The chocolate Jesus

The arrogance is appalling, but it's almost becoming passe. I don't know if that's good or bad. k.

Here's the agenda for dealing with this sort of stuff: 1. Work and pray that this sort of nonsense stops, take legal action, protest. Explain why this sort of thing tears us down as a civilization rather than lifts us up. 2. Pray for a conversion of hearts for the people that think this is hip, funny, cute or avant garde. 3. Pray that should they die without any sort of conversion, God shows his infinite mercy on them instead of his just judgement.

Ten bucks says that some Evangelical has done this, but as unwitting kitsch rather than deliberate disrespect. I always thought Tom Waits might have had something like that in mind with his song Chocolate Jesus.

Why does it have to be about cowardice? Simply stated, Jesus is the "big name" in religion here. They didn't pick Muhammed because they live in a nation where most of the people are Christian. That's not cowardice. That's commerce.

?If they had guts, they'd create and display a statue of a naked Muhammad, with his penis exposed, on Ramadan. To be clear, I would think it a terrible thing if they did that, would hope they wouldn't, and would denounce them if they did. But of course they wouldn't do that, because they know exactly what would happen to them if they did. Christians, though, are fair game to be shat on by our cultural betters." My heavens, this is a tiresome argument. Have you ever missed an opportunity to take a jab at Muslims?

FYI, I've added a couple comments to the earlier thread, discussing the Baptist doctring of soul competency. One comment discusses this blog entry. In brief, I respectfully do not understand how Rod can simultaneously affirm this artist's right to blaspheme God and imply that he cannot affirm my right to interpret His Scripture for myself.

Bill Donohue is as much an embarrassment to Catholics as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are to conservative Evangelical Protestants, and Al Sharpton is to Blacks. Yet the networks keep calling upon these guys to be the "spokespersons" for their faith or race. Even when they're right, they are such caricatures that their scripted remarks lack any credibility. Whenever I see one of these blowhard tokens on TV supposedly giving an "official" response to an issue, I hit the mute button, and sometimes the power button.

This turned my stomach.

Susan S. is absolutely right. Christians' collective indifference to the chocolate Jesus just goes to show how very, very close we are to the brink of Christo-fascist theocracy.

Susan S., I'm not sure if the point about "blaspheming Muslims" really has anything to do with the status of Muslims as a minority in this country. After all, the Danish cartoon episode and the Regensburg address of Pope Benedict XVI did not occur in predominately Muslim countries. The point was that once Muslims around the world learned of these events they took to the streets in violent ways and threatened the lives of those involved. So I'm not sure the major reaction to a "Chocolate Mohammed" would occur among American Muslims, but it seems quite likely that some Muslims around the world might be calling for the death of this artist. So I don't see Rod's point as a "jab" against Islam. Is it unreasonable for him to employ the argument that a "Chocolate Mohammed" would create a much different reaction? It certainly seems like events in recent years would justify such a conclusion.
There is nothing new or creative about "art" like this. There are countless other examples which take Christian themes or figures as their subject and portray them in a way that is offensive to believers. Many artists pride themselves on "pushing the envelope" but there seems to be little creative ingenuity in this work. However, to my knowledge (and correct me if I'm wrong please), there would be tremendous "artistic creativity" if an artist chose to pursue Islamic figures or themes in a controversial way. But to be clear, like Rod, I would likewise be critical of such a work.

Kuo is just making pathetic excuses. Unlike the example of SILENCE, there is zero chance that THAT was tha artiste's point.

Actually, Rod made the moral-equivilance angle, I'm just disputing it. Neither the Chocolate Jesus or the Offensive Muhammad are appropriate reasons to riot, but Christians and Muslims are in very different places and it isn't helpful to pretend the situations are identical. Throughout history, Christians--when faced with oppression of their religious beliefs by a hostile or indifferent majority--resorted to violence over similar sleights.

Yes, now, are these people Muslim who are constructing the chocolate Jesus and then complaining about the treatment of their religious figure?

