cartoon: rage against the machine

Posted in humour by nakedpastor on the June 3rd, 2008

cartoon, church, comic, funny, humour, institution, nakedpastor, organization, primitive, rage against the machine, system

54 Responses to 'cartoon: rage against the machine'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'cartoon: rage against the machine'.

sarah said, on June 3rd, 2008 at 7:00 am

Yes yes and yes.
Jonathan Puddle said, on June 3rd, 2008 at 7:47 am

Hehehe, that’s great.

Except that it reminds me of The Patriot, where they burned some families inside a church
societyvs said, on June 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 am

“where they burned some families inside a church” (Jonathan)

Who is the ‘they’ in this sentence?
P3T3RK3Y5 said, on June 3rd, 2008 at 10:34 am

awesome. awesome and spot on.

thank you.
steve martin said, on June 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 am

That can be our society. And that can also be us.
Doorman-Priest said, on June 3rd, 2008 at 11:49 am

And I’m one of the ones on the outside.
Jonathan Puddle said, on June 3rd, 2008 at 12:04 pm

@societyvs
Good point, that was a particularly ambiguous statement wasn’t it? I was referring to the British troops in The Patriot, about the American Revolution.
fishon said, on June 3rd, 2008 at 12:28 pm

To bad Doorman-Priest,
I hate to hear you would sanction and be a part of what happens [literally] in the Sudan and Ethopia, when they [Muslims] round up Christian women and their children and drive them into a church building and burn them alive. Oh, maybe you didn’t mean you would go that far?

I sure hope folks from the Texas or Colorado church that got shoot-up don’t see this piece of art–it surely would bring back terrible memories. I doubt if the Sudanese or Ethopians surviving family members will see it though.

I noticed some of the cowards slinking around–what are they afraid of. I doubt if there are any weapons inside. Though, if I got wind that the savages were coming for my folks, my .357 mag. may suddenly appear.
fishon
MrsQ said, on June 3rd, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Poor Fishon… he be Trollin.

You see, Mr. (or Ms.) Fishon, the cartoon is not a newsreel but a visual metaphor, much like a political cartoon wherein people, things and/or ideas might be represented by buildings, animals or caricature.

As such, this artistic representation uses the popular band name “Rage Against the Machine” and re-interprets “Machine” as “Institutionalized Religion,” represented by the traditional image of the White-Steepled Church. Then, just as the band members critique the culture of which they are part, the figures of the restless natives outside the church would then represent the restless natives, or frustrated Christians from within the Church (aka the Body of Christ).

Personally, this image resonates with me extremely well.

I spent the past 6 years in a New England Baptist Church that looked very much like the one depicted above… until the congregation dwindled and died because they wanted to support their organ, their pews and their bell tower — but wanted to cut the pastor’s salary. Strangely, the ‘Body’ dwindled down to nothing and voted to close its doors.

I am now attending an inner-city Brethren In Christ outreach church, where most of the pastoral staff have tatoos and the congregation is made of artists, musicians, social workers and teachers who actually love Jesus and love other people. The church I am in now, made up of ‘restless natives’ is growing.

Sorry Mr/Ms. Fishon, ur fishin’ fur deh wrong tingz.
Oh.. an put away dat gun B4 u hurt someone… okay?

Peace,
MrsQ
MrsQ said, on June 3rd, 2008 at 1:42 pm

PS: I wanna t-shirt.
Doorman-Priest said, on June 3rd, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Interesting Fishon how two people can interpret the same cartoon in different ways. I saw it as a polemic against the institutional church which is why I would be on the outside. Rest assured I would not be a party to genocide.
This Has To Be Leading Somewhere Good : Under the Grace said, on June 3rd, 2008 at 3:39 pm

[…] It appears that his frustration with the machine just boiled over: The church today is big business. It has profit margins, a paid CEO and subordinates. It even has a marketing strategy. It’s goal is to attract customers by providing a better product than any other church in town. And believe me, it needs those customers because it has business expenses. It has bills and salaries to pay. Without paying customers, the church will go out of business. […]
MrsQ said, on June 3rd, 2008 at 3:42 pm

oh… and in light of the current news matter of an ‘uncharted tribe’ having been found in Brazil — the cartoon could also represent a certain Colonialism Twist. ‘The Mission’ comes to mind, ay?

Hmm…. The Mission… now THERE’s a fun movie for Church Small-Group conversation.
societyvs said, on June 3rd, 2008 at 5:12 pm

I like the cartoon - but as a First Nation person - I see how this artwork can be mis-interpreted and used erroneously (and cause in some people the wrong opinions about another people group)…but I don’t see that as the authorial intent from David.

I think MrsQ gives some great critique on the piece and food for thought personally concerning the piece and reveals what art is about - a picture has a 1000 words (and they’re not all literal). I saw the piece from 2 angles:

(a) People struggling with the structure of the church - and destroying the ‘temple’ (which is not the real body - the people are)

(b) I did see this from the lenses of the more nieve - and this can be seen as an Indian (First Nations) attack on a local mission church (British or French in nature) - at least the weaponry used was that of Indigenous people of that time (my forefathers). I could see how this could push someone from my culture’s buttons (namely when we feel the opposite is actually true historically).

But that’s art - we love it and we decipher it - and we may not know what it all means - so we wait and try figure it out.

As for Fishon, your comments struck me as quite rude.

