This is an insignificant blog from a middle-aged man's perspective.
31 July 2007
Ummm...
Culture
13 comments:
Anonymous
said...
These are hilarious, but I should be laughing with a hand over my mouth since I know that several of my sisters and brothers resonate with this type of message. (I had several similar Christian t-shirts growing up, much to my current embarrassment, though I don't think I went for the co-opting of labels that much; I was much more into the turn or burn shirts.)
It is easy to laugh at this stuff, or to be embarrassed by it, or to shake our heads in frustration. It is more difficult and necessary to dig into it and critique it from the inside. Here are my questions for people on this blog:
1. Why do you think that this way of expressing one's faith is attractive to people?
2. What do you think people who resonate with this type of expression intend to communicate? Do you think they are successful? If not, what do you think is communicated instead?
3. If you were to sit down with the makers or purchasers of these goods, what would you like to say to them?
4. How does your understanding of the gospel relate to these expressions?
Just like bumper stickers do. What do people who put a bumper sticker of a male stick figure + female stick figure = a family or 'if u dont turn u will burn' hope to accomplish? What do they even really mean by those things? What is the motivation for putting that on your car or your body (as a shirt, for example)? I don't understand.
Leisel, I agree with your aversion to these labels and bumper stickers. The problem I see when I react only with disgust is that I can create an Us vs. Them mentality. That is, I and people like me really get what following Jesus is about, but these Got Jesus? shirt-wearing fools are completely lost in their understanding of the Savior and are an embarrassment to every real Christian who has ever lived (I'm exaggerating for effect). What can we learn from people who resonate with these expressions? I'd like to see people take a stab at the questions I asked above.
As someone who is deeply wounded right now and desperately struggling to make sense of my faith, I see these t-shirts and bumper-stickers and I just want to give up.
The Scriptures are chalked full of notions such as abiding in Christ, peace in the midst of turmoil, abundant life, and real unconditional love. Yet I, wanting these things soo badly, look about trying to find them and instead find cheesy and, even more frightening, empty platitudes.
Yes, there may be some truth to even the most stupid t-shirt, but we've demeaned it and torn it down to something base and common. No wonder Christianity is then looked upon as something hollow and even repugnant by many of our peers.
Has anyone actually seen someone wearing one of these shirts? For all the attention they get, you'd think they were a major trend. I see more posts mocking these kind of kitschy products than I've ever seen people wearing them. Perhaps we might turn our attention to the more pressing matters. After all, as I saw on a bumpersticker once:
Timbo, in economics many don't create product unless someone buys it. But let's get on to something more pressing.
While you were writing your comment 15 people had died from poverty related issues such as unhealthy drinking water, malnourishment, malaria, AIDS, war, hunger, etc...
Do you think we don't already know and agree that there is serious poverty and people that are going without? Who is your target audience? What's our solution so that people won't die while I write this comment and you write a response or post a picture?
Do you know we aren't doing anything? Do you know the people who buy and wear the silly shirts aren't doing anything? Are they more culpable than the people who buy Mercedes when they could buy Fords or Chryslers?
The people who wear dumb t-shirts (Christoids?) are trying to make a statement. We may find them tacky at times, I know find some of them tacky. But I am not so sure that my statements of Christian identity are ALL SO MUCH MORE PLEASING to the almighty God that I will sit in elitist disgust over those simpletons who are trying to identify with Christ, albeit beneath my sophisticated cultural level.
A few side notes. Leisel, the single most important factor in knowing whether a child will grow up in poverty in the US is whether he or she lives with his or her natural parents. So "one man", "one woman" is a political statement supporting the traditional family, one that is not sealed off from poverty concerns. If bumpersticker messaging is going to happen (and it's not my favorite method), then I don't see why this one is any less legit than any others (blogging is a step up from bumperstickers, I think, but not without its own problems)
Matt Davis, I can understand not wanted to be seen as repugnant by our peers, and I agree that some of these sillier aspects of our culture make it easy for our peers to do that. But if your entire faith is in danger of being derailed by your fellow believers sillier expressions of their faith, then I think you're investing these expressions with more heft than they should have.