"Of course Christians aren't going to riot in the street; they don't have to. Christians aren't an oppressed group and their religion isn't under attack by the government and the elites." So, if this happened in, say, India or Turkey, where Christians are an oppressed minority, they'd riot, kill people and break things? Uh...don't think so.

Well, it could be worse. At least Christians aren't going around on Easter and giving each other chocolate Easter bunnies and telling kids that Easter is all about wearing one's Sunday Best and having Easter egg hunts! [/sarcasm] (Maybe that is the artist's point - i.e., Christians have turned Easter into a chocolate-Easter-bunny fest (don't forget Peeps, though!), and he's saying that if you're going to focus on chocolate, at least focus on Jesus while you're doing so.)

You made no such chronological distinction in your original post.

The show has been canceled. Outcry from the Catholic community was cited.

"The show has been canceled. Outcry from the Catholic community was cited." The Catholic Al Sharpton has another notch in his bedpost.

Really, just what was the Muslim connection in all of this?

"The show has been canceled. Outcry from the Catholic community was cited." The Catholic Al Sharpton has another notch in his bedpost. And yet if something were cancelled due to protest from, say, the "gay community", I think that many of the same people who supported this exhibit would consider that a victory.

The Catholic Al Sharpton has another notch in his bedpost. Wow, so not only are Christians not allowed to riot in the street but they're not allowed to complain? Whatever.

Catholics are free to complain. But when Bill Donohue is involved, it is like inviting Al Sharpton to a car wreck. He could find something anti-Catholic in the way the newspaper is delivered and makes every serious concerned Catholic look bad.

Not only does he succeed in getting the show canceled, he complains about their attitude when they cancel it. Complainers rock.

DJW, I like white chocolate. Wanna fight about that?

I like white chocolate, too. That makes two of us. So far that's two against one!!

Look, no one rioted in the streets, no one threatened the artist. At least no prominent person. The Muslim connection, for all of you who don't get it, is that anyone anywhere who writes, draws or says anything offensive to Muslim sensibilities is taking their lives in their hands. Salomon Rushdie had to go into hiding after writing a book the Muslims considered blasphemy. The very same people who would shrink from provoking Muslims often consider Christian sensibilities fair game.

"The very same people who would shrink from provoking Muslims often consider Christian sensibilities fair game." Majority religion with access to power v. Minority religion with no access to power. I can see why you'd see them as the same.

"Being deliberately offensive in this way should be out of bounds. And it is out of bounds if it's Muslim sensibility being offended." So are you saying that it should be out of bounds to Christians the way it is out of bounds to Muslims?

Religious sensibilities aside why anyone would want to eat unwrapped chocolate that's been exposed to NYC air pollution is beyond me.

Majority religion with access to power v. Minority religion with no access to power. I can see why you'd see them as the same. Because Islam is a majority religion with access to power in some parts of the world?

One of the upsides of having gone through the reformation is that people can make fun of our icons without anyone getting killed. one of the downsides is that people can make fun of christian icons and we have to be mature about it because we have a long history, and the reformation as a backbone. So what, its a Chocolate Jesus. Big whoop. Next issue. It's not war and peace. Muslims have not gone though a reformation, and we are currently fighting an imperialistic war in a muslim country, both of which (probably combined with the artists own christian background and Americas own christian background) the artist chose the representation he did. Get over it. Move on.

"....The Chocolate Jesus exhibition has been cancelled. And Matt Semler resigned. I'm sure Bill Donohue has sent him a conciliatory bouquet of tulips..." Oh, boo-hoo. Once again art and freedom of expression has to bow to those Christian nazis. I do kinda wished the jerks had done a naked chocolate Muhammed - the exhibit wudda been cancelled due to fire...Just kinda tho...

Artists are liars and cowards who promote their sexual perversions through agression towards decent-minded people who thrive on freedom and respect others in that free society. Artists just love to provoke hatered by pushing the boundaries until their offensive bile spurts into the field of vision of another tranche of humanity. Artists should realise they live in a free society where respect is the key. Living in a free society does not give you vile perverted scumbags the right to take pot shots at everyone else. May all artists die in in a putrifying pit of their own excrement.

