"

Three artists dealing with the same dramatic moment – the betrayal of Jesus by Judas, with a kiss. From the perspective of orthodox Christianity, this is a pivotal moment. It is grand operatic in its proportions. Here, one of Jesus closest followers, who broke bread and who shared wine with him, betrays him and this betrayal leads Jesus to his death.

Some commentators see the intention of Judas as being honourable. He had grown tired of Jesus’ apparent dithering about and wanted to force his hand. Jesus was, after all the Messiah. The role of the Messiah was to deliver the people of Israel. The Messiah had, at his command, legions of angels, the heavenly Host along with all the weaponry and power of the Almighty. The problem was that Jesus seemed to show an annoying reluctance to use these powers. Judas believed he could precipitate matters, by betraying Jesus into the hand of his enemies – thereby forcing him to act. Of course, he could just have been greedy, but the other is a real interpretation of his motivations.

Whatever it is, and whatever the motivation, it allows the homosexual community to take the image and foreground the homoerotic element in the moment. Here is Jesus - God made human - being kissed by another man. In the Gospel account, he does not reject the kiss. There is no record of him being revolted by it. Indeed, it would appear that the practise is commonplace – how else would it have the signal significance it is intended to have? Judas tells those who he is working with, “The one that I kiss is your man”.

Now, this kiss resonates powerfully throughout the history of the Church. It is the liturgical Filema – the Kiss of Peace, which is practised in the Eucharist as a symbol of the unity of Christians. That is the resonance it is supposed to have. And the fact that this sacred symbol of unity and togetherness can become the moment of the greatest betrayal, is precisely the point which is being made.

And that is why it is such a powerful symbol for use by LGBT Christians. Because at the point at which there is supposed to be the most obvious evidence of unity, of love, of peace – that is the place where LGBT Christians experience the most brutal pain and anguish of betrayal. It is at that point. Exactly at that point – the Eucharistic kiss. And the act of betrayal is experienced in the opposite direction, this time.

Gay images of Jesus

I love these three images, two of which are based on the famous "Consolator" of Carl Bloch (centre). I don't know where the Marilyn Monroe piece comes from, but the gay iconic spoof is from Elizabeth Ohlson-Wallin's "Ecce Homo" series.

The thing about the two alternative takes on the "Consolator", is that they both make exactly the same point. They foreground, and explicitly sexualise the adoration aspect of the painting. I suppose, in the heterosexual version, one may want to update the sexual iconography a bit, by substituting the head and body of Megan Fox, for instance. The gay one speaks a particular iconographic language of a particular, but very recognisable sub-culture.

Now, how come only certain options are available? How come the vocabulary and grammar of religious iconography has been so completely hi-jacked and owned by heterosexual imagists? Naturally, it has to do with the power of the majority. But how come, when the church talks of "listening" to gay people and "dialogue" with us, that our language, our grammar, our vocabulary is not up for discussion?

Homocentric pictures of Jesus

Becki Jayne Harrelson: Judaskiss

Signorelli: The flagellation of Christ

Frances Farmer on the cross - source unknown

Elizabeth Ohlson-Wallin: Krucifix

Maerten can Heemskerck: Man of Sorrows

Giotto: The kiss of Judas

Hans Schaufelein : Crucifixion (1515)

These are some of the images I have collected over the years, of what I would call "homocentric" images of Jesus. The obvious ones, are, of course, those by Elizabeth Ohlson-Wallin and Becki Jayne Harrelson. But the others are interesting as well. The image of Frances Farmer on the cross is a "Christa" or female Christ. The homoerotic images of Giotto and Van Heemskerck are also extremely interesting from a Gay and Lesbian perspective, as a comparitive. And then there is the really singular crucifixion by Schafelein - which, I suppose, might be anybody's guess!

Homocentric images of the last supper

Three very different images of the "Last Supper" - all, I would say, with their own integrity - all making a point for their time. The first one is of 'Bears', clustering around a drag queen (as Jesus). The second is also homo-erotic - but with women as the focus. The last is the well known Michaelangelo.

Depending on one's prejudices, each will have their own triggers for the viewer. 'Bears', for instance, are a particular sub-category of gay culture. The fact that most of us gay white men end up bears, is either a sad (or a happy) reality!

The wymyn in the second picture, I will grant you, look a bit as though they are extras for the set of "The L-Word". But pictured as they are, and clustered in this traditional pose, they make a particular point.

The thing I wonder, is not why would straight people find these images offensive - as they probably would. What continues to confuse me, is why Gay and Lesbian people would - (which, in my experience of showing them, they often do). The answer lies, I would think, in the complete dominance of explicitly hetero-normative imagery in the Christian church, even when the theme itself lends itself to homocentric interpretation, such as this one.