A recent article in The Arizona Republic notes a marketing trend involving a hip, popular icon: Jesus.
Not only is Christ popping up in movies (The Passion), books (The Left Behind Series, The Da Vinci Code), and magazines (a regular on the cover of newsweeklies such as Time) but he’s becoming the hot property on t-shirts. Hipster shops like Urban Outfitters, for example, sell shirts with “Jesus is My Homeboy” and “"Jesus surfs without a board." “If Jesus is so reverent that we can't laugh about him, then Jesus isn't in our everyday lives," says Daniel Richards, a priest at St. Michael and All Angels Episcopal Church in Tucson, AZ.
David Mills from Touchstone blog, however, takes exception to Richards’ claim:
One can just imagine the Apostles, whose successors an Episcopal minister claims to be, wearing such t-shirts around Jerusalem in the weeks after the Resurrection. One can imagine Perpetua and Felicity ordering one to wear in the arena. One can see crowds of Sudanese Christians standing before army firing squads in such t-shirts. One can . . . oh never mind.
One cannot imagine the young Mr. Richards wearing a similar t-shirt with a comic message about Martin Luther King or any feminist whatsoever, no matter how obscure.
Mills could have added other religious icons to the list of verboten imagery. Abercrombie and Fitch decided to stop selling shirts that showed a smiling Buddha figure with the caption "Abercrombie & Fitch Buddha Bash: Get your Buddha on the Floor" after controversy erupted in the Asian-American community. As David Vuong, a former Boston College student, protested:
"Buddha is a major religious figure across Asia and to make fun of it is just plain wrong. If an Asian person came out with a shirt that said 'Jesus Bash, Get your Jesus on the floor,' I'm sure everyone would get offended and act upon this, just as we have to A&F."
Sadly, Vuong is mistaken. Jesus is the only major religious figure that it’s considered acceptable to disrespect. From Jesus Christ Superstar to the latest Jesus action figures, Christ has long been a staple of ironic American imagery. While this trend is not new, it is rather disconcerting. As Rusty Lopez asks, “What is it about our culture that causes us to consider the creator of the universe just another one of the gang?”
Good question. The cause, in my opinion, can be traced back to American Protestantism, particularly in the popular strands of evangelicalism. As a religious movement we have almost completely abandoned the concept of a transcendent creator in favor of a God who is our “best friend.” I remember as a young Baptist how we would gloss over the commands to “fear God” in favor of singing hymns about “What a Friend We Have in Jesus.”
Even the Gnostic Harold Bloom is able to see where we err, as he wrote in his book "The American Religion":
The American finds God in herself or himself only after finding the freedom to know God by experiencing a total inward solitude. In this solitary freedom, the American is liberated both from other selves and from the created world. He comes to recognize that his spirit is itself uncreated. Knowing that he is the equal of God, the American Religionist can then achieve his true desideratum, mystical communion with his friend, the godhead.
The idea of Jesus as our “friend” is deeply rooted in our particular religious culture. Our lack of reverence expresses itself in everything from our worship to our evangelism. How many times, for instance, have we seen an earnest Christian approach someone (including us) and ask, “Do you know Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?”
While intended as a means of carrying out the Great Commission, the question is asking something else entirely. In essence, it's asking whether we possess God rather than whether God possess us. By claiming God as our “personal” friend we are putting him in the same category as our “personal trainers” and “personal assistants”, people who serve us, rather than someone whom we are expected to serve. When Jesus becomes someone we can befriend he becomes someone we can take lightly.
Jesus, however, is not my homeboy. He is not my friend or my buddy. Christ is my master, my redeemer, my Lord and my God.
Update: Nicole Nordeman, in one of her most poignant and beautiful songs, expresses the proper attitude a servant should take to the Master. Rather than laugh about him, as the Episcopalian priest suggest, I recommend that we “Tremble”:
Have I come to casually?
Because it seems to me,
There's something I've neglected.
How does one approach a Deity with informality;
And still protect the Sacred?
'Cause you came and chose to wear the skin of all of us.
And it's easy to forget You left a throne.
And the line gets blurry all the time.
Between daily and Divine.
And it's hard to know the difference.
Oh, let me not forget to tremble.
Oh, let me not forget to tremble.
Joe,
For the first time I'd have to disagree. I both understand and believe that Christ is our Master, King, Savior, and Lord, but he is also our friend. The Bible even declares that. There were many times when Jesus called His disciples both servants and friends also. And even in the passage that reads, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." Like anything, this all has to be taken into context. However, it becomes clear in much of scripture that God makes it clear to us the humanity of Jesus. When he walked the Earth, He was very much like us in his temptations, yet he chose a sinless life. Oftentimes, we exalt Christ to a place that we think we could never be. Hear me. Christ is the last Adam, and he was born to live the life he did, and no, we can't be at the right hand of the Father, making intercession. Duh. But we can choose to walk in His footsteps by humbling ourselves and daily dying to our flesh. Christ made a choice every day to serve God. I work with teenagers both Christian and non-Christian. The overwhelming thing you notice is that they do not think they can live a life as Christ did. The fact that Christ calls us His brethren, his friends, and we are called co-heirs with Him, helps them to view his life in a way that is practical and not just deified.