Did you defend the danish cartoonists?
If so it is hypocrisy to condemn this artist. I defended the Danes' right to publish without fear of death or violence, not what they published. I would certainly defend the chocolate artist's right to do his thing, even as I condemn the use he made of his freedom. Think clearly!

TangoMike~ "May all artists die in in a putrifying pit of their own excrement." Wow. I couldn't imagine what a horrible world I would find it if I had to live down to your standards. Thank you for exemplifying the True American Spirit (TM) for us! By the way, your little curse there was fairly artistic in excution! :)

Hmmm - add one giant Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man attack, and we'd have both a fantastic clash of Christian and Sumerian religious superbeings and the makings of one fat-ass smore!

Does anyone here even realize that the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) is also a beloved prophet of Islam? As to the appalling suggestion that a similar depiction would be made of Muhammad (pbuh), "if they had guts", they needn't bother -- what's been done is more than enough to inspire both anger and disappointment among muslims. See Quran 19:30-34 and 2:285 if any of this comes as a shock.

Just leave it alone, Rod. Your readers are Christians and your point is that a chocolate Christ at Easter is in bad taste? Talk about preaching to the choir! What may be hard to grasp is that no one in the art community cares whether a certain group is offended by something. They care whether it is intellectually significant or not. Your outrage might add to its significance. Or in time the art world might dismiss the piece as cheap shock content. If so, it will disappear without any fanfare and certainly without your input....Oh, and here's your wallet back!

"Being deliberately offensive in this way should be out of bounds. And it is out of bounds if it's Muslim sensibility being offended." So are you saying that it should be out of bounds to Christians the way it is out of bounds to Muslims? Susan, you haven't answered yet. (My apologies if you just haven't had the chance.) Rod, any comments? The fact that it is "out of bounds" to Muslims who would put a death sentence on the artist is just as abhorrent to me as the fact that it is "out of bounds" to Christians who are not clear whether they think it should be "out of bounds" in the same way it is to Muslims (death threats, etc.) or "out of bounds" in the sense of their giving grudging support to freedom of expression while talking as if they really wish they didn't have that freedom.

I think it is entirely fair for a believer to find this sort of desacrilizing "art" offensive insofar that it's mission is pretty much to thumb its nose at what people hold sacred. Nobody said you can't do it, they just said don't expect me to like it or accept it blithely. Further, this sort of expression as art: of what lasting value is it? It will disintegrate even before this generation. Does ithave any purpose except to offend?

Yes, this situation should remind us that Jesus was the subject of much ridicule- and worse -that eventually led to the cross at the hands of people who were haters and bloodthirsty. But it also pulls the veil away from those who are haters and bigots in our own society--although they use flowery,politically correct rhetoric to defend their pathological hatred.

I have a question (a short series, really) for those of you posting here that found this exhibit to be blasphemous, or offensive, or in any way deserving of Mr. Dreher's condemnation. What about the exhibit, specifically, has led you to take that position? (The fact that Jesus is depicted naked? That the statue is made of chocolate? That it was intended to be eaten? The identity of the artist? The location? All of these in combination?) Mr. Dreher implies that the sculptor and the creative director could not possibly have had any innocent or positive motive. They are, it seems, presumptively malicious and malignant, perhaps because they are "New York hipsters." Do you agree? I am genuinely curious. What is the root of your outrage? Have you examined it?

I'm glad we live in a country where people are free to be blasphemous creeps and not have to face criminal action, I guess it's a trade-off, liberals get to make a chocolate Jesus, and conservatives get to picket funerals telling the dead's famliy that the loved one is in hell for being gay.

Wow, a certain brand of christian is so eager to feel 'shat upon' (which in and of itself sufficiently explains why they adopt a particular christology in the first place) they don't stop to look at things like art as ART.
The sculpture is absolutely, terrifyingly beautiful. Being asked to taste it is directly in line with the spirit of the eucharist, with the added dimension of the taste of sweet chocolate replacing watered-down wine and stale bread so many of these pharisees have become addicted to (eucharist as metaphor indeed).
It's sad that a gallery director has lost his job for doing his job. It's even sadder that so many 'Christians' in this country are so culturally retarded.
As a Christian and an Artist, I pray Mr. Semier gets his job back soon.

