Comments on: An arts pastor on Sweet Jesus

By: Tim Stewart

Tim Stewart — Wed, 09 May 2007 19:41:48 +0000

I made a comment on David's blog (the blog cited in the entry above) here and then I blogged about for a few paragraphs here. I think I agree with the prevailing spirit in this comment chain that when we compare Jesus to anything, we have to bear Scripture in mind. And it helps to use some good old logic, and consider the full implications of a comparison we're making. Yeah--chocolate is tasty. sure: but its connotations are decadence, luxury, expense, and special occasions. Jesus wants to be our daily bread. Jesus as main course is different from Jesus as dessert.

By: balm

balm — Mon, 07 May 2007 18:00:18 +0000

i love that this creates a dialog. and an excellent dialog it is!

By: wordlily

wordlily — Sun, 06 May 2007 22:15:43 +0000

Purchasing sinners at the high price of a holy life is decadence — perhaps even foolishness. Jesus did spend his lifeblood in a decadent manner. While we grieve on Friday and Saturday, how can we but rejoice ("Sweet Jesus!") on Sunday?

By: TAE

TAE — Sat, 05 May 2007 21:47:31 +0000

Pardon my stating the very obvious, but doesn’t Jesus equate His body to the unleavened bread of the Passover, like, a lot? You are correct about this. I don’t quite know what he was getting at by saying by that . . .

The interpretation of an artwork by a viewer hinges on that viewer’s prior associations and experiences, and the cultural context (which will vary even from New York to Arkansas to L.A.). I wouldn’t feed my children a Milky Way for breakfast either, but other kinds of less sugary chocolate I would (one of my personal faves is chocolate chip pancakes, but I grew up in a family where the four basic food groups were chocolate cake, chocolate chip cookies, chocolate . . . ).

If an artist didn’t create just because certain people would interpret it in a manner other than he predicted (though I grant that Cavallaro was a bit short-sighted in not anticipating some blowback), there wouldn’t be much art — or art wouldn’t be put out in public forums.

One of the consistant arguments of Sweet Jesus is the one you bring up, and from the beginning it has befuddled me (but this is just me bringing my associations and experiences to the work). The material is an integral part of the work. In this case, it causes me to think in new and deeper ways about my own faith and about the sacrifice Christ made. Would I be as moved by another sculpture of Christ crafted out of marble or wood? Not really.

By: Tim J.

Tim J. — Sat, 05 May 2007 20:57:56 +0000

” I would argue, the chocolate comes closest to capturing Jesus’ own words in John 6:55– ‘My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.’ ”.

Pardon my stating the very obvious, but doesn’t Jesus equate His body to the unleavened bread of the Passover, like, a lot? Being that the Passover meal was a pre-figurement of His sacrifice, and that He drew the parallel very plainly at the Last Supper, isn’t this chocolate interpretation forced beyond recognition?

The thing is, chocoltae is the opposite of “real food”. Chocolate means empty calories, self-indulgence, excess (not that these are always bad, but they fail utterly as a symbol for Christ’s body). This is why I don’t let my kids have a Milky Way bar for breakfast. Unleavened bread is solid sustenance for the journey. The bread of haste, eaten with bitter herbs.

There are brands of Christianity that present Jesus as the gooey-sweet topping on the ice-cream cone of life, but that’s not any Jesus I can recognize from scripture.