It seems to me the problem here is not the shirts. I like the shirts. They're hot. I'm a believer and I'd rock that thing in a minute. (Vernacular translation, rock=wear). Some of the young people in the youth group I lead, wear them too. And for them it is a true expression of them. Jesus is their homeboy. He has completely transformed their lives and they'll serve Him forever. It's a cultural expression. There is a cultural aspect about this I think people miss. The hip-hop generation can't be viewed through literal glasses. Everything is a metaphor. There has long been a clash with my generation and those who are older because many refuse to do the research behind the words, the trends, the fads. The problem with the shirts is that people are choosing Him as their friend before they allow Him to be their Lord. And that's not the shirt's fault. That's our fault because we haven't clarified Christ's expectations. And that's what we should be writing about. Not some silly shirts.
Hey Ambra,
I appreciate your taking the time to write such a thoughtful comment. Here are a few of my thoughts in response:
It seems to me the problem here is not the shirts. I like the shirts. They're hot. I'm a believer and I'd rock that thing in a minute. (Vernacular translation, rock=wear). Some of the young people in the youth group I lead, wear them too.
The reason I think part of the problem is the shirts is because “the medium is the message.” The message being conveyed is radically affected by the medium in which it is presented. No matter how profound the message on the t-shirt, the medium itself conveys a sense of transience and triviality. I should add that the same criticism applies to bumper stickers and billboards as well. (Bumper sticker theology is one of my biggest pet peeves.)
And for them it is a true expression of them. Jesus is their homeboy. He has completely transformed their lives and they'll serve Him forever. It's a cultural expression. There is a cultural aspect about this I think people miss. The hip-hop generation can't be viewed through literal glasses. Everything is a metaphor. There has long been a clash with my generation and those who are older because many refuse to do the research behind the words, the trends, the fads.
No offense, young whipper-snapper, but it was my generation that invented both hip-hop and the term “homeboy.” Homeboy always implies a co-equal relationship and never refers to someone who could be considered either superior or an inferior. In that respect it should not be used in reference to Jesus.
Also, I believe that Christ relationship to culture (including hip-hop culture) should be one of transformation rather than accommodation. Unfortunately, American Christians often think that by simply associating the terms “Jesus” or “Christian” with a particular form (i.e., music, books, art) that it changes the context. I believe that is one of the reasons we the evangelical subculture is plagued by mediocrity.
The problem with the shirts is that people are choosing Him as their friend before they allow Him to be their Lord. And that's not the shirt's fault. That's our fault because we haven't clarified Christ's expectations. And that's what we should be writing about. Not some silly shirts.
I agree. Which is why I’m surprised that you don’t see the connection to the t-shirts. We are, I believe, unconsciously clarifying Christ’s expectations by putting his image on these shirts. We are saying that Christ doesn’t really expect much from us, that he is simply another accoutrement we can add to our lifestyle. We can add him to our lifestyle…just like a t-shirt.
First off, I shudder at the term young-whipper snapper. I prefer, Ambra. :-)
I think you're missing what I'm saying. I am 100% in agreement that Christ's relation to us should be transformation and not accomodation. Our point of contention is that the message of "Jesus being our homeboy" on a t-shirt equals accomodation. I don't agree with that, but I respect your right to feel that way.
In response to the reality of your generation inventing hip-hop and the term homeboy. I don't disupte that. But things do change however, and hip-hop is not what it used to be. It's developed into the most powerful and fastest moving culture world-wide. That's undisputed. My point is, definitions and realities have changed. What was is sometimes no longer. Even Curtis Blo or Cool and the Gang can testify to that. There is a huge generation gap whether people want to admit it or not. The Rosa Parks/Outkast lawsuit was a perfect example of that disconnect. I think the reality here is that my generation is one that desires to champion a cause.
I wrote a post on my blog a month or so back about the need of this "Generation Next" (crappy worldly title they slapped on us) to identify with something. Whether most people know it or not, that something actually is Jesus. And there you have the greatest search for indentity of the entire world. I must say, I too detest cheesy bumper stickers, Jesus pencils, and T-shirts. But I know little kids who salivate over a Jesus pencil out of their love relationship with Him. And if that's what gets them going, then who am to be a Christian elitist (which I am all too often) and tell them how capitalistic and un-transforming it is?
But I promise you, we will miss out on a generation of young people who are arguably the most loyal to their cause if we can't use their mediums to preach a message. This young bucks out here probably have more potential to lead the masses to Christ than any of their predessors; by way of resources available. If God can use a rock, He sure as heck can use a shirt. The thing that really disappoints me is that it's unbelievers who are making a profit off the shirts and probably under the wrong motivation, and understanding. (They're manufactured by two guys who started a company called "Teenage Millionaire". Go figure. To be honest, I wish someone else had the idea first. In fact, somebody probably did, but they didn't take action on it. We can agree to disagree. All this stuff pertains to my purpose and calling in life, so I recognize I'm called to think different.
Ambra,
...things do change however, and hip-hop is not what it used to be. ...There is a huge generation gap whether people want to admit it or not.
The hip-hop generation gap. Hmm...that's an intriguing, previously unexplored concept. There's a potential essay (or at least blog post) just waiting to be written. I'd be interested in seeing your take that topic.
Something to think about it. I'll call on the efforts of my microphone controller buddies to help with the research on that one. It should be up on my blog within a month.