“Though, if I got wind that the savages were coming for my folks, my .357 mag. may suddenly appear.” (Fishon)

I can point out a few things wrong with this sentence:

(a) savages

(b) advocation of violence against the ’savages’

You tell me fishon - when you use that term ’savages’ - who are you thinking of?
nakedpastor said, on June 3rd, 2008 at 8:52 pm

jason: all good points. it was a concern about first nation people when i drew it and considered posting it. but that wasn’t my intent. i see me and my blog as one of the ones outside with the weapons (the word). but being a part of the system myself, i’m also inside the church. so there. figure that out!
ttm said, on June 3rd, 2008 at 10:02 pm

I interpreted it two ways:
I am in inside the body of Christ and, therefore, expect attacks from those outside it.
I’ve escaped the church-as-institution, sympathize with the outsiders, and am guilty of lobbing a few arrows of my own.

First nation people as savages never entered my mind.
But first nation people as strong warriors willing to fight for what is rightfully theirs, did.

I think I need to organize a trip to a museum with some of my friends. It’s fascinating to read/hear everyone’s diverse thoughts about the same piece of art.
fishon said, on June 4th, 2008 at 1:25 am

Dear Mrs.Q,
The name is Jerry. That is Jerry with a Jerry; you can figure out my gender from that I’m guessing.

Oh Mrs.Q, I do thank you for trying to help me interpret the cartoon. Apparently you DO NOT subscribe to Nakepastor’s anthem of “freedom” in the community to interpret as our senses interpret?

Aha, me too, Mrs.Q. The image resonates with me extremely well, also.

Why would the natives be “restless” in in the Brethren In Christ church you attend. You did call them “restless natives,” or am I misintrepreting the word “restless natives?”

Wow, that building could be the building we gather in on Sundays. Just put a little green tint to it, and bingo, that is us.

No, the .357 mag. stays with me. Those spears and arrow, well it looks as if they are being thrown towards my congregation. If one of those spears throwers makes it through the front doors, well…. Gee, I wonder if my threat to carry my weapon is more violent than the cartoon of David’s depicting deadly spears and arrows?
fishon [jerry]
fishon said, on June 4th, 2008 at 1:33 am

Doorman-priest,
It is interesting how folks can see the same cartoon and see it so differently. But I am sure you will allow me to see it from my perspective.

I admit, I might have been a little harsh with the genocide inference. But that is what I saw in it, and I have revisited the cartoon, and I still see that. Mrs.Q can see what she wants, but she needs to chill and let me see what I see.

No Doorman, I don’t believe you would be a party to genocide. You said you wouldn’t be, so that’s that.
fishon
fishon said, on June 4th, 2008 at 2:04 am

SocietyVs,
YOU: I saw the piece from 2 angles:
——-So you won’t allow me my angle, and my angle is rude? Or is it that there are only 2 angle to view it?

YOU–and I will take the next few sentences one at a time:

#1. As for Fishon, your comments struck me as quite rude.
—–I would think that would be only if you were in the crowd that was attacking. Of course, if I was in the building, I would consider you quite rude.

“Though, if I got wind that the savages were coming for my folks, my .357 mag. may suddenly appear.” (Fishon)

I can point out a few things wrong with this sentence:
——Wrong! My goodness, man, what ever happened to freedom of expression. Why, societyVs, I thought you gave me a sermon on the virtues of “open mindedness.” Remember “piss-christ?” Let me see, folks can draw a ‘piss-christ,’ that ain’t rude, but I use the word ’savages’ and you become a critic. Hey, just like you becoming open minded about the “piss-christ,” after you gave it some though, maybe you will give me the same courtesy?

(a) savages
—–Perfectly good word

(b) advocation of violence against the ’savages’
——NO! Protection. Seems to me the savages are advocating violence. By the way, if you are against violence, whey not take the artist to task for drawing a cartoon full of intended violence? I threaten to ‘PROTECT’ my congregation and you accuse me of ‘advocating’ violence. He is the one depicting violence, not me.

You tell me fishon - when you use that term ’savages’ - who are you thinking of?
—–You say you are open minded. No, you are close minded. You talk a big talk, my friend, but you don’t walk the walk.

I do believe I made it pretty apparent as to who the “savages” might be. Read my post again, SocietyVs, and try doing it with an open mind this time. You just might come up with the answer[s].

One thing I learned about you in that little sentence you wrote: “I can point out a few things wrong with this sentence:”
—–You are just as judgemental as I am. Don’t you just hate that!
fishon
nakedpastor said, on June 4th, 2008 at 6:38 am

fishon: i agree that I think it was a rude thing to say. you are free to think and say what you want. but the deal is you have to accept the consequences. authenticity WITH accountability. if i say something freely and everyone around me says, “Hey! That was rude and unnecessary. You need to look at where that came from. Come back when you can stop hurting people!” then i need to seriously consider that.
zefi said, on June 4th, 2008 at 7:49 am

Woohoo, Churchianity-phobia!
Shelley said, on June 4th, 2008 at 9:39 am

The following is a definition of rude:

Rudeness (also called impudence or effrontery) is the disrespect and failure to behave within the context of a society or a group of people’s social laws or etiquette. These laws have already unspokenly been established as the essential boundaries of normally accepted behavior. To be unable or unwilling to align one’s behavior with these laws known to the general population of what is socially acceptable would be considered being rude.

