new artwork of Jesus “includer”

Drawing of Jesus called "Includer".
"includer" (drawing on paper by nakedpastor)

I finally finished this piece. It is done with graphite pencil, ink and colored pencil on heavy cotton rag paper. It measures 8″x10″ (20cm x 25cm).

I call this “includer”. I really don’t feel like commenting on it. It speaks to me for itself. I hope it does for you as well.

Own the original drawing! Or buy a print of this cartoon.

"Nice vid David - hilarious! We'll miss you and wish you all the best! (and ..."

nakedpastor’s goodbye video to patheos
"Good idea! I look forward to exciting developments at your own site. I like Patheos, ..."

nakedpastor’s goodbye video to patheos

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Cody

    Thank you! As a gay United Methodist its been a tough couple of weeks. Thank you for beautifully reminding us of another way of seeing.

  • hi cody. you’re welcome 🙂

  • Very nice drawing, but I imagine this guy had:

    (1) Darker skin

    (2) A less carefully trimmed beard

    (3) Shorter hair — where does the long-hair stuff come from?

    (4) No anime-like, huge pupils so as to appear cute and harmless — baby-like

    Where’s the cuddly lamb?

    But I do love the Inclusive stuff — they say that if you want a myth to work, it is best to only change one or two items at a time. Too much unbelievable stuff makes it too hard to swallow for those who have already decided what the world (or Jesus) should look like. So perhaps this is a good compromise — for now.

  • Brian Morse

    Sabio – Why can’t it simply be the artist’s expression of Jesus’ face? Why does it need to be a forensic analysis? Frankly, I like it.

  • Tina

    I kind of think it looks like he is wearing a hoodie =) I like it.

  • @ Brian
    Great use of the word “forensic” ! You made me smile. The image it gave me what trying to dissect the clues left behind concerning a murder.

    On a serious note: Images are often more powerful than words. Is art suppose to be something that viewer are just suppose to view and praise or be quiet? Can’t we discuss the powerful thoughts implied by an image? If this were an image of Jesus you didn’t like and which you felt was a total misrepresentation, you may speak out — and rightfully so.

    As an ironic summary: I think we should encourage different viewpoints.

  • Jacquie

    I appreciate it’s simplicity….nice one David.

  • Sabio – The power of the image is in the traditional religious view of Jesus being juxtaposed! It’s a Unexpected twist in an icon that startles. the accuracy shown be to religius images, not the actual Jesus. That would be a different peice of art with a different impact and message. The representation here speaks volumes. That’s what art is about – not scientific accurancy.

  • I saw it and just said “Wow.” Powerful image, David. Thank you.

  • @ Christine,
    Not to be stereotyped a scientifically-dry forensic materialist, let me say I thought about this drawing with my artistic mind — I am actually strongly bicameral (artistic & analytic).

    Take the same rainbow halo, put in on a guy with a hoodie, darker skin, scruffer look and more like you-and-me with maybe a tattoo or piercing or any number of other images other than a starry-glazed, big-eyed sweet Jesus and I think it would do a world of good at further pushing images that need stretched. We don’t need more perfect caucasian Jesuses.

    The generic baby-lamb-hugging Jesus is not an image I expected of David — it took me off guard. My criticism was artistic — discussing the power of images. Again, are we to stay silent if we don’t like things? Are we to be stereotyped if we criticize.

    I understand that other people love the drawing. That is great. Maybe David is only asking for kudos from fans, but I hope not. It is a nice drawing of course. There is not need for my critique to lessen your love for the art. No need to try and correct my perceptions. Taste is what it is.

  • Mad =^..^= (AKA ccws)

    LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE! A face filed with the deep compassion that comes from having known deep sadness. David, you’ve created a true modern ikon.

  • Is that one of those giant lollipops you get at the fair? I knew Jesus liked fairs!

  • Dale Shotts

    An excellent drawing and timely. I’m not sure you saw my comment on facebook. Am I correct that I may use this for my facebook image by giving you credit and not making money from it? If I’m wrong, please let me know.

  • usually when people use an image for their facebook profile pic, they offer a small paypal donation, but i don’t require it. thanks! 🙂

  • Hey, Sabio. Sure, you don’t like it. Fair enough. But understanding it doesn’t require liking it. The choice was meaningful, whether or not you think it was the “right” one. It seemed clear from your first post that you did not at all get the significance of making Jesus look the way he did – the allusion to icons. You presented it as if it were a compromise, like David wasn’t ballsy enough to make Jesus realistic looking. Have long have you been here exactly?

    On attacking that myth, David did an excellent drawing of Jesus as a boy the way he believed Jesus would have actually looked. It was quite stunning.

    Criticize, great. Discuss, sure. But assuming it was just a cop-out compromise doesn’t seem like a good place to start.

  • Syl

    Sabio, I’m usually with ya’ buddy, but I disagree with your take on this one. Compare to this classic 6th century icon:
    http://old.rejesus.co.uk/expressions/faces_jesus/gallery/sinai.html
    I see a lot of similarity – but with one brightly colored difference – and that seems to me to be the point.

    David, rarely have depictions of Jesus made me smile (inside or out, even during my most devoutly believing years), but this one does. Real illumination includes the full spectrum…

  • At Christine, as always, I love your comments — even when they are aimed at correcting me. You are a very good writer, logical, focused and principled.

    In this case.
    (1) I was very well aware that David was doing an Icon manipulations. I guess it was not clear, but my first comment said:
    “they say that if you want a myth to work, it is best to only change one or two items at a time. Too much unbelievable stuff makes it too hard to swallow for those who have already decided what the world (or Jesus) should look like. So perhaps this is a good compromise — for now.”

    So I was saying that I understood he was tinkering with an icon.

    (2) But due to your comment, I looked around and it seems not only is he tinkering the icon theme but I am guessing David used a particular icon. “The oldest know icon of Christ Pantocrator” which is on the St Catherine Monastery in Mount Sinai. Interesting Wiki article here.

    That raised left eyebrow is theorized, I think, to show the dual nature of Christ: (god and man).

    (3) I am sensitive to the mythologizing of Jesus — verbal or pictorial. I think the big eyes is what really seemed weird to me. The original icon did not have big pupils.

    I did find one big pupil icon though. (that is a joke).

    So though David was staying in tradition, I still say overall he cleaned Jesus up a bit too much — even as a classic icon. 🙂

  • @ Syl
    Oooops, I did not see your comment. Looks like we found the same thing. But David moderates comments with links so it will take time for my comment to appear.

    I agree with you and Christine — simple play on the icon is an important point. Perhaps my critique was a bit too loud in light of that. But as I told Christine –> seeing Jesus mythologize in stories or in images always drives me a bit crazy.

    Instead, I see how I should perhaps see this drawing as icon therapy. But the choice of big pupils was what really got me going. It is the method Japanese anime use to make girls look cute and seen in alien drawings. 🙂

  • Hey, Sabio. Thanks. Not sure if David’s big pupils were intentional. lol

    I think if in this case the farther you move from the myth, the less clear the allusion becomes. Unfortunately, I don’t think you can have it both ways.

    The power in the image for me is the familiarity of the myth-look, the icon. THAT Jesus. That Jesus has never me presented as one that accepts me. And yet, that most innocent of Jesuses should by nature be the most accepting of all. The idea of dividing baby lamb Jesus from inclusive Jesus is nonsensical – and yet that innocent Jesus is who they calim condemns me. To see Him with a rainbow halo reclaims that image for me and the traditions that go with it. Seeing it now in future, I will remember David’s drawing almost immediately.