The keepers of the Reformed Holy Grail at Pyromaniacs have released a series of images that poke fun at and show their take on the emerging church - which is not favorable. Each image points to a website. The missional image above points to JesusCreed and the cussing image (below) points to my blog post on cussing and offensive language.
What do I think of these images?
I really like them. I may not agree with the conclusions or assumptions that have motivated them, but I appreciate the quality, the humor, the approach, and the tone. I see them as an invitation to respond with something similar. Maybe this is a new way of debating using images and media . . . and i like it. I will probably show the images on my Happy Hour tonight and discuss them with my guests. Here are the complete set at Pyro here, here, here and here.
Wait - i just found them on one site - Go to posters at Spurgeon.org. What do you think? Which is your favourite?
Technorati Tags: emergent, emerging church
More . ..
Hilarious! I agree about the quality, humour and general approach - very good and thought provoking in the right kind of way. If only more people could disagree so agreeably.
Personal favourites... Ecclesiology (Who cares whether we know how it's supposed to work, we're going to have a crack at fixing it) and Cultural Awareness (Bono). I think there's a grain of truth (absolute or relative?!) in both of them.
Posted by: Tim Abbott | July 25, 2007 at 01:10 PM
Very funny. At least to begin with. And then when I looked at the whole set in one I found them more disturbing!
I mean, if you care this much about the quality, you must REALLY hate the movement. And that's never a nice taste in the mouth to leave.
Posted by: Kester | July 25, 2007 at 01:26 PM
These posters make me kind of sad. I agree that they're well done and creative, but I agree with Kester. I don't see how this could be helpful.
Posted by: Onkel Toby | July 25, 2007 at 01:42 PM
These are too funny. I really enjoyed them
Posted by: Mike | July 25, 2007 at 02:07 PM
I think they can still be helpful. At least it allows us a view into the concerns of those outside the movement. We can assume they have problems with this or that, but it is all assumption. This at least gives a perspective that really allows those of us invovled in projects to see where others view us as weak. Something to be said about stereotypes, and it allows us places to improve communication with those "outside". Just a thought, I could be completely wrong.
Posted by: don-nie | July 25, 2007 at 02:13 PM
Love the posters, hate the idea. The energy spent is mind-boggling.
Posted by: Mike | July 25, 2007 at 02:13 PM
Your text seems to be over shadowed by the posters. Can't read it all.
Criticism using art, creative!
See you tonight @ Happy Hour!
Posted by: douglas | July 25, 2007 at 02:37 PM
I like the missional one the best. It's probably because everyone I know would be considered lowbrow.
But the effort, time, and money spent on this does seem a bit much.
Posted by: chad | July 25, 2007 at 02:38 PM
Your text seems to be over shadowed by the posters. Can't read it all.
Criticism using art, creative!
See you tonight @ Happy Hour!
Posted by: douglas | July 25, 2007 at 02:40 PM
Some very funny stuff there. However, looking through the collection, I did find myself becoming a bit ambivalent. Many of the posters could easily be satirical towards Christians in general (e.g., Humility). Some of them clearly signify a misunderstanding of what the emerging "poly-logue" is all about (e.g., Liberty???). Obviously some weird stereotyping going on here. Would have to also echo Kester's thoughts.
Posted by: brandon | July 25, 2007 at 02:49 PM
I'm glad to see you can find humor in the posters since they slammed you as well. I guess a positive attitude helps. I am concerned by the growing amount of nastiness among people who claim to follow Jesus though. This poster series just seems like the latest in a long line of really nasty stuff aimed at anyone who disagrees. The overall trend concerns me. Even if they intended the posters to be humorous they might better have considered how they would be received. I think may will find them very offensive and in poor taste.
Posted by: Rob Witham | July 25, 2007 at 03:28 PM
yeah - we have had about 8 years of criticism, almost all of it from Americans. Some of it has been awful and not worth reponding to. so when i see some well thought out artistic criticism, I have to take off my hat.
Posted by: andrew jones | July 25, 2007 at 03:43 PM
Rhetoric and propaganda is still rhetoric and propaganda. Having spent 12 years in comedy I deeply appreciate satire and the role of comedy in truth-telling, but this is like the jerk uncle who is always insulting you and then saying, "ha! only joking!" to cover his bitter words.