(here I echo Tim somewhat, with Holocaust, child-rape, abortion, etc., there are many more substantive reasons to give up on faith. I'm lost as to the demonic force of these t-shirts).
I was responding to Timbo's statement about getting on to pressing matters. I could talk about taking my clothes to the dry cleaners and what they do to my shirts and pants, or I could state a very pressing truth.
Again, I would like to remind us all that this is just a blog from an insignificant middle age man. I am writing to write and not necessarily have a target market. I gave that up a few years back when I thought that my ideas were important and should be heard. Now I think I want my ideas to be recorded.
Do I think you don't get it? I don't know and haven't really thought about it that way. I hate to say it but I don't care if you get it or not, my love for you is outside of the gettage. I am thinking here and appreciate the input and the conversation. There are plenty of blogs out there that have more relevant more meaningful ideas. I am just thinking here. And because I can, I give my opinions.
Someone asked me, I think Bill, to define the difference between culture and institution. The shirts were the culture and the picture of Mother Teresa was the institution. I let others give comment to the pictures. And some were attacking me because I brought them up.
Uuhh...I just got back to this, and realized I didn't respond to people addressing me.
First - Micah, I know your education so I tread on dangerous ground debating you on something like this but I also know a political statement when I see one-- either an explicit one or one that is masked. And I REALLY disagree with what you say is the "single most important factor determining poverty." I really don't think that's accurate for a VARIETY of reasons and I wish I had more time to debate it here but I don't.
I just don't agree with the political statement being branded on bumper stickers where the debate is so...shall I say...shallow? Is their motivation simply to align themselves politically with like-minded groups by way of their SUV? Is it to just to piss off those who don't actually believe that is what constitutes a family? Is it simply to make themselves feel more socially aware, or more correctly in tune with Christians in general when they stick those on their vehicles? I know they are making a political statement. I just don't understand how it accomplishes anything....political or otherwise.
And do you know how WEALTHY the gay community is in L.A. and San Fran? No child brought into their homes will suffer from poverty-- I assure you of that. And yet a good friend of mine is having the darndest time getting a child because of his sexual orientation.
And from what I know, there have been NO conclusive, longitudinal studies demonstrating whether or not a child is less well off being raised in a same-sex household than a male/female household. Sexual orientation does not determine whether a child will end up in poverty. It's a variety of OTHER factors that contribute to that statistic.
There are, however, plenty of longitudinal studies that show being raised in the foster care system or with abusive, natural parents is harmful. Maybe not determinant of being poor, but if you're getting the crap kicked out of you but still eating I hardly find you "well off". Like they needed studies to show them that, but such studies have been conducted.
Other studies (that I'm sure you're aware of) show that children who are raised by married but unhappy heterosexual couples fare far worse than those raised by divorced parents. And the most conclusive studies show that children fare the WORST if they are subject to transient poverty. Not simply static poverty.
My point is that sexual orientation really has very little to do with how a child will fare in life and my heart breaks for people who are left outside of adoption and other circles and then see such shallow, silly bumper stickers declaring they aren't possible of providing a family anyway.
As for the other person who addressed me-- I think the other Watson-- yes, I agree the "Us vs. Them" mentality is dangerous and I was far too frivolous in my mindless comment. My apologies. I make flippant remarks on here and I really shouldn't do that.
I do not see myself as entirely divorced from anyone who wears a shirt or sports a bumper sticker like these things. I may not agree with their perspective but I don't really agree with Micah either. ;)
What I should have said is that the same flaws in ME that are present when I look annoyingly on bumpers stickers and these shirts and become distressed at highly socially conservative believers is what makes my teeth hurt. I don't like that it irks me so. Why do I get like that? Why do I get angry at one definition of family?
I don't know entirely. And I wish I did.
But until I do know, I will try to be more careful with my words. Thank you for making me aware of that.