What is interesting to me is that many on this blog seem to take great pride in the “failure to behave within the context of a society or a group of people’s social laws or etiquette.” (especailly when is comes to the institutionalized church) and yet hold fishon to the social laws of this blog. I was under the impression that this was a space where all could feel “free” to express their thoughts and feelings no matter what they were.

After reading the entries I would see fishon as the church and those responding to him as the attackers in the cartoon.

Whatever he may say on this blog, most of us have in common with him, a love of Jesus Christ and his body, the church(or community) and those in the world who don’t know Him. Should we not all be free to express that commonality how we feel led to express it?

The cartoon has evoked a strong emotional response (which is it’s intent) and whatever response that may be should we not be permitted to express it without being accused of breaking the “laws that have already unspokenly been established as the essential boundries of normally accepted behavior,” when this blog declares to be a place where no one has to “align one’s behavior” with what is “socially acceptable”?
AR said, on June 4th, 2008 at 10:38 am

Ooo, let me try.

I feel that the subtext of this cartoon is a very important pathway to meaning.

Obviously the church building represents the structure of the traditional protestant church as experienced by the artist. Protestant, because it is shaped like a box and has no images in its stained-glass windows. The structure could be institutions, customs, organization etc. It is this, and not any invisible people inside, that are being attacked. The lines of the structure are somewhat lopsided, showing that the artist “really” feels that the present structure is decaying and must be destroyed.

I think I can see a pyschological link between the lack of clothes on these stick figures, and the artist’s description of himself as “naked.”

What we have here is a cry of anguish that could be sublime if it were fully realized. The artist representing himself over and over again, unclothed and in a state of near-barabarism, in all of these different poses, most of them violent. His many selves are compelled to fight against a structure that is out of whack, but in that action they become bereft of all the benefits of civilization: meaning, a defined place in an ordered society, a sense of single-self, and the enjoyment of privacy. Meanwhile, the attack is inevitably failing because the weapons are ultimately insufficient.

I also feel that all the white space around the image betrays the artist’s subconcious sense of ignorance and longing for less destructive options that may be available to him.
huper ptoma mou said, on June 4th, 2008 at 11:05 am

Hey, finish the story! Show a picture of the savages assembled before the Great White Throne and the Lord of the Church saying “Depart from Me into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels!” That would be really cool, and I bet that some of you could really relate to that!

Oh, and Fishon, use hollowpoints.
societyvs said, on June 4th, 2008 at 11:14 am

Time to explain this in more depth so as to not confuse anyone - why I said what I said to fishon - which is a freedom of expression issue - but also a ‘barrier over-stepping’ issue.

“So you won’t allow me my angle, and my angle is rude? Or is it that there are only 2 angle to view it?” (Fishon)

Have your angle - there are many ways to view this piece - as I pointed out with a comment about MrsQ’s views (which were a few). However, calling your use of a few words rude was right on the money - and I will explain that in more depth.

“I would think that would be only if you were in the crowd that was attacking. Of course, if I was in the building, I would consider you quite rude” (Fishon)

The painting was not the problem fishon - your use of certain terms was.

“but I use the word ’savages’ and you become a critic” (Fishon)

Yes. For me, it’s a matter of some words never being used again in the ‘us and them’ context. Now you may have just meant some generic use of the term ’savages’ - of those attacking the building (granted). What you may not know is First Nations communities way back when were actually called this term in history books and legislature as derogatory terms to demean their humanity. It woul dbe similar to calling someone a ‘nigger’ in these days - a word still with some original meaning - but we all prefer to drop the term out of respect for a race’s humanity and equality.

Problem being - before I even read your comment I could see someone going to the term ’savages’ or something similar - granted I figured it would be someone from my culture calling it out and explaining the problem with this painting when viewed only literally. Then I read your comments - also coming from a more literal reading of the painting and it basically disturebed me…there was a scene replete with the word ’savage’ tagged upon it.

“(a) savages—–Perfectly good word” (Fishon)

Actually, I don’t find it a useful word at all - it’s been used in such derogatory terms against my own people group and many other indigenous cultures it’s better left out of human communication.

“By the way, if you are against violence, whey not take the artist to task for drawing a cartoon full of intended violence? I threaten to ‘PROTECT’ my congregation and you accuse me of ‘advocating’ violence. He is the one depicting violence, not me.” (Fishon)

I did address David about the possible scenario’s a First Nations person could pull from that piece - he has the right the make it and print it - but I have forewarned him about the sensibilities this would have in First Nations communities - this can be read in such a way as to insult a culture. He wrote back and let me know his side of the story.

Your advocation of violence was more literal in scope than the actual picture - with the use of words like mag .357 (an actual weapon in use today). Then it was coupled with an old idea from centuries past (savages) - I read that and I can’t help but have questions about the wording being used. I would suggest you read some of the history of the First Nations peoples in America and Canada and the terms - and tactics - used against them - and you will find sentences just like the one you wrote about the ‘defense of that church’ in the picture - with the Indians being called ’savages’. It’s a sensitivity thing I think.

“You talk a big talk, my friend, but you don’t walk the walk” (Fishon)

That’s right - blame me for the words you used…then call me close minded to boot. The problem is I have studied this issue intensely and I am from a First Nations background - my conclusion is that not all freedom of expression is quite freeing.