On another note, I certainly understand and agree with the underlying messages of your post regarding how Jesus is the only religious figure to whom we can be "irreverent". Relevant Magazine, a Christian effort has consistently made light of the fact that there's a Jesus Action figure. The fact that Buddah and Jesus aren't on a level playing field isn't suprising. I don't really think Jesus needs affirmative action in that respect. Jesus is a stumbling block. 1 & 2 Peter talk about that. The name of Jesus alone invokes all kind of hatred. The Bible promised us this would be true, so it shouldn't be suprising to us. But in Jesus' name is also healing, delivering, and transforming power. Now whether or not the message of Jesus being our "friend" rather than our master is hurting or helping this generation is up for debate. I certainly don't think that we should forsake either one, as the Bible asserts both.
Incidentally, I was at the store the other day and the clerk had on a "Jesus is my Homeboy" t-shirt. So I proceeded to ask her, "Well is He really your homeboy?". She said, No. Thus started a very interesting conversation. She was clearly convicted. It's a good conversation starter if nothing else.
Ambra,
Something to think about it. I'll call on the efforts of my microphone controller buddies to help with the research on that one. It should be up on my blog within a month.
I’m looking forward to it.
I don't really think Jesus needs affirmative action in that respect. Jesus is a stumbling block. 1 & 2 Peter talk about that. The name of Jesus alone invokes all kind of hatred. The Bible promised us this would be true, so it shouldn't be surprising to us.
I agree, which is why I’m not so concerned about non-believers use of the image and name of Christ. Disrespect is probably the least we should expect from them.
Now whether or not the message of Jesus being our "friend" rather than our master is hurting or helping this generation is up for debate. I certainly don't think that we should forsake either one, as the Bible asserts both.
I probably went overboard in my post by denying the valid use of the term “friend.” But one of the problems I have with using that word is that our culture uses it far too lightly. We now use it to refer to just about anyone with whom we have more than a passing acquaintance. Jesus, on the other hand, used it when it still had some meaning and depth of connotation.
Incidentally, I was at the store the other day and the clerk had on a "Jesus is my Homeboy" t-shirt. So I proceeded to ask her, "Well is He really your homeboy?". She said, No. Thus started a very interesting conversation. She was clearly convicted. It's a good conversation starter if nothing else.
That brings up another issue that concerns me about the shirts. I have seen many celebrities wear them including those who I assume aren’t believers (Jennifer Aniston, Ashton Kutcher) and those who claim they are (Jessica Simpson). Like the store clerk, though, most people wear them out of a sense of irony. What does it say, then, when Christians wear them? Anyone who wore them as a serious message (Jesus really is their homie!) would be viewed as completely missing the hipster-ish irony of it all. Not only would they appear uncool, they would appear completely clueless. While I have no problem with being a “fool for Christ”, I think that wearing a shirt that shows how out of touch one is with the surrounding culture is the wrong way to go about it.
If God didn't do that to establish a personal relationship with you then what was the point? You cannot love someone that you fear, especially when you are filled with a constant fear of their wrath and the knowledge that there is no place that you can be safe from that wrath.
I guess it would have made sense to say that Christians should not fear God because they have returned to God, but that's not what it says, eh? Why would such a powerful existance appeal to our basest instinct, the survival instinct, to bring us into compliance? Telling us to fear God reduces us to the status of any other animal on this planet.
The difference between the purely orthodox and those influenced by the gnostic scriptures is that you fear God for what God is, whereas we fear an eternity without God. We don't fear burning in the lake of fire, we fear an existance that leaves us isolated from the Living Father. This world is hell in the most literal sense because it embodies our disconnect from our common spiritual Father.
That is why when you see a distant, wrathful god that finally condescends to let us not suffer in eternity for mistakes made by our ancestors, I see a being with the power to utterly destroy human civilization with the slightest whim but who instead feels no compulsion to rape, pillage and slaughter; actions that are quintessentially human and thus corrupt. Rather that God suffered humiliation, physical torture, physical death and the agony of 33 years terrestrial years of life in a corrupt world to give testament to His love for us, to smack us out of our complacency and apathy toward a chance to escape this corrupt world and to demonstrate to every living and celestial being in this universe what even a smidgeon of the Living Father's power really is.
If we are wrong then better that we suffer for our idealism in tartaros than spend a lifetime and then eternity genuflecting before a devil being the pearly gates.
This is perhaps the most interesting conversation I've had all day.
Joe wrote: That brings up another issue that concerns me about the shirts. I have seen many celebrities wear them including those who I assume aren’t believers (Jennifer Aniston, Ashton Kutcher) and those who claim they are (Jessica Simpson)
That's kind of a strawman argument. "Oh well non-believers wear 'Jesus is my homeboy' shirts so that makes the concept of the shirt bad". Well, Celebrities who are non-believers say they're Christian too. Non-believers quote scripture too. John Kerry did it. So do lots of musicians, movie-stars, and irreverent Reverends. They wear WWJD bracelets, they thank God for their Grammy awards, and some of them even go to church! Shame them. In fact, there are even churches that call themselves Christian, but they aren't. Okay, that was my sarcasm switch turned on. False misrepresentations of Christ are rampant. Our job is to be salt and light and expose the phonies by our own lifestyle, speech, and conduct in the various spheres of influence God's called us to. If light is light, it will expose the darkness. That's perhaps the saddest critique on our present world. The true disciples of Christ don't look much different from the fake ones, or the non-ones. But I still say a kid who's sold out for Christ can rock a Jesus/homeboy shirt and trample on the hipster irony by professing it as a real life message and sharing the Good News with their mouth. Now that's really ironic. And by the way, who cares what other people think about us? Jesus didn't.
