Naked Christ should not be used as module for Lent

Isagani Cruz’s column, “Mini Critique: Module for Lent,” The Philippine STAR Education, on March 13, 2013, deserves some comments if only to answer his “three non-display questions (questions I did not know the answer to)” that he posed in the article. And, in the spirit of fairness as well as in the observant of Lent, allow me to give the other side of the same coin.

Following are my comments on each “non-display question”:

(a) “Is it necessary for art to be true to life (given that paintings and sculptures of the crucifixion nowadays rarely show Jesus naked, even if in real life He was)?”

If it is true that “art is life and life is art,” then it is necessary for art to be true to life. However, I think, this is not the only issue. The real issue here is our motive behind the presentation of an art. If it is simply for art’s sake, then it is subjective. And, like “beauty,” its artistic presentation, “is in the eye of the beholder.”

Another important issue is the choice of objects and subjects of our paintings and sculptures. If the symbols or models are divinely revered, “for art to be true to life,” they must be depicted with caution, with utmost objectivity, and with humane consideration. There should be a dividing line between holiness and madness, between subtle realism and outright sacrilege.

Granting for the sake of argument that Jesus was stripped naked by the Roman soldiers, are we also going now, for art’s sake, to do what the Romans did? Are we going to crucify Jesus again in His naked glory, this time, in “Art Appreciation and Purposive Communication?” God forbid.

(b) “Why are the genitals of Jesus hidden from view in modern paintings and sculptures?”

 This question calls for a meditative reflection. Usually, painters, sculptors, writers, or composers “do their thing” by inspiration and instinctual vibration. They discover that their ideas are heavily influenced by Someone higher than themselves. Thus, when modern paintings and sculptures covered the private parts of the Holy One maybe because these artists want the believers of Christ to worship Him with veneration sans distraction. Let us avoid any semblance of the pagan practice of “phallic worship.”  

In the New Testament: Psalms and Proverbs (1980: 210) of Gideons International, John 19: 20 verse uses the word “garment,” not “undergarment,” as Mr. Cruz wrote quoting the New International Version. Again, this is to show and it is my belief that probably the Holy Spirit wills to glorify Christ, not to dehumanize Him.

Michelangelo lived in a different era, a period of “vigorous artistic and intellectual activity.” When he made the famous naked Christ crucifix, the freedom of expression, I suppose, was not yet coupled with responsibility. Today, we are reminded that our too much freedom must be exercised with social obligation. Even for teachers, the academic freedom inside the classroom must not be abused for art’s sake disguised as creativity.

 Recently, Butch Dalisay in his column, “Penman: The monkey wrench,” The Philippine STAR Art & Culture, March 24, 2014, E-2, emphasizes his writing mantra to challenge his students and other creative non-fictionists. He cracks strikingly: “… just when everything seems to be going right, you pause and ask yourself — ‘Now, what if’…?” Then, he gives some examples with incongruous elements.

 Using his creative incantation, what if there were three pieces of clothing that Jesus wore — the garments, the tunic, and the undergarment? What if the soldiers, by divine intervention, did not remove the undergarment and only divide the garments into four parts and then cast lots who will get the tunic? What if a miracle happened, and a green leaf covered His innocence? His manliness? What if Jesus sewed His own special clothes, particularly the underwear, during the hidden fifteen years of His life to protect His manhood from sexual exploitation? 

What if we follow the suggestion of Francis D. Alvarez, S.J. in his column, “God’s Word Today: Where do you fix your gaze?” The Philippine STAR Opinion, January 26, 2014, 13: “Gaze not on the cross, but on Jesus?” And, I add: “Look up to the Ascension of Christ, not on His crucifixion.”

Lastly, what if God, our Creator, granted His wish after praying three times, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will” (Matthew 29:39), and saved Him not from crucifixion, but from nakedness? From shameful embarrassment? 

I believe that students, teachers, and readers should develop critical and creative thinking. However, symbols and objects of veneration should be exempted from using them as examples, unless these “non-display questions,” which Mr. Cruz admitted he did not know the answers, are objectively resolved, not just “to get a more visceral reaction.” Let our aggressive and assertive pursuits in art, social, economic, and political be restrained by legal and moral considerations.

(c) “How can we communicate that Jesus become truly and completely a male human being without showing His genitals?”

Very simple. Describe Jesus figuratively, not genitally. The Bible gives clear verses showing that He was, He is, and He will always be the Son, male, and circumcised. There is no need to describe the graphic presentation of “The Naked Christ.” Or for Him to undergo a rigorous physical examination.

Even the wise men knew that Jesus was a male when they asked, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?” (Matthew 2:2). God, the Father, said: “Out of Egypt I called My Son” (Matthew 2:16). In Matthew 3:17 “A voice came from heaven, saying, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’” The devil when he tempted Jesus intoned, “If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread” (Matthew 4:3). Jesus acknowledged His gender, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” (Matthew 16:13). In Matthew 16:16, Simon Peter, with divine inspiration, said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 

While I admire Mr. Cruz’s historical account of the Naked Jesus, the focus now and in the future, I believe, is on the Resurrected Christ and on His second coming. As a respected writer and educator, I find his article somewhat disturbing. I hope, Mr. Cruz is not referring to the “Naked Christ on the CROSS,” as his “module for Lent.”     — JOSE B. BIESCAS, Malate, Manila