Because I have problem with your wording I am close minded - I never said I was open to everything - but that I am open minded. I am so open minded I am going to wait to hear your response on this one and give you the benefit of the doubt - that you do not think this way in general but it was a comment made without the knowledge of the historical background my generations had to face in the arguement with colonialism.

“I do believe I made it pretty apparent as to who the “savages” might be” (Fishon)

I re-read it again and again to make sure I wasn’t missing a thing - the savages were those attacking the church apparently - and I think you are pretty culturally non-bias in the rhetoric. I just don’t think you know how that term sounds in ‘my ears’ as someone dealing with the past haunts of colonialism and its wasting on my community - and the total depravity of the term ’savage’ and how it was used to imprison 100,000’s children in schools without consent or choice on the issue. Which made these kids into ‘less than humans’ and they were treated that way - and my parents were part of that generation.

Multitude’s of scars still exist in First Nations communities because that term was used against us - as an excuse for the treatment of a cultural group from the dominant group to do whatever they pleased. I think I have been given the right to question when the term ’savage’ appears - namely in the context of this picture. Now if that’s close minded - I am alright with that - I’d rather address issues of ignorance than ignore them and hope they go away.

But if I am wrong - I would ask anyone here - do you still use the word ‘nigger’ or is that just not the word of choice to demean another group anymore? If we can drop that from the vocabulary then we can just as easily drop ’savage’.

“You are just as judgemental as I am. Don’t you just hate that!” (Fishon)

I never said I wasn’t judgemental - I admitted all of us are - including myself. That is why each of us can look at that painting and make some creative assumption about it - we use our skills of judging it.

However, in this case I think I am using my judgment of the wording used by you in a very ‘just way’. I have addressed the problem with the word, explained it, and now am asking you to understand it…beyond that there is little more I can do. But that’s ‘judging in love’…asking you to understand that I know a whole group of people that will be offended by the term ’savage’ and asking you to check your sensibilities on the issue. If you don’t like what I am saying then ‘explain why’ - as any good court would allow on any subject presented before it. But if the arguement makes sense - then all I am asking is you ‘drop the use of the term savage’.

Am I wrong - no. I am not doing this for me per se - that comment offended me only a little bit - but I am doing it for my community - who if they could read that comment in the context of that pic might have more problems than I. I am trying to voice their opinion so this nevre has to happen to their faces and people know better than to use that term around a First Nation person/community.
huper ptoma mou said, on June 4th, 2008 at 11:39 am

So… what if someone drew a picture of a coffee house full of religious clutter– with a bunch of guys in suits throwing rocks and molotov cocktails at it?

Would that be just as loving as your picture?
societyvs said, on June 4th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

“Hey, finish the story! Show a picture of the savages assembled before the Great White Throne and the Lord of the Church saying “Depart from Me into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels!” That would be really cool, and I bet that some of you could really relate to that! Oh, and Fishon, use hollowpoints.” (huper ptoma mou)

I can’t believe this guy - wow! Now that is a truly Christian answer - huper - can you show me how to load a gun with hollow points and blow some useless ’savage’s’ head off? And complete the vicious cycle of ‘us and them’.

You guys make me absolutely sick - huper and fishon - I write about the term ’savage’ and you ignore it so you can be ‘right’. Then you take it one step further than it ever needs to go and advocate the use of .357’s and hollow points - that’s truly disgusting coming from a Christian person’s mouth.

But I can see why - didn’t God advocate the use of handguns somewhere in the gospel of John? And Paul was all for the idea of hollow points - that misu I am sure of. I think Peter and James - didn’t they advocate the killing and labelling of ’savages’…hmmm…oh wait - that was guns and ammo magazine.

That’s the kind of baloney talk that got abortion doctors shot in the first place, innocent people in small town America shot because they were ‘Middle Eastern’ looking, and gay people persecuted for not ‘being like everyone else’. But you’ll never see the connection because your God is card carrying member of the NRA who sanctioned their legitmiacy and constitution. I wonder if God is more like Rambo or the Terminator?
A ‘Savage’ Offense (All This From a Picture?) « Losing My Religion said, on June 4th, 2008 at 12:28 pm

[…] June 4, 2008 at 10:28 am (Uncategorized) Taken from Naked Pastor’s ‘cartoon: rage against the machine‘ blogpost…go take a gander. […]
zefi said, on June 4th, 2008 at 12:29 pm

And with great freedom, comes great responsibility! Or accountability! Or something like that.

Seems like there’s an authority figure here. And law!

Uh, about open-mindedness, lookie lookie!

I actually like seeing conflicts, but only when people grow from it. The only problem is that most of the time, they just get so absorbed into it that they’re just arguing for the sake of arguing. It’s addictive, ya know?

Uh, and what are you guys discussing/debating about again?
nakedpastor said, on June 4th, 2008 at 12:46 pm

i think huper was being sarcastic.
huper ptoma mou said, on June 4th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

societyvs:

Your incredulity is as transparent as your argument. Perhaps you could read those publications with your great big open mind before you presume to speak for them.

I don’t even own a gun, but if people who until recently were universally categorized as savages began assailing a church with their primitive weapons attending to maim or kill those attempting to conduct a service inside, I would hope that those inside would use bullets that would put a quick end to the nonsense and add a powerful deterrent factor. Incidentally, this is what they should do in whatever figurative sense you want to assign to it as well, but honestly, I don’t know if too many people inside the building are in a fighting mood.