Mike,
You seem not to be understanding a number of basic concepts, such as the fear of the Lord, the nature of kingship, the nature of the relationship of a subject to a king, even when that king is also elder brother, and so forth.
What is your religion? Your post leaves me unclear on that.
Mike,
If God didn't do that to establish a personal relationship with you then what was the point?
I never said he didn’t want to establish a personal relationship with us. I only said that we belong to him and not the other way around.
You cannot love someone that you fear, especially when you are filled with a constant fear of their wrath and the knowledge that there is no place that you can be safe from that wrath.
Sure you can. It’s called marriage. I live in constant fear of my wife and yet love her dearly. ; )
(Seriously, though, the “fear” the Bible is referring to is not the animalistic instinct we commonly feel but something more akin to awe.)
The difference between the purely orthodox and those influenced by the gnostic scriptures is that you fear God for what God is, whereas we fear an eternity without God.
We fear God because of who and what He is. Why would you want to spend an eternity with God if he wasn’t worthy of such reverence and awe?
Somehow 'have you personally recieved Christ as Savior and Lord' has become 'personal savior and lord' like a personal computer or something.
Ambra,
That's kind of a strawman argument. "Oh well non-believers wear 'Jesus is my homeboy' shirts so that makes the concept of the shirt bad".
No, no, no…that’s not what I meant by that. What I meant was that non-believers wear the shirts to convey a specific message (i.e., “I am a hip and cool in an ironic kind of way). Since there is no way to tell who is and who is not a believer from looking at them, the person wearing the shirt is irrelevant to the message. When people see the Homeboy shirt they automatically assume that the intended message is the ironic one.
But I still say a kid who's sold out for Christ can rock a Jesus/homeboy shirt and trample on the hipster irony by professing it as a real life message and sharing the Good News with their mouth. Now that's really ironic.
Possibly. But it could lead to a sort of meta-irony. I wear the shirt (ironic) but I’m a “real” Christian (subversively ironic) but I do so for the sole purpose of showing just how “subversively ironic” I can be (meta-ironic).
My guess is that most people who would wear, er, rock a Homeboy t-shirt would not wear one of the less hip “message” shirts that could be found at such places as “Christian” bookstores. The message of the shirt, rather than the Message of the shirt, would be what is important to them. (I could, of course, be wrong. But that would be my first assumption.)
And by the way, who cares what other people think about us? Jesus didn't.
First, I would disagree. Jesus cared deeply that people thought the right things about him. The things he didn’t care about where the misperceptions people had. But let’s assume that is what you meant. Let's assume the person wearing the shirt doesn’t care about what other people think. (Unlikely if they are young, but we'll assume it could be true.)
Is such an attitude Scriptural? What about Paul’s admonition about looking out for our “weaker brother?” For example, I don’t think that drinking beer is a sin (even though I don’t personally drink) so I shouldn’t have a problem with someone wearing a Budweiser t-shirt (though, again, I would never wear such a thing – too tacky). But what about if I did choose to wear one (it would, after all, be “lawful”)? What kind of message would that send to some of my other brothers and sisters in Christ?
Oh brother we've opened a can of worms. Don't take it so literally. That was meant to be light. What I was hinting at was the fact that our first and foremost concern should be whether or not the Father is pleased with us, and whether our life reflects him and give honor to him. That was the only indication. Yes I understand that we should be concerned about how our actions are perceived by our brother, etc.
I also realize that if I consistently dictated my life by the opinion of the masses, I'd be, well, like most people in the world. Man-pleasers.
Ambra,
Oh brother we've opened a can of worms. Don't take it so literally. That was meant to be light.
Sorry. While I did assume you meant it that way, I figured that since we're discussing this before an audience (small as it might be) it was worth pointing out some of the nuances.
What I was hinting at was the fact that our first and foremost concern should be whether or not the Father is pleased with us, and whether our life reflects him and give honor to him. That was the only indication.
I whole-heartedly agree. I think we are starting with the same premises; we just come to different conclusions.
Yes I understand that we should be concerned about how our actions are perceived by our brother, etc.
I should, of course, clarify that I don’t think we should base all our decisions on how it affects others. But clothing is a part of culture and it conveys a particular social message about us that I think is worthy considering.
I also realize that if I consistently dictated my life by the opinion of the masses, I'd be, well, like most people in the world. Man-pleasers.
(Wo)Man-pleasers would perhaps be a more accurate claim, at least for my side of the gender line. ; )
Funny. Okay, (wo)-man pleasers. And good of you to clarify. I like the beer analogy. I feel the same way.
jesus said 'love thy enemies' that must mean he is a conservative, pro-war monger!
jeus votes republican. he wouldn't cry for the dead iraquis either.
Joe and Ambra,
Thanks for a terrific discussion - one of the best I've seen in awhile. I felt like I was watching a tennis match - Joe's makes a powerful serve, but Ambra returns it with a powerful forehand volley - Joe hits a sizzling backhand that leaves Ambra diving but she gets it and places it in the back corner where Joe scrambles to . . . you get the point.