Leisel, I'd be happy to get into this issue in-depth in another forum. The statement about two-parents and poverty only says that when looking at indicators for children (race, gender, location in the country, etc), the most accurate indicator for predicting how poverty-stricken the child will be is whether they are born into a two-parent household, and children who are raised by their natural father and mother do the best according to a number of social indicators (crime, school, etc).
That's not really debated; it's a finding of social science, though you are correct to note that there are not enough long-term studies about the effects of children being raised with gay parents (though where the burden should fall when it comes to the well-being of children is a factor here).
What follows from that social science finding is a whole 'nother story. Once I have a breather coming up this fall, I'd be happy to dialogue with you on that issue on your blog or elsewhere. Thanks for the spirited interaction.
We should definitely finish this debate when it is more amenable to both of us, however, I doubt that it results in anything productive as debates generally just help each side bolster their own positions.
I was unable to find the undisputed social science finding stating that children are better off with their NATURAL parents. In fact, by its very nature all social science is debated to some degree or another since none of it is absolute or without certain flaws.
However, I will agree with you that when looking for how poverty stricken a child will be an accurate (I have problems with "most") indicator is whether the child is raised in a one or two parent household.
Another accurate indicator of how poverty stricken a child will be, as found by social science, is race. The expected years of poverty for a non-black child are somewhere around .8 and a black child are 5.5 (older studies-- i think it has changed).
What COULD follow from that is a political statement utilizing race as a barrier to certain "types" of families. But we do not see bumper stickers saying 1 Non-black Parent + 1 Non-black Parent = A Not Poverty Stricken Child.
That most conversations don't lead to agreement is no reason not to have one. One, agreement is overrated, and two, it's far too easy to imagine the other side than actually engage it, and three, there are folks who haven't made up their minds who would do well to hear both sides. Otherwise we are left with the bumperstickers (and you are certainly right not to give anyone's "education" much weight here, an education often means someone can present his or her mistaken views more effectively).
13 comments:
These are hilarious, but I should be laughing with a hand over my mouth since I know that several of my sisters and brothers resonate with this type of message. (I had several similar Christian t-shirts growing up, much to my current embarrassment, though I don't think I went for the co-opting of labels that much; I was much more into the turn or burn shirts.)
It is easy to laugh at this stuff, or to be embarrassed by it, or to shake our heads in frustration. It is more difficult and necessary to dig into it and critique it from the inside. Here are my questions for people on this blog:
1. Why do you think that this way of expressing one's faith is attractive to people?
2. What do you think people who resonate with this type of expression intend to communicate? Do you think they are successful? If not, what do you think is communicated instead?
3. If you were to sit down with the makers or purchasers of these goods, what would you like to say to them?
4. How does your understanding of the gospel relate to these expressions?
These make my teeth hurt.
Just like bumper stickers do. What do people who put a bumper sticker of a male stick figure + female stick figure = a family or 'if u dont turn u will burn' hope to accomplish? What do they even really mean by those things? What is the motivation for putting that on your car or your body (as a shirt, for example)? I don't understand.
Leis ... maybe there's a Jesus toothpaste out there that will help your hurting teeth.
Leisel, I agree with your aversion to these labels and bumper stickers. The problem I see when I react only with disgust is that I can create an Us vs. Them mentality. That is, I and people like me really get what following Jesus is about, but these Got Jesus? shirt-wearing fools are completely lost in their understanding of the Savior and are an embarrassment to every real Christian who has ever lived (I'm exaggerating for effect). What can we learn from people who resonate with these expressions? I'd like to see people take a stab at the questions I asked above.
As someone who is deeply wounded right now and desperately struggling to make sense of my faith, I see these t-shirts and bumper-stickers and I just want to give up.
The Scriptures are chalked full of notions such as abiding in Christ, peace in the midst of turmoil, abundant life, and real unconditional love. Yet I, wanting these things soo badly, look about trying to find them and instead find cheesy and, even more frightening, empty platitudes.
Yes, there may be some truth to even the most stupid t-shirt, but we've demeaned it and torn it down to something base and common. No wonder Christianity is then looked upon as something hollow and even repugnant by many of our peers.
