As I describe in my book Unclean, in 1987 the photographer Andres Serrano unveiled his controversial work Piss Christ.
Piss Christ was a photograph of a crucifix submerged in a mixture of blood and urine. The work broke into public consciousness in 1989 when members of the US Senate expressed outrage that Serrano had received $15,000 from the American National Endowment for the Arts. Senators called the work “filth,” “blasphemous,” and “abhorrent.” One Senator said, “In naming it, [Serrano] was taunting the American people. He was seeking to create indignation. That is all right for him to be a jerk but let him be a jerk on his own time and with his own resources. Do not dishonor our Lord.” Later, in 1997, the National Gallery in Melbourne, Australia was closed when members of a Christian group attacked and damaged Piss Christ.
Beyond the content of the photograph what really offends is the name, the juxtaposition of the word "piss" with "Christ." What is blasphemous is the contact between something holy and something defiling.
Piss contaminates the Christ.
As I describe in Unclean, this is an example of the attribution called negativity dominance in judgments of contamination. That is, when the pure comes in contact with the contaminant the pure becomes polluted. The negative dominates over the positive. The power is not with the pure but sits with the pollutant.
This is why the Pharisees see Jesus becoming defiled when he eats with tax collectors and sinners. The pollutant--the tax collectors and sinners--defiles Jesus, the pure. The negative dominates over the positive. The pollutant is the stronger force. Thus it never occurs to the Pharisees, because it is psychologically counter-intuitive, that Jesus's presence might sanctify or purify those sinners he is eating with. Because pollution doesn't work that way.
In a similar way, when we observe the contact between urine and Jesus in Piss Christ we instinctively judge the negative to be stronger than the positive. Thus the shock. Thus the blasphemy.
But the real blasphemy just might be this: That we think urine is stronger than Christ. That we instinctively--and blasphemously--believe that the defilement of our lives is the strongest force in the universe. Stronger even than the grace of God.
I looked at the men in the prison and said, "This is the scandal of the Incarnation. This is the scandal of Christmas. That God descended into the darkness and defilement of your life, and that darkness and defilement did not overcome it."
I know, I told the men, that this is so very hard to believe, that Jesus goes into the darkest most shameful corners of our lives. This, all by itself, is almost impossible to believe. But even harder to believe is that Jesus is stronger than that polluting, defiling darkness.
That is the scandal of Christmas.
John 1.14a, 15In the final analysis, Christmas is more subversive than the most subversive art. It's hard to be more transgressive than Christmas. Consider Beth Williamson's analysis of Piss Christ:
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
What are we to make of this work: what are we to understand by it, and how can we interpret it?God had a body. That is about as transgressive as you can get. So transgressive that many Christians, now and throughout history, have passionately resisted and banished the thought.
Most obviously were enraged by the combination of the most iconic image of Christianity—the Crucified Christ—with human bodily fluid, and felt that this work set out deliberately to provoke viewers to outrage. The artist almost certainly aimed to provoke a reaction, but what reaction?
The fact that urine is involved is crucial here. But was the use of urine simply intended, as some of Serrano’s detractors have claimed, to cause offense? Had the artist deliberately set out to show disrespect to this religious image, by placing it in urine? Some felt this was tantamount to urinating on the crucifix.
I would suggest that, even if some viewers and commentators feel that it was the artist’s intention, or part of his intention, to be offensive, there are also other ways to interpret this work...
The process of viewing the Crucified Christ through the filter of human bodily fluids requires the observer to consider all the ways in which Christ, as both fully divine and full human, really shared in the base physicality of human beings. As a real human being Christ took on all the characteristics of the human body, including its fluids and secretions. The use of urine here can therefore force the viewer to rethink what it meant for Christ to be really and fully human.
Christmas is so hard to believe that most Christians don't believe it.
But the Word became flesh. God dwelt among us. And still does.
Immanuel.
I looked at the men in the prison and paused. I wanted them to hear this. Because there is some real darkness in their lives. Darkness we rarely speak about.
I looked at them and said:
The meaning of the Incarnation is that God has descended into the midst of our shame, into the piss and the shit of our lives, and that God is stronger than our darkness.
But do you believe this? Because I know it is so very, very hard to believe.
We want to believe that our foulness, our shame, our sin, is the strongest force in our lives, the greatest and final truth about us.
It's so hard to believe what I'm telling you, because it really does feel like blasphemy.
But it's not blasphemy. This is the story of the Incarnation, of the Word becoming flesh. This is the story of God's love for you.
As shocking and offensive as it may be, this is the story of Christmas.