Wow, a certain brand of christian is so eager to feel 'shat upon' (which in and of itself sufficiently explains why they adopt a particular christology in the first place) they don't stop to look at things like art as ART. Christians who see their faith mocked and take offense at it are to be blamed for being boobish Philistines. So noted.

I see our good catholic friends have never read Bishop T.D. Jakes' book, "Naked and Not Ashamed". Donahue confuses those good awful romans, who burnt christians and sacrificed them to the lions to his beloved catholic church. As if the roman law would never have allowed the holy Jesus to have been crucified nude, in fact it was encouraged. Good god, is Donahue for real, does he confuse the Roman empire, with the Holy Roman Empire?

The people who make comments on blogs in defense of an obscene (naked with erect penis) Christ are the same people who defended the bogus "art" of Christ dipped in urine and the Blessed Virgin dobbed in feces. One wonders which is their worst mental illness--their bigotry--or their love of excrement and obscenity in art.

Elmo: I infer that you are offended by the statute, but not on the basis that it is naked, created by an artist (?), or made of chocolate. Having eliminated these, what then is it that offends you? Specifically?

"You know perfectly well that those hideous Fred Phelps people are no more representative of conservatives than Stalinists are of liberals." Well, I know that Fred Phelps and his ilk are not representative of *crunchy* conservatives. I have read that many conservatives do not consider Rod Dreher to be truly one of them. Perhaps this is one of the reasons. (Just like some tight-lipped politically-correct types might not consider me to be truly liberal.)

Hear, hear, Rod.
And yes, Evan, we have evidence of the artist's motives because they're self-evident. I'll quote myself: " I think it is entirely fair for a believer to find this sort of desacrilizing "art" offensive insofar that it's mission is pretty much to thumb its nose at what people hold sacred. Does it have any purpose except to offend?" Mocking what people hold sacred, even if you don't, is at minimum the kind of disrespect that leads to a breakdown in civil society. I don't care if you're a pagan, a Christian, or an atheist. This sort of artistic "expression" is all about provocation to no particular end.

Starrs, I agree entirely with most of what you say. In fact, I'd say that it is entirely fair for a believer to find art offensive regardless of the "mission" of the art. If the express purpose of an act is solely to mock what other people hold sacred, then I am likely not to consider that act to be "art". I take issue with your assertion (and Mr. Dreher's) that the artist's motives in this case are self-evident. This is an artist that has "worked" in food previously, covering various objects with cheese, for example. His stated intention in making the statue, so far as I have heard, was entirely consistent with respect for Jesus. For example, one commenter here has proposed that the statue actually mocks the *lack* of respect shown by others for the meaning of Easter, in the form of chocolate bunnies. If you have concrete reason to impute bad motives (other than asserting their "self-evident" nature) I am interested in learning more. Otherwise, I reiterate my earlier question, with clarification: What, specifically, has led you to take the position that the statue and/or the sculptor's motive in creating it are objectionable? I am *not* asking you to defend your response - as I said, I do not contradict anyone's right to be offended. I simply would like a clear statement of the source of the offense.

Evan: What offends me about this statue? As I said above, Catholics are offended by "campy presentations of our Lord and Savior on the Cross with invitation for all to lick the chocolate off him." Inviting people to eat the chocolate from the sculpture pretty much neutralizes any claim to seriousness. I have nothing against chocolate, except when it's used a Jesus Christ candy bar.

What a stupid thing to say. You know perfectly well that those hideous Fred Phelps people are no more representative of conservatives than Stalinists are of liberals. Nor is this artist representative of the so-called 'New York hipsters'.

