Brad,

Oaky, Brad. I read it again.

Christ did not wash the feet of the worst criminals of his day. If that was the point to be made, then Hitler and a psychotic killer should also have been included in the poster.

I think I understand the intent of the poster to some extent from our point of view, but am wondering what was going through the minds of those who objected to it. Were you given specific reasons why they did?

Jesus didn't wash the feet of those who crucified Him. Did Christ die for the wicked? Are we to pray that Satan should repent and be saved? Maybe we should, if we are going to be consistent with what Greg said.

And what was the poster trying to convey? Jesus only washes the feet of important people?

Please understand, I'm not trying to be critical at all for using the poster. I agree with Greg about the reason for using it and the reaction it got. Personally, I was twice as offended that Bush was included in the poster over the inclusion of anyone else, from a political abuse of power and influence viewpoint. I'm just wondering about the details of the objections to the poster what we can learn from this marketing exercise. Are we putting out the message we really want to?

"Jesus didn't wash the feet of those who crucified Him. Did Christ die for the wicked?"

Dan, Jesus forgave those who tortured him to death (despite having the power to kill them), so to say that he didn't also wash their feet seems ridiculous to me. It would be like Jesus saying "I'll allow you to put that crown of thorns on my head. I'll allow you to put nails in my hands and feet. I'll say words of kindness to you as you do it. I'll forgive you as you do it. But just don't ask me to wash your feet." Jesus didn't say to every individual he encountered "I do not condemn you" but can't we extrapolate that loving and forgiving attitude to everyone.

Did Christ die for the wicked?

Of course!

Brad

Why would you be upset that George Bush was in there, especially when the artist paid so much attention to making sure he looked respectful and interested in what Jesus was doing?

Furthermore, I don't understand how ANYONE could ever mistake that picture as a political statement - it's so ANTI-politics and anti-world government I don't even know where to start.

- Marco

That's all well and good, Brad, but to help clarify what I'm getting at, let me ask you this. And I presume you did not put up those posters initially where you did with the knowledge that they would be removed.

Would you put up a similar poster displaying Jesus washing Hitler's feet in a predominantly Jewish community without expecting some objection?

I don't know what the various objections were to the poster. I would expect they might be varied, though predominant in some area, like depicting OBL. But Jesus washed the feet of His followers. Would it be unreasonable for a person to interpret the poster as those who's feet are being washed as followers of Jesus? How about I put up a sign that says, "Hitler and Satan are followers of Jesus." Something like that is not what you intended to say, was it?

Quote by: marco

Why would you be upset that George Bush was in there, especially when the artist paid so much attention to making sure he looked respectful and interested in what Jesus was doing?

Furthermore, I don't understand how ANYONE could ever mistake that picture as a political statement - it's so ANTI-politics and anti-world government I don't even know where to start.

- Marco

I was not upset that Bush was there. I'm upset the Bush is our President. You are right Marco. But you never know how others might see things.

I'm just going by what I know. All I know is the posters were objectionable to some. That is all you've told us. Perhaps that is all you know. But don't you think it would be pertinent to know why they were objectionable?

Marco said: >>Furthermore, I don't understand how ANYONE could ever mistake that picture as a political statement - it's so ANTI-politics and anti-world government I don't even know where to start.<< Why don't we start with this? Why are they all political figures?

Perhaps Lars was thinking of these things when he painted it [diagramming all mine]:

"The object of this service is to call to mind the humility of our Lord, and the lessons He has given in washing the feet of His disciples.

a)There is in man a disposition to esteem himself more highly than his brother,

b)to work for himself,

c)to serve himself,

d)to seek the highest place; and

e)often evil-surmisings and bitterness of spirit spring up over mere trifles.

This ordinance preceding the Lord's Supper is to clear away these misunderstandings, to bring man out of his selfishness, down from his stilts of self-exaltation, to the humility of spirit that will lead him to wash his "--RH May 31, 1898.

True all these traits are common among men, but most striking in world leaders and shakers.

This is what Greg Boyd posted on his blog. >>Heavenly Sanctuary had contracts with several malls in the Seattle area to hang these posters advertising their conference, but no sooner had the posters gone up than angry calls began flooding the malls. Many people -- but, it seems, mostly Christians -- were offended at the image of Jesus washing Osama Bin Laden’s feet. There was such an outcry that each of the malls decided to go back on their contract and take the posters down. The Christian College that Heavenly Sanctuary was renting space from to host the Conference also canceled their contract. Brad had to scramble to find a secular venue (which, ironically, had no problems with the poster). What does this say about how many American Christians envision Jesus? Obviously, the protesters believe that Jesus would not wash Osama Bin Laden’s feet. But Jesus died "not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world" (I Jn 2:2) -- and this obviously includes Osama. So if Jesus died for Osama, how are we to imagine him being unwilling to wash his feet?>> What seems obvious to Mr. Boyd might very well be the case. But even he does not think that all the protests came from Christians, as he said "mostly Christians." What about the others? Who might we be trying to reach that we are turning off. That is the issue as I see it. And did we or can we verify what seems obvious? Or would that verification reveal that we are shooting ourselves in the foot? It's a marketing problem. Like a company paying a lot of money putting out a message that actually turns off a lot of potential customers. What might seem obvious isn't always. And some of that is going on here, because those posters were not put up anywhere with the expectation that they would be removed. From what has been said, that much we can safely conclude.

Dan: You repeatedly suggested this was a "marketing" exercise. I think that position is the problem.

Should a "slicker" more neutral presentation of art be used that says nothing of Christ's humility or love?

How wise would it have been to lure the "poster haters" into the meeting with bait and then hit them with our actual message?

What picture would you suggest Dan?

Quote by: Dan

Quote by: marco

Why would you be upset that George Bush was in there, especially when the artist paid so much attention to making sure he looked respectful and interested in what Jesus was doing?

Furthermore, I don't understand how ANYONE could ever mistake that picture as a political statement - it's so ANTI-politics and anti-world government I don't even know where to start.

- Marco

I was not upset that Bush was there. I'm upset the Bush is our President. You are right Marco. But you never know how others might see things.

I'm just going by what I know. All I know is the posters were objectionable to some. That is all you've told us. Perhaps that is all you know. But don't you think it would be pertinent to know why they were objectionable?

Jesus IS objectionable to many. They killed Him because He was objectionable.

Not sure why you'd think our posters depicting acts of Jesus to be any less objectionable?

- Marco