Sacrilege and Blasphemy

[Dan Miller]

Take the image of Jesus on the cross on the red jacket. The image looks to be from a piece of art, which for all I know is hanging in the BJU art gallery.
There doesn’t seem to have been an attempt to trivialize or shame or anything like that.

A few thoughts

1. The coat looks like a women’s coat (note especially the seams in front) … a young man is wearing it. Does that cross a line or not? (I’d say yes)

2. The image isn’t the issue I am concerned about. It is the crown of thorns on the head.

All of this crosses lines of sanctity and trivializes the gospel in my opinion.

It is interesting to see how different people react. Doesn’t give me a lot of hope for the future, frankly. Fortunately my hope for the future doesn’t lie in men.

All of this crosses lines of sanctity and trivializes the gospel in my opinion.

I actually do agree with you here. BUT that’s based on a personal opinion that a fashion show is innately trivial and vapid. And I don’t feel like it is fitting to put a precious message in a form like that.

But I do have to admit that my personal opinion about the worthlessness of a fashion show is neither Biblical nor culturally universal.

It is the particular subject matter chosen in this case that is the issue

Don spends a lot of time priming the FBFI blog pump to put someone (this Matthew Foxx? Bob Jones? Both?) under the bus for all manner of things - blasphemy and sacrilege - but doesn’t actually prove his point. He doesn’t link to any source materials, he provides no context for the story, and he does not link to anything to make an informed opinion about. It’s just “this thing is blasphemy and sacrilege! Be outraged because I am!”

Don, if you’re going to write about something you oppose, provide enough detail that people know what you’re talking about. If you don’t, people will see you as a rabble-rouser/panic-monger instead of….whatever it is you’re trying to do here. I don’t know, maybe rabble rousing IS your point.

And again, I’ll ask you this on a second thread here. If BJU is on the decline or the slippery slope of compromise and apostacy or whatever your charge is, then who do you recommend in their place? What is the decision you want your readers to make? You attacked Northland for compromise and now you’re attacking BJU for compromise. Is the only safe place left the church you run? Is there a place that you approve of?

To clarify, I meant the young man himself, he is the product of BJU’s education (at least partially), and the “fashion” major as well.

So even though this person left BJU and later decided to release his project afterwards on his own initiative and after leaving the school, we…still get to take swings at BJU because he went there for an education.

Are we prepared to blame Bob Jones for every bad person that left there, like Peter Ruckman? Is BJU culpable for the sins of John MacArthur, who also went there and left? Why stop there? Surely there are more people that passed through Greenville who have done worse. Where are the blogposts about those people?

[Jay] this person left BJU and later decided to release his project afterwards on his own initiative and after leaving the school,

Has Matthew Foxx indeed left?

From that Facebook post linked above;

I was stressing out about a lot of different things, friendships were crumbling, and in July, I decided I had had enough. I quit school, and I was intent to stay gone and never come back.

Yeah, this strikes me as not particularly tasteful, but “sacrilege” and “blasphemy”? Hardly. And as others have pointed out, we’re already kind of predisposed against high fashion anyway. Immediately think of that movie Zoolander or whatever.

I do think Don goes a bit off with his example of Christians who don’t hang images of Christ in their homes. Is that really why most aren’t doing it, b/c they don’t want to make Him common?

Independent churches in the Reformed tradition (Presbyterian, Baptists, Congregationalist, continental Reformed) have long eschewed images of Christ, considering them a violation of the 2nd Commandment to make no images of God. While many today might not go that far, there’s still a sort of cultural discomfort for many of us associated with visual depictions of Jesus.
The fact that whomever you have hanging on the wall isn’t what Jesus actually looks like anyway (it’s some random, imagined guy) kind of clinches it for a lot of us. The Bible conspicuously never bothers to describe what Jesus looks like physically, besides a few highly vague comments. I suspect these concerns constitute far more of the issue than the notion of “making Jesus common” by hanging an image of him on the wall.

As such, I don’t see how this key example offers a lot of relevance. Or violations of the Sabbath, where the Israelites were explicitly instructed in how to honor it. I affirm a sacred-secular divide myself. Just not sure how this violates it other than, again, offending certain people’s sensibilities. There’s more subjective than objective here.