I’m sorry this bothers you, you seem really nice and non-judgmental except for that last paragraph where you insinuate that I engage in these atrocities.

As for your last comment, ask your buddies; they are probably familiar with those movies and could render a more specific judgment than I.

Heb. 3:17
huper ptoma mou said, on June 4th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

naked,

I was being figurative. Savages by definition don’t exist anymore in America, unless you count 7-10 year old children.
societyvs said, on June 4th, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Sorry huper, I wasn’t sure about the sarcasm or if it was a real literal thing you were saying there - my bad for the insinuation and I apologize for the comments made that assigned you to that idea. Again sorry for the whole comment (which was my bad and I take full responsibility for my end). Even if NP wants to erase it - I am okay with that - I was obviously in the ‘wrong’ with my sarcasm now that you have explained your sarcasm.

But I have to address that idea obviously - even the terminology of ’savage’ since it is such a derogatory term where I am from that it’s tantamount to a curse word. I think I would be betraying my community by not saying something on the issue of cultural sensitivity concerning First Nations peoples and their history with that word - it truly is offensive.

That being said, isn’t this how a community is supposed to work? Yeah, we will have differences on some things but all things can be worked out I figure. I am glad the convo turned to dealing with a ‘real issue’ concerning cultural sensitvity and I am also glad for making the errors in judgment - it showed me I was ‘wrong’ for going too hard into the point and making others feel defensive for no reason - even breaking the idea of what my ‘judgment’ should be about (loving). Even in my actions to be ‘just’ I became ‘unjust’ and revealed I need to continue to work on being more fair and loving - and thanks for that push in the right direction.

Again, sorry huper and even Fishon - maybe I pushed back a little to vigorously and incited a call to arms and not a call to dialogue…I am to blame for that…and I can promise i will work on not being an idiot (lol).
huper ptoma mou said, on June 4th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

societyvs:

Forgiven. ‘Savage’ currently has some negative connotations among people who would never have been classified as savages. But that is not the issue at hand.

Again, my comment was figurative and not sarcastic. If a group of rogue (in the classical sense) zealots (in the classical sense) intends to mount a siege of ideas on the type of Christianity typified by the picture of the building, those rogue zealots had better study the heirarchy of ideas that led to its current condition so that they are not guilty of making costly mistakes that have already been made. That level of study has not been done yet, and it makes the picture all the more apt, especially when one thinks of the books that have been written by the leaders of the emergent movement. One could in good conscience call their scholarship “savage” at best, and they are well-illustrated by stick figures sincerely flinging spears in Christian love at a building full of other sincere people.
Shelley said, on June 4th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

societyvs, when I wrote my “rude” remark I was trying to make a point about “freedom”. In a community that loves each other there can not be the freedom to just do or be whoever we are. For the very reason that we do LOVE each other. Hearing the offense and hurt in your words that come in defense of the First Nation is one of the reasons that we must take into consideration each others feelings when we are in a community. If I know how offensive a discriptive word of your people is, I will certainly never use that word again. That is love. Though the word does not have the same meaning for me and I may not intend to use it in a derogatory way I choose not to use it again. That is the way a loving community works.

We are not free to (by choice) to express every thought or desire we have because we are part of a group of people who have feelings, wounds, and broken dreams. Even though we may not understand their sensitivities we respect them by taking those things into consideration before we say or do something within the community.

The atrocities that were done to both the American and Canadian natives grieves my heart. I have often admired and even envied the sense of culture and heritage the Canadian-natives have in my part of Canada. Though I called them “indians” during my childhood, because of ignorance, I would never call them that now. The term is offensive and I respect that.

That is why, as a community, we get to know each other. Of course it is difficult in this kind of a forum and often a person’s words are just words because we don’t know the face of the person behind them. I now know you better than I did before and I am glad of that. Everyone on here is a person with not just hurts and wounds but joys and victories as well.

As a loving and Christian community we should always try and see each other as a family member we want only the best for. Sometimes that comes at the expense of our own “personal freedom”. Jesus’ demonstration on the cross was the highest form of that sacrifice; laying down His life for a friend. We are His friends.

A few days ago, I made a remark that all the bickering made me sick. I would never have said that in person. Writing words is much easier than saying them to someone’s face and out of love, when and if I respond to anything on the blog I will keep in mind the people behind the computer.

I would like to comment on the cartoon. Of late I have felt like the church is under attack from the inside out. It feels like we are throwing the baby out with the bath water. I cannot help but think of my 88 year old Grandmother. She has been a Baptist Christian since childhood and is so, what we may call close minded that I don’t even try to change her mind on most things. But there is something very precious in the way that for the 47 years I have known her she studies her Bible over her toast and jam every morning, she prays for all of her family and friends every day and she would defend Christ to the death. She still cooks for church functions or to raise money for a cause and she tithes without fail. Is she perfect? Oh, no! I have seen some of the worst but I respect her highly and the church that produced this woman. She looks forward to the day (soon) when she will finally meet Jesus and I firmly believe He will say “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

That is why a cartoon like this one troubles me. That church looks like the one my Grandmother goes to and when her generation passes on, it is entirely likely that that little country church will too. Some would say that is has become irrelevant in this society (I guess I would have in the past.) but now I am afraid that the special kind of worship it stood for has been attacked with such vengenge that it just gave up.
fishon said, on June 4th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

SocietyVs,
Let me start my reply this way.