I agree with others on this - it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I think as Christians we get too offended too quickly and that blinds us to any rebuke, criticism or opportunity to learn, but at the same time we've a responsibility to love and care for those in the Body. And if this conservative element thinks we now lie outside the camp due too our heresies, then they have an equally powerful mandate to love us and care for us.
Propaganda in the name of art or Jesus is distressing.
sigh.
(still, had this stuff been less bitter at times, I think we ALL could have laughed at it/with it.)
Posted by: david | July 25, 2007 at 04:14 PM
I really like some of the posters, and think there's some validity here. One has to remember that the hyperbole is purposeful, but in some cases it goes over the top.
Great conversation starters -- it's not a bad thing altogether to set people's teeth on edge. But for the sake of balance I would like to see a set of similar posters designed to do the same thing to Bible Belt conformists. How about posters that take humorous barbs at things like conformity, legalism, moralism, gluttony, consumerism, Wal-Mart Christianity, to name a few.
At least the posters got us thinking and talking. In that, they've accomplished at least one of their purposes.
http://nakedchurch.wordpress.com
Posted by: Rob Mitchell | July 25, 2007 at 04:25 PM
TSK, thanks for spinning this into something productive!! I always appreciate your response to critics, you find a way to learn and engage the criticism without shouting back.
Posted by: ScottyZ | July 25, 2007 at 06:40 PM
sometimes i shout back but not this one.
Posted by: andrew | July 25, 2007 at 06:52 PM
for those interested . . . i responded in kind.
http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2007/07/25/ok-lets-scratch-the-surface-for-now/
Posted by: josh | July 25, 2007 at 10:00 PM
I found the poster on Relevance funny - how true! (Because I react that way sometimes, lol)
Unfortunately, the other posters didn't sit comfortably with me. I never did like witnessing divide after divide in church after all.
Posted by: Messy Christian | July 26, 2007 at 05:37 PM
I have to say that I was particularly struck (...pun not intended, but rather appropriate ;) ) by the one on conversation...especially in light of what I have read here.
If we were better conversationalists, perhaps there wouldn't be as strong a need for such extra sharp satire?
Posted by: Peggy | July 26, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Real humour is being able to see the riduclousness of your own existence, being able to laugh at yourself... this is pompous, petulant and childish... I REALLY hope we don't frame the discussion in this way!
Posted by: Mark | July 27, 2007 at 01:35 AM
Thanks for the linkage, Andrew.
The broad range of reactions kind of caught me by surprise. My favorite (after yours) came from "Mike," the second commenter on Josh Brown's post with the "back at you" images.
I'm pretty sure Mike would have no sympathy with most of my opinions, and his comment wouldn't have survived the censors at my blog, but his response to the satire was more in line with what I expected.
Yours, too. Thanks.
Posted by: Phillip Johnson | July 27, 2007 at 01:50 AM
Great stuff. Are they accurate or not accurate? Who knows? Do there words really mean what they say or are they saying something else than what the people who made them intended. Are we putting our cultural spin on them when we critque them. They just are. The words they use only have the meaning that you interpret them to be not what they intended to be.
Interesting that wordsmiths think that people spent way too much time on them, wonder how image people fell or think about all the time spent on blogs that are more word based.
Tim
Posted by: Timothy Wright | July 27, 2007 at 08:02 PM
My 'discernment meter' may be off but I don't think the creators of these had a heart of edification but rather that of accusation - and we know which team the accuser plays on.
Sorry - I didn't find them helpful.
Posted by: Rick | July 29, 2007 at 02:56 PM
My 'discernment meter' may be off but I don't think the creators of these had a heart of edification but rather that of accusation - and we know which team the accuser plays on.
Sorry - I didn't find them helpful.
Posted by: Rick | July 29, 2007 at 02:59 PM
My 'discernment meter' may be off but I don't think the creators of these had a heart of edification but rather that of accusation - and we know which team the accuser plays on.
Sorry - I didn't find them helpful.
Posted by: Rick | July 29, 2007 at 04:04 PM