I don't know if I read the post and comments clearly enough but did either of you address the whole commercialism issue? The commercialism issue deals with the whole idea of reducing Jesus to the level of a commodity to be bought and sold.
Also, on this whole "friend" thing, it occurs to me that the non-believer stands before God as judge, the believer stands before God as Father. In other words, the unbeliever has to go through God as judge before he can know Him as Father/Friend Does "Jesus as my homeboy" detract from this? Maybe, maybe not.
I have to say that I track mostly with Joe here, but Ambra, your comments are terrific - they are incisive and to the point, rather than a rant against Joe's point. Thanks for enlightening me and those who read on the hip-hop culture.
Ambra,
"On another note, I certainly understand and agree with the underlying messages of your post regarding how Jesus is the only religious figure to whom we can be "irreverent"."
Let's be careful here. Anyone in the U.S. is free to be irreverent with regard to any religious figure. Perhaps what you meant to say is that irreverence relating to Jesus can actually move products like T-shirts off the shelves at some urban stores whereas Moses irreverence or Buddah irreverence (or Mohammed irreverence? a tricky one!) doesn't catch people's fancy to the same degree. The interesting question is: why?
"The fact that Buddah and Jesus aren't on a level playing field isn't suprising."
I agree with this statement but perhaps for different reasons. I do not believe there is anything about Christianity per se that makes Jesus irreverence more popular than other types of religious irreverence.
The difference is that Christianity is by far the most popular and powerful religion in this country, (particularly as one moves away from the big cities on the coasts), and Christians have always spent a great deal of money and effort putting themselves in the public domain where, in the interests of evangelism, they tell their believers all the reasons they are going to heaven and tell the non-believers all the reasons they are going to hell. Listen to the AM radio as you drive on any interstate in the country and you'll find out what I mean in a hurry! It is also well-known that these Christian companies are very very profitable (or at least, financially solvent, to the extent they are not "for profit" organizations).
The irreverent T-shirts and action figures you refer to are, to a large extent, just a natural response to oversaturation of the public. To the extent that Jesus' name has already been smeared on every other product conceivable by evangelical Christian companies, why not put make Jesus Soap on a Rope and Dress Me Jesus Refrigerator Magnets (both of which are available from Urban Outfitters)? I think this stuff just allows non-believers to reflect back the popular culture that is being broadcast to them 24/7. Christians may find it irritating or even blasphemous, but that is the price one pays for being the controlling power.
Put in another way, perhaps: before it becomes acceptable for society to treat a symbol irreverently, the symbol must be accepted reverently by all of society.
It's just like when Halloween comes around. We'll see way more George Bush and John Kerry masks relative to Dennis Kucinich masks. Not enough people really give a darn about Dennis Kucinich, so hardly anyone is going to get any pleasure or even notice if someone is dressed up to look like him. But a good Jesus costume will always get a few yuks (probably this year you'll see some really bloody Jesus in honor of Mel's flick).
Daniel Richards said: “If Jesus is so reverent that we can't laugh about him, then Jesus isn't in our everyday lives." Perhaps it's more accurate to put it this way, "If Jesus wasn't in our everyday lives, then Jesus would not be so reverent that we could laugh about him."
Personally I think David Vuong's protest about the Buddah shirts was silly. But I can understand why the company caved -- they probably weren't going to sell very many of the shirts in the first place because, at least in the U.S., not many people are going to appreciate Buddah-bashing. A consumer may ask, "How many times I have heard someone tell me that Buddah is the answer to all my prayers? Zero. Buddah's not on my case, so why I should snark on Buddah?"
I think Joe's theory about the "friendly Jesus" *may* have something to do with the lack of *Christian* objection to the T-shirts. But other religions have central or important figures that are "friendly" and "personal." The reason why we don't notice such figures treated irreverently is because no one feels a need to treat them irreverently. They are too obscure (at least in 2004).
With respect to the differences between irreverent treatments of Jesus and MLK, Jr., I am sure if you look around you can find an irreverent T-shirt dealing with MLK, Jr. But again, because there is no salient need (that I am aware of) to make MLK seem "friendlier," an irreverent MLK shirt would appear to be trying to hard. Americans are not being told that worshipping MLK is the key to happiness in this world and eternal happiness in the next. All I know about MLK is that he was perhaps the most effective teacher in the 20th century of the ethics advocated by Jesus. And it's Jesus' ethics, really, which are revered around the world, by Buddhists and Muslim's and Christians alike. I haven't seen Urban Outfitter's trying to sell a T-shirt reading, "Turning the other cheek is for weaklings." Perhaps the White House sells such shirts.
.
Last weekend Jesus and I went to the mall and He wore a T-shirt that said "I'm With Stupid", with a big arrow on it. And for some reason, He kept wanting me to walk on His left.
There is a difference between Jesus and other religious figures. First off, Jesus is not a religious figure. He's the savior of the world. Second off, all those other "figures" are lies and false gods.
Ambra:
"On another note, I certainly understand and agree with the underlying messages of your post regarding how Jesus is the only religious figure to whom we can be "irreverent"."
Also Ambra:
"First off, Jesus is not a religious figure."