YOU from a previous post/blog::::”For example, I remember when I saw the art exhibit ‘piss Christ’ for the first time – I was absolutely appalled at the use of the crucifix in a glass of pee (as art). As time went by that image always stuck with me and the point being made – and I realized I was over-reacting concerning the art exhibit (many years later). The point was not the image being seen – but the message being sent. But I only got there by opening my mind and considering dialogue on the issue.”

——Do you not see the irony and inconsistency of your criticism of me for my use of the word, ’savage?’ Millions, yes millions of a community of Christians were highly offended, and you admitted to being among the offended by the ‘piss-christ.’ However, you then go on to rationalize, though you use the word “I,” to suggest, intimate that we over-reacted. Your suggestion for a remedy to being offended/appalled was an open mind and considering dialogue on the issue.

Society, let me use your own words: “The point was not the image being seen – but the message being sent.”
—-So let me rephrase your wording just a bit. The point was not the word, savage, being used, but the message it sent. You see, I would disagree about the message of the piss-christ, and you disagree about the message of the word, savage. Your sensibliities over the word savage springs from history and culture. Likewise my sensibilities over the p-c.

And lastly, NP said: “jason: all good points. it was a concern about first nation people when i drew it and considered posting it. but that wasn’t my intent.”
——-Howdy, he thought about it and went ahead and posted it.
——-I, on the other hand, did not have a thought that the word ’savages’ would offend anyone.

——-David gets: I like the cartoon - but as a First Nation person - I see how this artwork can be mis-interpreted and used erroneously (and cause in some people the wrong opinions about another people group)…but I don’t see that as the authorial intent from David.

————-I get critiqued and thumped and a history lesson I know full-well.
————-You don’t “”see that as the authorial intent from David,”" but you did from me. Interesting!

I tell you what, Society, David thought about and was concerned about how his cartoon would affect First Nations people, but he made a conscience decision to do it ANYWAY–under the reasoning that it was not his intent to hurt.

I on the other hand, didn’t have the luxury of making the decision as to say/draw something that may offend. I just use a word with innocent intent. And you hammer me.

David made the decision in spite of red flags; I didn’t have the luxury of any flags.

However, because of my freedom in Christ, and it isn’t nor was my intention to offend you, I WILL NOT USE that particular word on this blog.
fishon
AR said, on June 4th, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Hey, doesn’t anyone want to talk about Art?
huper ptoma mou said, on June 4th, 2008 at 2:57 pm

AR:

I would LOVE to talk about Art! Not much call for that these days!
societyvs said, on June 4th, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Thanks for the forgiveness huper and Shelley I actually really liked your take on the term and what you had to say.

“However, because of my freedom in Christ, and it isn’t nor was my intention to offend you, I WILL NOT USE that particular word on this blog.” (Fishon)

Thanks Fishon, I am not sure that was too much to ask.

But you are being a selective reader about the rest of it - and I will expain so as to not betray my own words and thoughts.

“Your sensibliities over the word savage springs from history and culture. Likewise my sensibilities over the p-c.” (Fishon)

The examples are not the same Fishon. I am also a Christian and saw that exhibit - and was offended…but it’s not anything but a piece of art (like NP’s picture). Eventually, through further examination I got the point of that art piece (and it took a good while) - and something positive came from it. The piece was about Jesus coming to a world of vulgarity and still accepting to ‘die for it’ (it was a crucifix in that glass).

Now can you do that with the term ’savage’ as you used in this sentence “Though, if I got wind that the savages were coming for my folks, my .357 mag. may suddenly appear.”? I don’t see the same connection.

I actually ran these ideas by another First Nations person - and they saw the cartoon - guess what…the picture stirred up the same idea - and when he saw the term ’savage’ - he did have the same reaction as I (offense). That’s the sole problem I am addressing Fishon.

“I, on the other hand, did not have a thought that the word ’savages’ would offend anyone.” (Fishon)

That’s where I have my doubts Fishon - because you were familar enough with the term to use it in this context (the people outside shooting bows n arrows and spears) - well you must have some historical usage in your brain somewhere that made you use the term in the first place. I am not saying it has to do with Aboriginal people per se - but why did you label them ’savages’ (a term with no good use to it)? I mean you have to have a context of where this term originated for you. That’s what I questioned in a nutshell.

“I get critiqued and thumped and a history lesson I know full-well.
————-You don’t “”see that as the authorial intent from David,”” but you did from me. Interesting!” (Fishon)

That’s selective reading Fishon - when I first asked you about that term - I didn’t grind the gears on you - I asked you 2 questions straight out. I did mention I found it rude (mainly because of the use of ’savage’ and the use of a ‘.357 on them) - but I left room for open dialogue all around - for the next comment after that even - where I give a whole synopsis on that term and it’s use in Canada towards Aboriginal people. I explained myself very well and thoroughly - and not one time do I throw a name or snickering comment your way.

But even when I did throw a sarcastic comment back - I apologized for what I did say - but in case you missed it - “Again, sorry huper and even FISHON - maybe I pushed back a little to vigorously and incited a call to arms and not a call to dialogue…I am to blame for that…and I can promise i will work on not being an idiot (lol).”

