reprobates

dictionary.reference.com defines the noun "reprobate" as:

1. a depraved, unprincipled, or wicked person: a drunken reprobate.
2. a person rejected by God and beyond hope of salvation.

Clearly not a nice word to use for referring to another person. While I can certainly see churchgoers expressing the attitude shown in this cartoon, I can't imagine Jesus using it. While initially it's easy to think he never called anyone names, he actually did:

There's the time when in answer to a question, he obliquely referred to a Canaanite woman as a dog (Matthew 15:21-28). And the times that he called the Pharisees names.

From what I recall, the Pharisees were the religious people of His day. What might Jesus be calling the religious people of today if he came down to earth?

about the labels (etc.)

This post exists to give clarity as to how this blog is using some of the categories (sometimes also called labels or tags), and the choice of related sites. It is a work in progress, and will continue to change over time.

About the categories

I am listing here only those categories on which I want to comment:

(s)

used as a suffix for labels which indicate a specific series on a given topic rather than just various cartoons which are about the same topic. For example, "not anti- (s)" is a series about "not being anti-gay."

church

for posts specifically about churches -- such as narrow gate, looking for jesus, etc but not the three-part-sermons (while their setting is a church, they are more about the ideas expressed by the pastor)

diversity

for posts which are about diversity in general, but not in the corporate sense (see next item)

diversity and inclusion

for posts which are about diversity and inclusion as used in corporate / organizational settings

grace

for posts which are specifically showing the experience of grace, the offering of grace, etc.

key

this identifies posts which to me hold key ideas and concepts. If you want the cream of the crop, start here.

labels

used when the issue is labelling someone, calling them names, etc.

language

used for posts which deal with "what words mean"

lookism

for exclusion, discrimination and prejudice based on physical attributes such as stature, hair colour, handedness, etc.

love the sinner... (s)

short for "love the sinner, hate the sin." The (s) indicates that this is a series of cartoons on this topic.

margins

for jesus going to the margins cartoon, and more...

my articles

this label is used for posts that are either (1) lengthier articles which I've written and posted up here or (2) posts which link to longer articles that I've written but which are elsewhere.

pastor stickman

this blog has various cartoons featuring pastors. In the early months of the blog, these were individual cartoons using the context of a pastor preaching to make a particular point. As of June 17, 2012, when pastor stickman inadvertantly outed himself, he has become a specific character and the cartoons relate to each other and build on each other. The "pastor stickman" label is only used for these newer ones.

rejection

used for 'lost gospels' and other cartoons that deal with overall rejection rather than rejection based on a specific other name-able matter

st. pea's

used for posts about st. pea's church. While not its real name, it is a real church in a real Canadian city

twist

used when a standard meaning or interpretation of a Bible verse or concept is twisted in some way -- for example, the narrow gate idea used to suggest leaving the church

welcome

for cartoons like "precious one" or 'church signs', which are explicitly about welcoming others

western jesus

this label is used for cartoons which show a Jesus who acts the way that contemporary North American Christians tend to. This idea and theme came out of reading Richard Beck's book unclean, taking some of the concepts from it and applying them to Jesus. In other words, if Jesus was the way we tend to be, how would he have acted in the situations he found himself in?

word art

used for images which are primarily words arranged in some artistic way

About the related sites

The list of related sites is carefully chosen to provide key resource websites on the kinds of topics covered on this blog. For the time being, my goal is to list a maximum of ten sites. Some of them may seem unrelated depending on what post you view on their site; for example, Experimental Theology covers a wide range of topics -- but I've included it as Richard Beck has frequently written on topics of great relevance to my site here.

bad roots

At an overt level, this cartoon simply takes the name "carrot top" and literalizes it, providing some comic relief while at the same time making the point that how we decide to make fun of people with one hair colour and not those with other hair colours is rather relative even if originally there was some source for the division.

The cartoon also provides me the opportunity to link to an excellent video about bullying. I like this video because words are secondary to the imagery and action, and even more because of the positive and unexpected way that one student responds to seeing the other student being bullied:



Aside from anti-bullying initiatives and policies, we as individuals can also make a difference for those who are bullied, mistreated, misrepresented, rejected, and so on. Am I willing to stand with those who are bullied, even if it means others look down on me? Even if others think I'm like them?