Well, which is it?
I don't see any reason why Jesus can't be the savior of the world and a religious figure.
Joe,
I don't fear God's power over me. I am no more in awe of it, proportionally of course, than I am of the power of a close by supernova's power over my existance. What I am in awe of is how God uses that power. How a being that could without any effort lay waste to us chooses instead to suffer hideously for our benefit so that we might be free of the evil around us one day.
The God of those influenced to any meaningful degree by the gnostic side of Christianity is not a God of wrath for His children, but wrath for those who seek to enslave them. If I had to estimate it, I'd saying I'm 1/3 gnostic, 2/3 generic protestant. I can go to a typical service and agree with 75% of what I hear.
The difference between our conception of God is how we see Genesis. You see God as the being that expelled Adam and Eve/Zoe from the Garden of Eden, I see the True God as the snake who convinced Eve to eat the apple so that she could recognize the garden for the trap that it was. Upon eating that apple she could make value judgements against evil; it was God's Will that she became a moral agent. God as wrathful feudal lord, versus God the almighty and loving liberator; two incompatible views of God IMO.
The gnostic influenced has ironically made it easier for me to balance libertarianism with christianity. My general response to when people ask me how I can balance a strong devotion to capitalism, with no supporting welfare state, with christian teachings is from the Gospel of Philip:
Wow. This is hot! I first saw the t-shirts, action figures, and whatnot last year at Urban Outfitters. Back then, I couldn't decide whether I wanted one because it represented me I didn't want one because it sort of trivializes and commercializes Jesus. The comments here reflect many of my ambivalencies.
I guess the reason I haven't (and won't) buy one of those shirts is simply that I don't think the intention of the producing company is valid. That is, whatever company that puts it out, I think they're meaning it to be cool in a counter-cultural way, much like Karen suggests. That doesn't mean a person couldn't be sincere when wearing it, but my first impression is derived from the source. That is, I look at who's selling the shirt. Every t-shirt with a logo or picture in Urban Outfitters is supposed to be cool because it reflects different values from the mainstream. That's why they sell Colt 45 and Old English 800 t-shirts; that's why they sold t-shirts with Dick and Jane looking characters talking about, "Tom is a true mack daddy. Pimp Tom, pimp." It's all about "ain't I cool because I can take this norm and flip it and make it look like what it represents but totally subvert the meaning." That's the way I take it, at least.
I don't know about the Buddah t-shirts, but I think the response some commenters were looking for from the Christian community is more similar to the response Urban Outfitters got to their "Voting Is For Old People" shirt. Lots of people protested and they shut the game down on that real quick.
Wow. This is hot! I first saw the t-shirts, action figures, and whatnot last year at Urban Outfitters. Back then, I couldn't decide whether I wanted one because it represented me I didn't want one because it sort of trivializes and commercializes Jesus. The comments here reflect many of my ambivalencies.
I guess the reason I haven't (and won't) buy one of those shirts is simply that I don't think the intention of the producing company is valid. That is, whatever company that puts it out, I think they're meaning it to be cool in a counter-cultural way, much like Karen suggests. That doesn't mean a person couldn't be sincere when wearing it, but my first impression is derived from the source. That is, I look at who's selling the shirt. Every t-shirt with a logo or picture in Urban Outfitters is supposed to be cool because it reflects different values from the mainstream. That's why they sell Colt 45 and Old English 800 t-shirts; that's why they sold t-shirts with Dick and Jane looking characters talking about, "Tom is a true mack daddy. Pimp Tom, pimp." It's all about "ain't I cool because I can take this norm and flip it and make it look like what it represents but totally subvert the meaning." That's the way I take it, at least.
I don't know about the Buddah t-shirts, but I think the response some commenters were looking for from the Christian community is more similar to the response Urban Outfitters got to their "Voting Is For Old People" shirt. Lots of people protested and they shut the game down on that real quick.
Joe,
I doubt that wearing a Guinness or Budweiser T-shirt would cause any new converts to the faith to worship heathen gods.
As I am a Christian (1 Tim. 4:1-5, note the last verse) I will have a drink with a meal in public, as a testimony to the true faith and a stand against demonic doctrine.
Christ purchased us with his blood. He is our Lord and Master. I find these types of shirts and slogans to be disrespectful to someone who suffered unimaginable pain and suffering so that we could live with him. Jesus is not our buddy, he is not our homeboy. To put the Savior of our souls in any type of context that demeans his stature as our master is wrong. I have a personal relationship with my Savior and I would never disrespect him by calling him my "homeboy" or wear his likeness on a T-Shirt. He is to be worshipped and followed, not made into a pop culture Icon.
Didn't anyone see the story about the dress-up Jesus toy being sold at an Urban Outfitters in King of Prussia, PA? This was reported on Drudge March 17. Another link at the referenced page lets you view a slide show of the toy.
Who will argue that this toy can be played with in an ironic way to make Jesus seem friendlier?
As far as I know, this toy cannot be found on the Urban Outfitters web site. Nonetheless, I'd like to know how any Christian can justify shopping there anymore. Or working there anymore. Maybe the pay -- 30 pieces of silver every week -- is just too good.
An interesting dilemma: should one sacrifice reverence for mass appeal or vice-versa? Some would say this issue has come up before with issues of Christian rock music. Anyway, this has been an interesting debate, quite enjoyable to follow.