[Jay]

From that Facebook post linked above;

I was stressing out about a lot of different things, friendships were crumbling, and in July, I decided I had had enough. I quit school, and I was intent to stay gone and never come back.

I think this was before this year. He came back to school this year, this show was his senior project, shown in December of 2021. I have no idea of his status, but I presume he expects to graduate at the end of this semester, or else finished up in December.

[Andrew K]

Yeah, this strikes me as not particularly tasteful, but “sacrilege” and “blasphemy”? Hardly. And as others have pointed out, we’re already kind of predisposed against high fashion anyway. Immediately think of that movie Zoolander or whatever.

Remember, these are Steve Pettit’s terms. My article defines the terms. Steve used them.

As a parent, who has a child at BJU, I received the note from Dr. Petit. I hadn’t heard anything about it from my child and my child hadn’t heard anything about it on campus. I struggle with this one, and the struggle probably has to do with my immature theology framework around this (mostly because I have not had to face it). I get what the kid was doing. It is not far off from literature like Paradise Lost or from religious art. For much of it, it doesn’t necessarily cross a line with me. I do feel slightly uncomfortable with wearing a picture of Christ on the cross (although the fact that it is a piece of art lessens it a bit). The part that presses against me the most from an uncomfortable standpoint is wearing the crown of thorns. But again, I struggle a bit because I have gone to plays at BJU or even the Living Gallery where someone is wearing a crown of thorns as an artistic expression. I feel bad for this young man, because I think he was trying to go down a path that may not be entirely bad, but I feel the school failed him in coaching him in how to structure it. I appreciate Don’s article on this, and I definitely get where he is going. I can’t process this entirely, because to be honest, at 51 years of age, I have not been faced with this situation to test my thought process, although at the end of the day, there is an uncomfortableness around it for me, I just can’t articulate it very well.

Kevin Schaal adds this:

https://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2022/01/17/the-line-between-reverence…

It strikes me that while I stand by my critique of his techniques—it’s clearly “fundagelical add-ons to standard forms”—we ought to consider the question of what level of “art” is appropriate in one’s clothing. There is certainly the reality that, from Christian themed t shirts to BJU “pop the cork” shirts, our clothing does make some sort of artistic statement, even if we’re wearing suits and ties. The question, then, is what kind of statement ought to be made, and to what degree it is appropriate.

And to analyze that, we need specifics of what went on. I’m very uneasy with what Kevin Schaal does for that reason—it’s all generic statements with a few guilt by association fallacies thrown in.

Perhaps a good, practical way of viewing it will be “will anybody get the point?”, and I’ve got to admit that, by and large, I didn’t. My response was more along the lines of my response to punk rockers and Goths, “um ,that’s nice”, as I cut a wide berth.

Which is something of a shame, because Foxx and I seem to share something; he’s clearly “done with” the BJU culture and (sorry, Don) the FBFI orbit. Hopefully Steve Pettit catches on to this and maybe sends him a note. I am, again, very happy to see BJU doing some things in the area of fashion, and I’m hoping this whole kerfuffle leads them to consider exactly what kinds of things ought to be done to take it to the next level.

That’ll certainly include a discussion of what artistic motifs ought to be considered (or rejected) in fashion, among other considerations. We won’t be able to agree that certain styles (single breasted suits w. ties & denim jumpers?) are, or are not, distinctively Christian, per John E., but I think we might come to some conclusions about what artistic themes might be used effectively in attire, to what degree a fashion show is (or ought to be) an artistic statement, and what kinds of techniques (fitting, draping, ) and materials might be appropriate.

And yes, I’m hoping that “strapless evening gown with polyester sheath to raise the bodice line” will not be one of the major conclusions!

“Fashion” major does not fit Fundy ethos.

If you want to major in “fashion” go somewhere else.

I’m very uneasy with what Kevin Schaal does for that reason—it’s all generic statements with a few guilt by association fallacies thrown in.

Unfortunately, it is easier to tell people what to think than it is to teach them how to think, particularly Biblically. I’m not attacking Schaal, just stating a thought. Christians do a great job of telling people what to think. It’s when they have to actually read the Bible, discern what it says, and apply it to life - when they have to assess and/or be critical of what they are told - that they usually run into issues.