I'm reminded of how Jesus was referred to as "a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collector and sinners" (Matthew 11: 19). It seems these days, that we who claim to follow Jesus are rather reluctant to identify with those on the margins, and even more reluctant to be (perhaps mistakenly) identified as one of them. What's with that?

family friendly

Two things stand out for me about this cartoon. First, when the preacher says "God loves everyone!" and expands on it by saying "Gay, lesbian, bi, transgender" without including "straight", he is speaking from a place of privilege. Privilege here assumes that "of course God loves heterosexuals; what is not clear is whether or not God loves those who are non-heterosexual." Inherent in this type of privilege is the assumption that the privileged majority is included, is right, is best, and so on, and usually those who are part of it never question or even think about such things.

Secondly, are gay and lesbian and bisexual and transgender people not from families? Do they not have families? And are there not families in the church who have gay sons and lesbian sisters and bisexual cousins and transgender partners? So the not-yet-spoken implication by the pastor that "because this is a family-friendly church we can't have LGBT people running around", is actually counter-family, or family-unfriendly.

If Jesus had been as picky as we often are about whom we associate with, he would have avoided the lepers, the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, the woman who had been bleeding for years and years, the beggars on the street, the man who was demon-possessed, Zaccheus and other tax collectors, prostitutes, and general sinners of all sorts. He would have spent his time with nice religious people, reading the Torah, and looking good. And with all of that he wouldn't be Jesus anymore ... he'd be a Christian*.

* north american variety. And yes, I realize this is a grand generalization which is not fair to the many north america-based followers of Jesus who do get it. However, this is what the majority of non-Christians perceive when they think of Christians.

litmus test

*In case the letters are too small, "ssb" is short for same-sex blessings.

The sermon this past Sunday was on the passage in Matthew 25 regarding the sheep and the goats, and the pastor brought out some interesting points. One was that in the Middle East, there are many varieties of sheep and goats, and that you cannot tell them apart except by their tails! So it seems my two pictures in the cartoon represent western understandings of sheep and goats.

In any case, this cartoon was inspired by the comment made at times that same-sex blessings will be the litmus test as to whether a mainline denomination is faithful to orthodox Biblical views. Really? That's the litmus test?

What about seeing how well they actually do what Jesus says and does? Wouldn't that be a better test of whether "followers of Jesus" are really following Him?

precious one

"They said you wouldn't let me in...."

Wow. Who are we to decide whether someone else gets into heaven or not? And then to have the audacity to tell other people that they won't get in! And it tends to be communicated in formats like "You are going to hell" or "Homosexuals will burn in hell."

I believe in grace. And I believe that somehow or other, millions and billions who were excluded here on earth will be welcomed into heaven, whether or not they heard about Jesus down here, whether they lived a good life or a bad life or the average life with small moments of brilliance and small moments of depravity that many of us live. I don't know how God will do it, but He can. I'm not saying there's no hell, nor am I saying that no one will end up in hell. I don't know about that. But if millions and billions are going to end up in hell, then that's not the God I want to be following. There we have it – my cards are on the table.

I believe in a big God with arms wide open. If I as an earthly father love my children no matter what, surely my heavenly Father loves us far more no matter what. Does that mean what we do here doesn't matter? Of course not. It matters immensely because what we do down here can help make the world a better place for everyone or a worse place for everyone.

I'd love to hear what your thoughts are on this....

---

David Hayward at the Naked Pastor has an interesting cartoon and commentary on this as well: which word doesn't belong?

Interested in reading more about the question of heaven and hell? Check out Rob Bell's new book Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.Video: Introduction to Love Wins

lost gospels

Is the church a place for sinners? What about Jesus' words in Mark where he says, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” And in Luke 19:10 it says, “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

Are some sinners 'too bad' to be part of your church? Or perhaps it's that their sins are unacceptable to the majority? Who decides this?
How does the tone of the question of 'where is your husband?' contrast with a similar question that Jesus asked the woman at the well (John 4:1-26)?