Matt Davis
"but these Got Jesus? shirt-wearing fools"
Has anyone actually seen someone wearing one of these shirts? For all the attention they get, you'd think they were a major trend. I see more posts mocking these kind of kitschy products than I've ever seen people wearing them. Perhaps we might turn our attention to the more pressing matters. After all, as I saw on a bumpersticker once:
WWJD?
Timbo, in economics many don't create product unless someone buys it. But let's get on to something more pressing.
While you were writing your comment 15 people had died from poverty related issues such as unhealthy drinking water, malnourishment, malaria, AIDS, war, hunger, etc...
Tony,
Do you think we don't already know and agree that there is serious poverty and people that are going without? Who is your target audience? What's our solution so that people won't die while I write this comment and you write a response or post a picture?
Do you know we aren't doing anything? Do you know the people who buy and wear the silly shirts aren't doing anything? Are they more culpable than the people who buy Mercedes when they could buy Fords or Chryslers?
The people who wear dumb t-shirts (Christoids?) are trying to make a statement. We may find them tacky at times, I know find some of them tacky. But I am not so sure that my statements of Christian identity are ALL SO MUCH MORE PLEASING to the almighty God that I will sit in elitist disgust over those simpletons who are trying to identify with Christ, albeit beneath my sophisticated cultural level.
A few side notes. Leisel, the single most important factor in knowing whether a child will grow up in poverty in the US is whether he or she lives with his or her natural parents. So "one man", "one woman" is a political statement supporting the traditional family, one that is not sealed off from poverty concerns. If bumpersticker messaging is going to happen (and it's not my favorite method), then I don't see why this one is any less legit than any others (blogging is a step up from bumperstickers, I think, but not without its own problems)
Matt Davis, I can understand not wanted to be seen as repugnant by our peers, and I agree that some of these sillier aspects of our culture make it easy for our peers to do that. But if your entire faith is in danger of being derailed by your fellow believers sillier expressions of their faith, then I think you're investing these expressions with more heft than they should have.
(here I echo Tim somewhat, with Holocaust, child-rape, abortion, etc., there are many more substantive reasons to give up on faith. I'm lost as to the demonic force of these t-shirts).
Micah Watson
Wow, Micah, that is a lot of heat.
I was responding to Timbo's statement about getting on to pressing matters. I could talk about taking my clothes to the dry cleaners and what they do to my shirts and pants, or I could state a very pressing truth.
Again, I would like to remind us all that this is just a blog from an insignificant middle age man. I am writing to write and not necessarily have a target market. I gave that up a few years back when I thought that my ideas were important and should be heard. Now I think I want my ideas to be recorded.
Do I think you don't get it? I don't know and haven't really thought about it that way. I hate to say it but I don't care if you get it or not, my love for you is outside of the gettage. I am thinking here and appreciate the input and the conversation. There are plenty of blogs out there that have more relevant more meaningful ideas. I am just thinking here. And because I can, I give my opinions.
Someone asked me, I think Bill, to define the difference between culture and institution. The shirts were the culture and the picture of Mother Teresa was the institution. I let others give comment to the pictures. And some were attacking me because I brought them up.
This is just a blog not the PCUSA GA...
Uuhh...I just got back to this, and realized I didn't respond to people addressing me.
First - Micah, I know your education so I tread on dangerous ground debating you on something like this but I also know a political statement when I see one-- either an explicit one or one that is masked. And I REALLY disagree with what you say is the "single most important factor determining poverty." I really don't think that's accurate for a VARIETY of reasons and I wish I had more time to debate it here but I don't.
I just don't agree with the political statement being branded on bumper stickers where the debate is so...shall I say...shallow? Is their motivation simply to align themselves politically with like-minded groups by way of their SUV? Is it to just to piss off those who don't actually believe that is what constitutes a family? Is it simply to make themselves feel more socially aware, or more correctly in tune with Christians in general when they stick those on their vehicles? I know they are making a political statement. I just don't understand how it accomplishes anything....political or otherwise.
