Support the Café

Search our Site

Homeless Jesus rejected by two churches

Homeless Jesus rejected by two churches

A Toronto artist is trying to find a home for his sculpture of Jesus as a homeless person. The Toronto Star reports:

Jesus has been depicted in art as triumphant, gentle or suffering. Now, in a controversial new sculpture in downtown Toronto, he is shown as homeless — an outcast sleeping on a bench. It takes a moment to see that the slight figure shrouded by a blanket, hauntingly similar to the real homeless who lie on grates and in doorways, is Jesus. It’s the gaping wounds in the feet that reveal the subject, whose face is draped and barely visible, as Jesus the Homeless.

Despite message of the sculpture — Jesus identifying with the poorest among us — it was rejected by two prominent Catholic churches, St. Michael’s Cathedral in Toronto and St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York.

The Toronto archdiocese tried to help him find an alternative location, including St. Augustine’s Seminary in Scarborough. But Schmalz, who describes his work as a visual prayer, wanted to reach a wider, secular audience. “I wanted not only the converted to see it, but also the marginalized. I almost gave up trying to find a place.”

Now the sculpture stands near Wellesley St. W., outside Regis College at the University of Toronto. It’s a Jesuit school of theology, where priests and lay people are trained, with an emphasis on social justice.

Read more here.

What would you do if an artist presented your church with this sculpture?


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rod Gillis

I know Bill, but the article is titled, “Homeless Jesus rejected by two Churches”.


“I find it interesting as well, the almost immediate shift in the conversation from the theme of the art to a discussion about the right of churches to decide what gifts to accept.”

To be fair, Rod, the subject of the thread – or at least the question at the top of it – was not about the theme of the art, but what we would do if our parishes were presented with it; the right of congregations to accept gifts of art or not is surely part of that.

Bill Dilworth

Rod Gillis

Hi Bill, in think the R.C.s use “rector” of the Cathedral rather than “dean”.

I agree that churches should not have to accept works of art, sculptures, windows, paintings, furnishings simply because they are offered. There may be all kinds of reasons why acceptance is problematic.

What interested me in this particular case are the reasons, cited in the T.O. Star, for not accepting this sculpture,

“It was very upsetting because the rectors liked it, but when it got to the administration, people thought it might be too controversial or vague,” he says. He was told “it was not an appropriate image.”

Here questions of controversy or appropriateness of the image are cited, and they appear to go to the subject matter itself, the connecting of Christ to the plight of the homeless in, what is for them, the modern urban wilderness. I’m taken with the wounds/stigmata on the feet of Christ in the piece. Many of the homeless in our cities are young people fleeing domestic abuse, veterans with PTSD, and people with mental illness who can’t get proper medical care ( the latter a big problem in Canada and the U.S. both).

I find it interesting as well, the almost immediate shift in the conversation from the theme of the art to a discussion about the right of churches to decide what gifts to accept.

So I return to the point about Cathedrals being used as venues for the rites of passage for the wealthy, the powerful, in such instances questions of controversy and an “appropriateness” are muted.


Rod, thanks for clearing up the bench thing – that does clear up the ambiguity.

According to the Toronto Star, the rectors of the two cathedrals (do RC’s use the term “dean”?) wanted the statue, but folks higher up in the chain of command nixed it.

I agree with John that parish leadership shouldn’t feel obliged to accept a work of art simply because it’s offered. There are all sorts of reasons why a given piece of art might be a bad fit for a particular church, and it seems to me that tying rejection of the art to a rejection of its “message” is akin to emotional blackmail. Not wanting this particular statue in your parish no more means you reject Christ’s presence in the “least of these” than not wanting a particular crucifix means you reject the Atonement. It’s a statue, after all, not the real thing.

Bill Dilworth

Rod Gillis

Re Christopher Johnson, T.O. is a good locale for the sculpture. During the winter months there is usually a drive there to get homeless people off the street so they don’t freeze to death. There was also a concerted effort not have them too visible during the G8 meeting. It’s also the home of Canada’s corporate elite.

Another good location for the sculpture would have been the Canadian Embassy on Pennsylvania Avenue. Last time I was there, the homeless were using the Embassy grounds and pool.

As for Our lord not making an issue of his homelessness, I’m kind of partial to Luke 9:58.

Surely, if the Church of England can offer one of its premiere Wren monuments as a venue for the 1% crowd who will attend the Thatcher obsequies , a modest work like the Homeless Christ is an appropriate counter measure. Interesting though, the poor suffer the indignity of being defined by others, in this case being defined as mere objects of some imagined “left”. And here I was thinking theirs was the Commonwealth of God.

The church, it would seem, can always use the ministry of the dirty little Franciscan who ambles in and demands the church tone down its worldly pretensions.

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café