By 'your kind', the church people are obviously not meaning 'humanoid'. So what do they mean by 'your kind?' How does it make it easier for them to reject the person if they think of zem as "your kind?"

What kinds of people are welcome at your church? What kinds of people are ignored, shunned or rejected?

How does the instruction to 'get a suit' reflect a desire to have everyone look good on the outside, to conform to the status quo?

frankly

Another cartoon in the "we're not anti-gay" series. Did you know that sitting on the fence can have adverse effects on key parts of the body?

church signs

This cartoon was inspired by conversations about the idea of "welcoming but not affirming". Typically, such signs are not on the front lawn but are only discovered after you attend a church. In the case of "Live and love without labels," this is the reality of Highlands Church in Denver.

How do you understand the action of welcoming someone? How is it the same or different from affirming them?

Whom did Jesus welcome, and how did he welcome? If you attend or are involved in a church, whom do they welcome?

men's daily prayers

This one was inspired by reading about the prayer that Jewish men actually prayed for years (and some might still pray?), and then taking it from there. Of course, some of the things the man on the left is praying could readily be the view of the man on the right as well -- we are just not as open about it as they were in Old Testament times.

Are we making progress?

[from labels to liberty]

My friend Jamie Arpin-Ricci, "an urban missionary, pastor, church planter and writer living in Winnipeg’s inner city West End neighbourhood", wrote an excellent post on from labels to liberty, addressing first the importance of seeing people primarily as people rather than based on labels, then giving a specific example in the context of mental illness and the church, and closing with the importance of truth-speaking. I recommend the article highly – Jamie is articulate and speaks from his experience within his community.

He has also just released a book called The Cost of Community: Jesus, St. Francis and Life in the Kingdom (click to find out more about this book, including "a look inside").

anybody

What we are known for?

Are we primarily known for being against things, whether the older version of "Christians don't drink, smoke or dance" or the newer versions of "anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-anti-bullying campaigns, etc."?

Or are we primarily known for those things which are good, such as the fruits of the spirit, helping the oppressed and marginalized, being respectful of those with different views and lives, being people of integrity? Does what we do and how we live help people move toward God, or does it push them away from Him?  Does the goodness of God ooze out of us, or is there so much antagonism, fear, and contempt of others that very little of Jesus shines through?

soup

Some people ask "what would Jesus do?" This pastor, from his literal perspective, asks "what wouldn't Jesus do?"

I know, I know — it's a silly cartoon. But some days are like that, and some people, unfortunately, are like this, and miss the reality of having the heart of Jesus with one another.

last supper

In this somewhat ludicrous cartoon, the idea in my head was predominantly the idea of timing, and in this case, perhaps especially bad timing and a lack of reading one's setting. But of course there are other things involved here as well, including:

Can a disciple of Jesus be gay? (my answer to this question is yes of course -- there are many Christ-followers who are outside of the heterosexual mainstream).

Is it necessary to come out to Jesus? Doesn't he already know?

I'm sure some of you will have other thoughts or questions after seeing this cartoon, and invite you to share them via the comments. This is, incidently, the cartoon where in the initial drafts, the disciples looked like they were from the movie Planet of the Apes.

pew warmers

What does it mean to "not be anti-gay?" Is this similar to "not being anti-black" or "not being anti-men"?

Or perhaps, using the standard rule that two negatives cancel each other out, does being "not anti-gay" equal being gay? Or if two negatives equal a positive, would being "not anti-gay" equal being pro-gay?

At a broader level, do you feel welcome to sit in the pews of your church (or a church)? Are you looking to do more than just sit in the pew?

This cartoon was inspired by events in the summer of 2011 when, in response to online protests, Howard Schulz, the CEO and Chairman of Starbucks, pulled out of speaking at a large event sponsored by a large church. The pastor responded very graciously toward Howard, encouraging people to buy his book, get coffee there, and so on. However, some of what he said in response to the accusations made by the protesters was interesting in terms of language. For more on this, see the post anti-gay on redletterchristians.org.