Tranny Jesus and Fur Coat Jesus

TOP: Bill Burch - Fur Coat Jesus - 2009

BOTTOM: Bill Burch - Transvestite Jesus, 2009

I have just found these amazing pix on a blog I follow – JesusInLove. The one is of a transvestite Jesus, while the other is a rather strange one, I think, if I understand it correctly, cocking a snoot in the direction of some feminists, as well as the more general swathe of patriarchists .

One of the readers of the blog describes them as “disturbing”. Personally, I am way past being disturbed by this kind of imagery – but I suppose I am probably fairly far out on a limb in this regard anyway. I suppose many, if not most religious people would find them “disturbing”, because they are certainly not the norm!

But the point is a relatively simple one – any and all pictures of Jesus are necessarily interpretive. What mainstream orthodox, so-called “Bible believing” Christians may see as the “right” kind of picture of Jesus, others will find offensive.

The really interesting point, though, is this: would a transvestite see this picture as appropriate. Is it remotely possible that he (in this instance) would have such a good and such a positive self-image, that Jesus himself could be represented in this way?

Similarly, would a feminist who resists and resents everything that high heels and fur coats represents, be able to see the trauma of being woman in this representation? Would the kind of woman who wears furs and high heels, but still considers herself to be a feminist be able to discern herself in this picture? Would a woman who is neither feminist, nor dressed in this way see herself there?

Or, is Jesus so fully and so comprehensively defined in patriarchal, hetero-normative terms, that nothing else is even remotely or conceptually (or even artistically possible? I fear that might be the truth.

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.

In their own image : Hetero-normative images of Jesus

One of the things which struck me most about Leo Steinberg's amazing book, The Sexuality of Christ in Renaissance Art and in Modern Oblivion (University of Chicago Press, 1983,1996), is a throwaway statement he makes fairly late in the book, that naked pictures of Jesus are fairly rare in the Renaissance - and where they are found, he is uncircumcised. Isn't that astonishing?! This, despite the fact that the Feast of the Circumcision was observed in the church from the 6th Century onwards, and took root in the Roman Church from the 11th Century. That is a hell of a lot of cultural reinforcement on a yearly basis! Yet, the Renaissance artists could not envisage Jesus as being different from them, and circumcision was certainly nothing which they would have practised.

A long time ago, in my life, I taught in a rural Catholic School in Lesotho. On the walls of every class there was hanging a picture by Holman Hunt- “Light of the World”. It is a well known picture, with a thoroughly Euro-centric Jesus, with European features and blond hair. That is the picture a class full of black African children saw every day of their high school years. That is the picture they will have in their minds, for all their lives, of Jesus.

And is it any different, in relation to the hetero-normative aspect. Because children (and indeed adults) are never made to encounter Gay or Lesbian depictions of Jesus, it is not within their mental vocabulary. I found, to my interest, that when I showed a variety of images to groups of Gay or Lesbian Christians, that they actively expressed a preference for heterocentric depictions, rather than homocentric ones. Therein, surely, lies a tale!

The images above are: 1. Holman Hunt: Light of the World; 2. Becki Jayne Harrelson: The Crucifixion of Christ; 3. Michaelangelo Crucifixion; 4. Carl Bloch: Crucifixion; 5. Rubens: Crucifixion.

If any of the images above are owned by anyone, I am happy to acknowledge ownership or to remove them.

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.