new Jesus icon drawing “Shesus”

"Shesus" drawing by nakedpastor David Hayward

“Shesus” drawing by nakedpastor David Hayward


This series of Jesus icon drawings is of course all inspired by the verse, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). The core of Pauline theology.

I call this one “Shesus”. Lots of symbolism in this one.

It was first introduced to my friends, The Lasting Supper, yesterday, and they were very insightful, helpful, and encouraging with their comments. I wanted to run it past them first before I went public with it. And my daughter loves it. She said she’s “badass”. So that helped boost my confidence to introduce her to you.

Like my work? Please support me. Thanks!


You may also like...

11 Responses

  1. Scott Amundsen says:

    I LOVE it!!

    I hear conservative heads exploding all over the place!

    “Oh my we ARE walking dangerous tonight!” ~ Belize (Jeffrey Wright), ANGELS IN AMERICA

  2. Megan says:

    I love it! It’d be awesome to see Jesus in a wheelchair or with a service dog.

  3. Brigitte says:

    As a female (and with a conservative view of scripture, but not just because of that), the image does not do anything for me. I just sat and meditated on it. Not only because the indelible image of Jesus is for me the picture of Robert Powell ( from “Jesus of Nazareth”), (I am dating myself), but because he really was a male. This flies in the face of those who say gender is fluid or a perception and of those who spiritualize everything and Jesus never really lived (according to them). I happen to be firmly convinced (based on a few things) that Jesus was a male in Roman times, and a wandering preacher in Judea and so on. As such, he has certain characteristics and callings that belong to him intrinsically. He lifted up and healed women, where ever he went, and I love him for that, too. I love him for seeing Mary and Martha and he tells Martha to quit with the housework and to listen to him, like Mary… things like that.

    As a female, and in light of the saying that “in Christ are neither slave and free, and male and female”, I rejoice in Paul’s saying because in our mystical union, really, gender differences (which are “real”) are not done away with but transcended. And this is a beautiful thing. We do experience it in the church, where all people from all stations in life mingle together freely in the mystical body of Christ. In some sense we are all one and belong to each other. Each one exercises his or her gifts for the benefit of all, but not without being mother, father, teacher, musician, etc. whatever the roles and gifts are, kept in the faith through forgiveness.

  4. Adam Julians says:

    This reminds me of the bronze statue of a woman being crucified. I do like the sense of getting female imagery into ideas about God. I think also of the term “ruach” in the original language of the bible to describe the Holy Spirit in female terms with the onomatopoeic sense of power in how it sound.

    Like a strong wind.

    I wonder how the bible might be written today in a western culture very different to that of biblical times. Would be more female representation of God in it if it were?

    Of course as well as being “badass” with the body language and facial expression in the picture the thorns represent suffering and human weakness. Are we willing to “count the cost” and welcome both or do we embrace the former and resist the latter as the character in your recent cartoon?

  5. Adam Julians says:

    Bridgitte – you badass you ;).

    Yeah I’m with you on the “gender differences” – not to “gender stereotype” but to recognise what I think is nature not nurture so at to how we might best live and appreciate each other. I acknowledge there are different views about this. Conversations about this always end up being interesting – not always in a good way. I don’t mind Jesus being portrayed as male for example but I know of a prominent theologian that has described him as an “impossible role model for women” which then leaves us with challenges.

    I doubt if we will have it all figured out soon – I’m OK with that.

  6. Brigitte says:

    @Adam. Jesus is not so much a “role” model for me. I have to be myself.

    (You saw my very awful cartoon? Hehe.)

  7. Brigitte says:

    @Adam. No, you are talking to Naked Pastor, not me, there, about cartoon. “Ruach”, I love the sound of it, too.

  8. Well, I would argue that Christian theology should agree that even though Christ was not a woman, women are Christ.

  9. Adam Julians says:

    Hey Brigitte,

    What’s that about your cartoon? Were you correcting yourself having realised I was talking about David’s cartoon? Yeah Ruach – feels good to say it hey?

    David – not sure what you are getting at with Christian theology and the female deification “women are Christ”. I don’t know if that phrase sits well, or would “men are Christ” if it were to be expressed. Surely Gal 3:28 in context is about being “in Christ” and being about love, connection, beauty, shalom in contracts to war between the sexes, tribalism between Jew and gentile and the free lording it over slaves that Paul was addressing.

    So having an indwelling of Christ in the context of the rest of the book which to a large part is about Paul addressing churches in Galatia that were not staying true to their calling in Christ and experiencing the consequences with difficulties – factions, discord, dissension, envy etc.

  10. Brigitte says:

    Hi Adam. Yes, I made a very poorly done cartoon, as my last post, and then I corrected myself…

    I like what you say about “being Christ” vs. “being IN Christ”. Christ, of course, also famously said that what we do to the least of his brothers and sisters is done to him. But I don’t like to put the contrast there. I am not a “least” of them because I am a woman. It may be that a woman is down-trodden, disadvantaged in her society, but in reality, by being by nature woman, she is not “less”, or “least” or “lesser”, or “lower” or anything like that. She is just as valuable–invaluable, really–worth the blood of Christ.

    So, I am at a loss, with “Women are Christ”, too.

  11. Adam Julians says:

    Hi Brigitte,

    Yeah, I can make a guess at what is behind the “women are Christ” assertion. Though of course the deification of women is not what I would ascribe to, just as I wouldn’t for men.

    Yes I don’t think that when Christ talked of “the least” he was making out that women are less than men. The way he treated women would not be consistent with that. Rather, I think that term probably would have been used rhetorically to challenge prejudices in the status quo towards women, gentiles, slaves the vulnerable etc.

    So I would affirm what you say about not being least for bring a woman.

    You’ll remember that Eve was created as a helper for Adam. He must have needed help to not be alone. Also Paul referred to some women as “co-workers”.

    That should suggest an appropriate attitude to equality.