I guess it's a trade-off, liberals get to make a chocolate Jesus, and conservatives get to picket funerals telling the dead's famliy that the loved one is in hell for being gay. What a stupid thing to say. You know perfectly well that those hideous Fred Phelps people are no more representative of conservatives than Stalinists are of liberals. Nor is this artist representative of the so-called 'New York hipsters'. I went ahead and put these three together to stave off charges of hypocrisy and go ahead and explain the method of communication that I used to get to my point. Mr. Dreher used this example of a single artist to denigarate the so-called 'New York hipsters', as well as using this as a further justification for the 'evils of liberalism' (due to space, I will not be able to go into the details of the psychology behind human speech and the creation of analogies to win a debate). I decided to counter that extreme statement - of one artist being representative of 'New York hipsters' and 'liberals' - with an extreme statement of my own, or hyperbole. When Mr. Dreher confronted me of the blanket statement that I used, I undoubtedly caused him to view the very statement that he made, thus allowing me to get to my final point, which was that just as Mr. Dreher stated: "You know perfectly well that those hideous Fred Phelps people are no more representative of conservatives than Stalinists are of liberals." I was able to counter back with my final intended statement.

No apologies necessary. I can see that with online communication it is very difficult to use any for of slight communication, most things are read literally.

Might it just be some self-preening, as far as those who need to tout that they haven't taken to the streets to burn the gallery, flags, melt the chocolate, etc.

I_Like_Dragyn, I have tried so hard, over and over again, to get the offended Christians on this thread to see that their own teacher, the one who is being "blasphemed", suggested they turn the other cheek and to put away their sword and to know that when these things happen to them, they are blessed!! And not one of them has acknowledged my comments. Not one! Yet I still see statements that verge on saying "The Muslims wouldn't tolerate that sort of thing regarding Muhammed, so why should we tolerate it regarding Jesus!?!" (I know they don't say it that way, but I gave someone the chance to admit that's not what their comment meant. No reply.) As a Christian, I must say I don't believe God needs us humans to defend him from ridicule. We're not that powerful. I think God can take care of himself, especially when ridiculed by people whose very ridicule shows that they simply don't understand. I think God is above all that, and it is my responsibility to love my neighbor, think "you don't get it, do you?", and leave the issue between that person and God. As to the motive of the artist, for all I know it could very well have been an act of reverence as some have claimed. In that case, Matt. 5:10 will apply to them as well. But God looks on the heart. Only God can know the heart of another. I can only know my own (to the extent I am able to). And that is where my focus will be.

If indeed their objective is to be "daring", yes.

God forbid us non-christians not pay attention to your co-opted pagan celebrations. God forbid non-Christians should be gracious and non-thin-skinned about what was surely meant as an attempt at ordinary conversation in a culture in which 80 percent or more of the people observe the holiday.

God forbid us non-christians not pay attention to your co-opted pagan celebrations. I'm curious what the Christians have co-opted here. The chocolate eggs and bunny rabbits? You can have those back.

Anyway, Gaffigan sums it up best:
Easter that s a weird tradition. Easter, the day Jesus rose from the dead. What should we do? How about eggs? Well, what does that have to do with Jesus? Alright, we ll hide em. I don t I don t follow your logic. Don t worry. There s a bunny.

Tell that to the probably well over 90% of churches in this country Actually, in my experience it's the non-church-goers that seem to have more fun with the bunnies and eggs. That's who's organizing my neighborhood Easter egg hunt, anyway.

Apart from the contoversy itself ; the antics and rhetoric of Bill Donahue was embarassing , as when he said to the artist during an interview on CNN; " You just showed your middle finger to the Catholic Church , and we broke it , pal."

I'm not certain about this in any way. On one hand, I am annoyed at the subversive mannar that Easter has, like Christmas, been re-converted into a secular, capitalistic, non-alturistic theatrical event, with all Christian meaning kept low.

If this piece is an answer to all of that, a reply if one will that 'if you want to eat chocolate and forget meaning, then eat this because forgetting isn't a option', then I understand and sympathise with the piece in some respects.

If it is in any way a gimmick, without thought or an inherent instigation, or worse still any sort of parody, then it is by definition included with the sort of uneducated, brutishness of capitalist insincerity.

Bunnies and baskets full of candy do not keep you from celebrating whatever meaning you want to take in Easter. If the secular message means nothing to you, ignore it. Same goes for Chocolate Jesus; you're probably not the intended audience. BTW, more than one interpretation is not only possible, but necessary for any compelling work of art.