I saw my mistake in the conversation and admit there was one committed on my behalf - and I am sorry for that.

But that’s now where we are at - and I get this a lot - I make a mistake and come clean on it - and the other side (also a Christian) - seems to just ignore the fact ‘maybe they did make one also’. What is so damn hard about saying ’sorry, I may have been wrong’?

Fishon, You are hard-headed about this whole issue - I posed this same question to Jonathan and David (NP) - and neither of them had any issues with being asked the questions I had about that cartoon. Both were quick to answer and state their actual positions on the picture and what they meant - clarifying for me this was not going to be ‘one of those pictures about Aboriginals’.

However, I ask you 2 questions and it’s like a Christian civil war - this side won’t back down and the other will not either. I thought I was rather courteous to you in all the convo’s and was waiting on you to ‘redact’ that comment of offense - and I had to wait for like 4 of your comments to even see so much as hunch you would - and then, yes even then, it’s still a damn blame game with you.

Get over your pride and admit you can be wrong - I don’t care if you’re the closest to thing to Paul the Apostle we have on this planet - you need to admit when you’re wrong on something and be able to committ to the most gracious steps you can take on the issue. I know you will dislike me for saying this - you already left my blog a while back so I am likely fairly low in your books anyways - but this time let’s respect a teaching of our master:

“When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for someone more distinguished than you may have been invited by him, and he who invited you both will come and say to you, ‘Give your place to this man,’ and then in disgrace you proceed to occupy the last place.

But when you are invited, go and recline at the last place, so that when the one who has invited you comes, he may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher’; then you will have honor in the sight of all who are at the table with you.” (Luke 14:8-10)

I may be asking you to take a seat less than you are used to - but i think it’s a worthwhile thing to do.
fishon said, on June 4th, 2008 at 7:30 pm

SocietyVs,
YOU: That’s where I have my doubts Fishon - because you were familar enough with the term to use it in this context (the people outside shooting bows n arrows and spears)
—–I can’t do a thing about your doubts.

—–Let me try this ONE LAST TIME. “S—–s.” Context, Society, context
ME: [Muslims] round up Christian women and their children and drive them into a church building and burn them alive. What don’t you understand about that description, MUSLIMS. I even named the Countries.

—–Texas, Colorado churches shot up. You might just check on the ethnic background of the killers. Try googling Wedgwood Baptist Church, Texas–New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo.

YOU: I know you will dislike me for saying this….
—–Man, I don’t even know you. Now you may choose to dislike someone you talk with on blogs, but for me, I find that I haven’t yet chose to like or dislike someone who I dialogue with on a blog.

I am sure we will talk again, but not on this subject.
fishon
SocietyVs said, on June 4th, 2008 at 8:28 pm

““S—–s.” Context, Society, context
ME: [Muslims] round up Christian women and their children and drive them into a church building and burn them alive. What don’t you understand about that description, MUSLIMS. I even named the Countries.” (Fishon)

So the action of some MUSLIMS deemed them as ’savages’? Maybe, but I still the think if a Muslim read that about their faith - they would be having this same convo with you about the usage of that horrible term. Namely since it is an incident of generalization that is not true of all Muslims either - but only true of the actual church burners. And even then, the use of the term does is not going to lead one down the path of repentance. So in that sense also - it’s a rather bogus term.

You have defended your use of that term for all of these comments - when there is no real defense for it. That’s like me calling Evangelical church pastors ‘barbaric’ or ‘child abusers’ for their views of modern reality - and someone calling me on it. I would answer for the term - and then admit - I was wrong to use such a harsh term or viewpoint in the first place. Saying you are wrong is not a weakness - actually according to our teachings - it’s a strength (is it not?).

Last train to Humilityville, all aboard!
thejust1 said, on June 4th, 2008 at 11:41 pm

“it was a concern about first nation people when i drew it and considered posting it. but that wasn’t my intent.” (nakedpastor)

Although it was not your intent to make this post or the artwork a commentary on First Nations people ,its unfortunate, but that is where it went.

When I first looked at it, my mind immediately went to the thought that these were First Nations people. I then showed the picture to a First Nations pastor and he immediately asked me “why are those Indians attacking the church?” I went on to explain that the intention of the artist was not to show natives, but disgruntled Christians attacking the church. However his and my initial reaction was that those were First Nations people.

I will try to be as tactful as possible, because I do not want you to feel like you are being attacked for a momentary lapse in judgement, but you seriously need some education on First Nations people and so do some of the others that involved themselves in this discussion.

I became even more dissapointed when I realized that this was a Canadian that created the picture. I like to believe that Canadians are a little more aware of First Nations issues, but I guess that is not the case, at least not on this day.
MrsQ said, on June 5th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Howdy, folks.
Let me introduce myself, as I seem to be a new-kid-on-the-block who usually just enjoys the art and only occasionally clicks on ‘comments’…

Let’s just say I’m a White Working Woman born in the American Bible-Belt who is now an urban Mennonite living in a Black Ghetto in Philadelphia. I have an education in Sociology and Theology, but I work in Finance and Operations. (It’s a long story… don’t ask.)

Anyway: What a bizzarre conversation is transpiring. I’m fascinated as much by the comments as I am by the art itself.