And do you know how WEALTHY the gay community is in L.A. and San Fran? No child brought into their homes will suffer from poverty-- I assure you of that. And yet a good friend of mine is having the darndest time getting a child because of his sexual orientation.
And from what I know, there have been NO conclusive, longitudinal studies demonstrating whether or not a child is less well off being raised in a same-sex household than a male/female household. Sexual orientation does not determine whether a child will end up in poverty. It's a variety of OTHER factors that contribute to that statistic.
There are, however, plenty of longitudinal studies that show being raised in the foster care system or with abusive, natural parents is harmful. Maybe not determinant of being poor, but if you're getting the crap kicked out of you but still eating I hardly find you "well off". Like they needed studies to show them that, but such studies have been conducted.
Other studies (that I'm sure you're aware of) show that children who are raised by married but unhappy heterosexual couples fare far worse than those raised by divorced parents. And the most conclusive studies show that children fare the WORST if they are subject to transient poverty. Not simply static poverty.
My point is that sexual orientation really has very little to do with how a child will fare in life and my heart breaks for people who are left outside of adoption and other circles and then see such shallow, silly bumper stickers declaring they aren't possible of providing a family anyway.
As for the other person who addressed me-- I think the other Watson-- yes, I agree the "Us vs. Them" mentality is dangerous and I was far too frivolous in my mindless comment. My apologies. I make flippant remarks on here and I really shouldn't do that.
I do not see myself as entirely divorced from anyone who wears a shirt or sports a bumper sticker like these things. I may not agree with their perspective but I don't really agree with Micah either. ;)
What I should have said is that the same flaws in ME that are present when I look annoyingly on bumpers stickers and these shirts and become distressed at highly socially conservative believers is what makes my teeth hurt. I don't like that it irks me so. Why do I get like that? Why do I get angry at one definition of family?
I don't know entirely. And I wish I did.
But until I do know, I will try to be more careful with my words. Thank you for making me aware of that.
Leisel, I'd be happy to get into this issue in-depth in another forum. The statement about two-parents and poverty only says that when looking at indicators for children (race, gender, location in the country, etc), the most accurate indicator for predicting how poverty-stricken the child will be is whether they are born into a two-parent household, and children who are raised by their natural father and mother do the best according to a number of social indicators (crime, school, etc).
That's not really debated; it's a finding of social science, though you are correct to note that there are not enough long-term studies about the effects of children being raised with gay parents (though where the burden should fall when it comes to the well-being of children is a factor here).
What follows from that social science finding is a whole 'nother story. Once I have a breather coming up this fall, I'd be happy to dialogue with you on that issue on your blog or elsewhere. Thanks for the spirited interaction.
Micah,
We should definitely finish this debate when it is more amenable to both of us, however, I doubt that it results in anything productive as debates generally just help each side bolster their own positions.
I was unable to find the undisputed social science finding stating that children are better off with their NATURAL parents. In fact, by its very nature all social science is debated to some degree or another since none of it is absolute or without certain flaws.
However, I will agree with you that when looking for how poverty stricken a child will be an accurate (I have problems with "most") indicator is whether the child is raised in a one or two parent household.
Another accurate indicator of how poverty stricken a child will be, as found by social science, is race. The expected years of poverty for a non-black child are somewhere around .8 and a black child are 5.5 (older studies-- i think it has changed).
What COULD follow from that is a political statement utilizing race as a barrier to certain "types" of families. But we do not see bumper stickers saying 1 Non-black Parent + 1 Non-black Parent = A Not Poverty Stricken Child.
I'm just sayin'......
L
Leisel,
That most conversations don't lead to agreement is no reason not to have one. One, agreement is overrated, and two, it's far too easy to imagine the other side than actually engage it, and three, there are folks who haven't made up their minds who would do well to hear both sides. Otherwise we are left with the bumperstickers (and you are certainly right not to give anyone's "education" much weight here, an education often means someone can present his or her mistaken views more effectively).
Post a Comment