Karen,
Please try to see past semantics. I made the intial reference to Jesus being a different type of "religious figure" in regards to Joe's post. Those were his words not mine. for context's sake, I had to say it the same he did. I don't think Jesus should be relegated to being a religious figure. He's more than that.
On the "fear of the Lord" discussion...it is worthwhile to note that Daniel, Job, Isaiah and John at Patmos all had opportunity to be visited by God in His, shall we say, NOT humble form (as He otherwise appeared in the Gospels)..
I think their reactions speak clearly to the "fear" part. It is also curious to see Jesus, especially after the resurrection, encourage people who were His believers NOT to fear..as apparently that was their natural reaction upon seeing Him.
Recall that often when people in the gospels got a glimpse of His holiness, the response was to ask Jesus to leave. I too believe that if we all got a greater understanding of God's holiness, some of these discussions would fade away..
Fearing God in general is a form of reverence more than anything else. Keeping in mind that the Bible tells us that fear is not of God, it is clear that whatever we fear will in some form, have mastery over us. Fear of death being of the foremost. (Phobias are another example of that) That said, the only thing we really should fear is God. Anything else becomes idolotrous. I fear Him for many reasons, but namely because in one instant He can take me out permanently, but yet He chooses not to because of His sovereign mercy.
John 15:14
You are my friends if you do what I command.
Ambra, sometimes the context is reverence..no doubt about it. But it is too common today to leave it at that, which again diminishes the holiness aspect of God (to bring the point full circle). The people of Scripture I mention were face to face with His holiness..and it brought their own sinfulness to a greater degree in their consciousness (despite being some of the greatest men living in terms of faith and purity)
There is a word for reverence, and a word for fear. The Bible uses them both, so I hesitate to make an unScriptural substitution based on common belief of the day.
In fact, look at Hebrews 12:28 and you will see them both used in the same verse, yet clearly showing there is a difference
One can't read Matthew 10:28 and just stop at the idea of reverence being the issue.
I think all you who have said that Jesus owns us and that we fear him are off your rockers. i came about this comment board while i was looking for the cheapest Jesus is my homeboy tshirt online. i cant say that i am a religious person or that i even believe in a jesus or whatever. the tshirts are just like any other tshirt out there... they are for wearing and expressing whatever the hell you feel like. so goddamnit, stop killing yourselves over some tshirt that is no threat to you or others. worry instead about your beloved priests and give this whole thing a break.
As for the 'personal' in 'personal Lord and Savior', I believe that gets inserted so the potential convert may see their sin (as opposed to the idea of sin) and know Jesus died for their individual sin and personally saves them if they believe/repent/insert the correct word here.
I don't think this approach works because the person hasn't first been made to see how they've broken God's law in the first place, therefore needing a savior. But I do believe that is the intent in the 'personal' part.
It's all context. The Jesus is my homeboy shirts and the "Mary is my homegirl" tops were sold in alt fashion shops and intended to be valued for their kitch factor.
I'm going to try and keep this short and simple. If someone really, truely is your friend/your homeboy or, girl, as the case may be, aren't you willing to do anything you need to do for them, serve them, knowing that they will help you when you need it most. You know that they have your back when you are in a situation. "Let the Lord fight your battles" as the song(s) say(s). From the way I look at it, you don't want you enemies fighting you battles, you want someone that you can trust, you want who..."Your Friend/Your Homeboy." Besides, who else do you want to share you inner most secrets with? Surely not your enemies.
I agree with Ambra on this one. "It seems to me the problem here is not the shirts. I like the shirts. They're hot. I'm a believer and I'd rock that thing in a minute. (Vernacular translation, rock=wear)." I personally think it's more-so people that truely have no life and want everyone else to be as down and unhappy as they are in life.
All i'm saying is...if it bothers you, don't wear the freakng shirt. That's like the idiots that want to get rid of Christian television and radio. That's the stupidest thing to waste your time about. This is America right? Land of the free, so let me be free to wear, read, watch, do, and hear what I want to. Do you, and let me do me. Do you know how hard it is to get a child to believe in someting? Why knock it? Leave the kids alone.
Ok, so maybe it wasn't that short, but you know what i mean...hopefully. I think that's it. Now, leave me alone so, I can go order MY shirt offline.
Excellent article, Mr. Carter.
Jesus IS our friend. But He is first the everlasting and almighty God and Creator of everything. He is the LORD and He is not to be treated as a common thing.
The only boldness we may have with God comes from realizing the immeasurability of the righteousness that covers us, allowing us to approach God in confidence. That righteousness was paid for by the sacrifice of Jesus at Golgotha.
Wisdom does not begin with confidence before God; wisdom begins with the fear of Him. I don't see the virtue in Dogma's "Buddy Jesus" and "Jesus WOW" or the "Jesus is my homeboy" in the instant case. It trivializes salvation and our God.
Drea, evangelicals don't have priests.
Reading all these posts make me grateful for a theological education.
I think you have some good points here, I use SOME as I disagree with you on the main part.
What is the difference between Christianity and Other religions? - A question i am constantly being asked at school at play, whatever.