Odd Socio-Psychological Thoughts:
Many Christians (particularly 1st world protestants) tend to read the world through a thick cultural filter without realizing it. Unfortunately, this means that we REACT with RELIGIOUS FERVOR to things with which we shouldn’t. We defend our culture, our denominations, and our 1st World Protestant predispositions… as though they were God’s Red-Letter Gospel. It ain’t. So Sorry.

Odd Novice Art-Critique:
I am really impressed by the various perspectives & interpretations folks have had with this cute little cartoon. What I glanced at and chuckled over seems to resonate deeply from persons who might hunt with bow and arrow (like my brother-in-law does… ’cause he hates guns but loves venison.) vs. those who might worship in quaint white-steepled churches. I am neither of these people, so I saw this from neither of these perspectives. Wow.

Thank you ALL for this!

- Naked Pastor: You Rock. I’m even more impressed by your site & your artwork than before. I’m going to have to read more stuff here more often.

- SocietyVs.: You’re Beautiful. Your patience and eloquence is inspiring. I wish had more of both.

- Fishon: I’m sorry for having thought of you as a troll. Rather, I get the idea that you’re just one of the millions of 1st World Protestants who need to re-read the Red Letter texts in the bible MORE and read other 1st-World-”christian”-Propaganda LESS.

- Huper: Um… same as Fishon… But you have a rather xeno-phobic snarky edge to your tone that would get you kicked out of (or, politely re-directed away from) many cross-cultural missions organizations.

We must ALL remember: The WWW brings the whole world, and all of the people in it, into your computer monitor. Let us think before we send.

and last but not least —

- AR: You sound like a real Art Person! I’m impressed by your perspectives and your writing, are you edu-ma-cated in the field? I’m only an art hobbyist, but your banter is beautiful, succinct and thoroughly delightful. You’re fun, I like you!

Peace to you all,
MrsQ

(Sarah from Philly)
fishon said, on June 5th, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Sarah,
Please don’t leave this “troll” hanging. Would you define “1st world protestants” for me. I really [honestly] don’t know what you mean by that term. I have NEVER heard it before.
fishon
huper ptoma mou said, on June 5th, 2008 at 6:21 pm

MrsQ:

Xenophobic does not need a hyphen, but thank you anyways for your sincere attempt at labeling and dismissing me. I am warmed and fed by the security of having a taxonomic place in your dustbin.

By the way, if you re-read AR’s post, he was making fun of the picture and its artist. E-mail him if you don’t believe me.

Additionally, I’m not even sure what First-World “Christian” Propaganda you could possibly be hinting at, or whether that would even be a valid category, but I’m sure that whoever initially used the words in your earshot could explain it.

I’m working in church planting–what did you say you were doing again?
Doorman-Priest said, on June 6th, 2008 at 3:24 am

Bored now.
SocietyVs said, on June 6th, 2008 at 9:45 pm

LOL - Bored now
Altared said, on June 8th, 2008 at 12:00 am

As an ex-pastor’s wife who’s church threw us out because of one blog post, I think this cartoon is fantastic. I would add burning down the building and then shooting arrows at the people to boot.
Rhonda said, on June 8th, 2008 at 11:52 pm

Fantastic! Give those people bazookas instead of arrows! The Church was a major player in the cultural genocide of native peoples.
AR said, on June 9th, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Mrs. Q: ‘Fraid not. I just have some ability to imitate the way some artsy folks use language.

By pretending to interpret it, I was pointing out that this cartoon is not enough to merit all the frantic discussion it has raised. You can make just about anything out of it - if I want to, I can even turn it to my own ends by interpreting it as conservative.

I imagine Mr. Hayward simply wanted to show people shooting arrows at a church building as a way of expressing the anger that many of us feel because people have treated us like threats to the system instead of like human beings.

However, I needed the word “machine” in the title to tell me that. The picture itself fails to say it. So we have to import our own anger into it, in order to find any meaning there. In that sense it is destructive, just like its subject. I think the way the conversation went demonstrates that.

Real art moves you from emotion to contemplation; from feeling to thought. Once you’ve walked down the path it lays out, you are better for having done so.

Altared: I am both grieved for your pain and frightened by your desire to destroy (in any sense) those who hurt you. I remember those feelings; however I knew they would destroy me if I did not battle against them. If you can bear advice right now, let me beg you to find a spiritual father, sit down, and be quiet until forgiveness comes to you from the God of mercy.
P3T3RK3Y5 said, on June 12th, 2008 at 3:05 pm

whew - anyway - i’d love this as a tshirt too. cafe press anyone? or is there something better.

you’re nailing it with these - it wouldn’t hurt to give them some coverage IRL.

“Rage Against the Machine” on back. the image on front.

include your name. but not too big. keep it clean. think mac aesthetics.

peace
Holmes said, on June 26th, 2008 at 9:55 am

Nice. I never thought about the name of one of my all time favorite bands in regards to the church.
candyinsierras said, on June 27th, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Interesting to note that the weapons are ineffective against the Church. Mere sticks. As for the art….adolescent at best.

Mrs. Q. It is difficult to wade through your thick condescension.
nakedpastor said, on June 27th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

o the irony in that last comment.

nakedpastor

cartoon: rage against the machine

54 Responses to 'cartoon: rage against the machine'

Leave a Reply

The Author

Subscribe

The Pages

The Search

The Categories

The Associates

The Archives

The Meta