My reply? You can know Bhudda, Mohammed, Ganesha, Bacchus etc... but you can have a personal relationship with Christ. Christianity is differenct from other religions in that when we pray, We can touch God and God acknowledges us.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him, shall not perish but have eternal life" - John 3:16
I shudder to think that Jesus bore the sum of the world sin : Past present and future on his back and defeated the devil that day on Calvary.
Don't you think that he deserves "Mad Propz" for that? I know that I do!!
Jesus told his disciples to "go forth and spread the word".... Look how much controversy this personal relationships malarkey has been discussed even on this one site!? It has drawn alot of attention to Christ and the amazing sacrafice which he made for us. I, and hopefully you too, will go and publicise God's love in any way possible; even if it is just by drawing attention to Christ.
What can be bad about showing people the love which Christ has given us?
From Urbandictionary.com the definition of Homeboy :
Closest Friend
I love my friends, My friends love me. I am willing to serve my friends (as it says in the bible). Christ is my Closest friend, The most sacred bond is between a Mother and her Child. Is this then, not the same for the bond shared between God and Man? I think so. Correction : I Know so.
The love which God shows us is unconditional and so he is willing to love us. It doesnt matter what we do to him, say about him, NOTHING. God loves us the same as he did yesterday, Today and will love us forever!
I think it is quite contrary to the teachings in Acts for you to say that the appearence of alot of Christians to say that God is their best friend.
Finally, What could be wrong with the publicity which Jesus gets today. There is only one possible scenario i can think of, when someone uses it as a blasphemous thing or something which Lowers Christ's status as Lord over all and "Most High"
It wasn't "Jesus Wow", it was "Catholicism Wow".
I don't see a problem with making money on jesus or any other religious symbol.. the church has been doing it since the invention of all these religions and they are filthy disgusting rich from it. Imagine making money by feeding on the weak minded. Xtianity is a hoax but you'll never realize that because it's a drug you can't shake. jesus is dead and he'll stay dead.. if he ever existed at all. You really need to move on people and smell the logic.
I can't believe how some people are getting upset over the marketing of christ. You would think it was something new. Jeezus has been marketed over and over again from the time he was born... even by Jeezus, himself. The man purposely lived his privileged life in line with prophesies so that people would follow him. He may even have faked his own death, since the gospel version of his 'cruci-fiction', as it is told in most bible versions... KJV included, is extremely unlikely, given the laws and customs of the people of that time and place. (Most christians need to do a little more research in other sources than their bibles... try the Nag Hammadi) Speaking of marketing, what do you think televangelism is? What of the tent revivals of times past? Christ in a cracker! the whole catholic religion has been a huge profit maker for centuries.
I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.
John 15:15
sorry to prove you wrong straight out of jesus' mouth
Believers are the bride of Christ. If Jesus is not the brides friend then it would be one odd unhappy marriage.
Jesus died for all our sins, if a person recognizes his or her sinfulness and repents and accepts the payment Christ paid then they become a believer in Christ, part of the church the bride of Christ, and in a normal healthy marriage His friend.
Hebrews 4 tells us that we have a high priest who has been tempted in all ways but who has not sinned. What He did was become God in a human sinless body (Phil 2) to be the perfect example to us.
Ritual issues were not hang ups to Christ. If so He would never had eaten with Zacchaeus who was a tax collector (Luke 19) or would He have blessed the women with the blood order (Luke 8:40), both situations like the issue of the good samaritan who did not do as the relgious Jews who left the person to rot, but picked the person up and carried them to the inn. Jesus calls us in whatever shape we come to Him, a tax collector like Zacchaeus, sickly like the woman with the blood disorder, or the beatup person along the roadway He will pick us up and take us to the inn.
Remember God used a jackass to teach Balaam a lesson, and if He can use a jackass and us when He needs to, who are we to question a person wearing a 'Jesus is my homeboy' t-shirt.
Matthew 25:35-40, it seems some get caught up in the way the person looks and do not minister to them because they are different,or wear the wrong t-shirts, but as Jesus explained in these verses we should attend to God's calling and not look at the people we should serve. Colossians 3:17.
perhaps one should examine just how nitpicky believers have gotten. no longer, does it seem, is it enough to love Him, and to follow Him, and to accept Him into your heart as the reason that you are upon the earth, and the reason that you have the chance to live your life in as Christ-like a way as possible.
no, now we have to examined for just how much of a "Christian" you really are. do you wear clothing that supports or conforms with "MY" idea of how you shoudl display your faith? if not, than you are not truly a believer.
give me a break.
if we are going to spend so much time arguing about wether or not you agree with the way in which another Christian expresses theri faith, amybe you should invest that time and energy talking to people WHO HAVE NO FAITH AT ALL!!!!!
Mike says "I see the True God as the snake who convinced Eve to eat the apple so that she could recognize the garden for the trap that it was. Upon eating that apple she could make value judgements against evil; it was God's Will that she became a moral agent."
You and the Mormons
Heresy Leee says "The man purposely lived his privileged life in line with prophesies so that people would follow him."
Gotta be impressed with a guy who can determine where his mother will give birth and , before the age of two, force King Herod to slaughter children in order to annihilate him.
The problem with the shirts and all the other items we see such as bracelets, it that the message they convey is weak.
Christ is being proclaimed and no person is being edified by these items and thier message.
>>Christ is being proclaimed and no person is being edified by these items and thier message.