You Can't Lampoon Us Anymore

I mentioned on the air that the Jesus doll creeped me out.  And perhaps the idea of reducing Jesus to Elmo, to a push-a-button-and-He-talks doll, was inappropriate.

A caller told me that Elmo doesn't teach scripture, so this doll is better.

I mentioned that I think Jesus Street Live, with a dancing Jesus and furry friends, would also be inappropriate. 

A caller told me that Jesus Street Live might not be a bad idea.

I mentioned that if Saturday Night Live produced a fake "Buy a Jesus Doll!" commercial, people would want to protest, because it would be inappropriate.

A caller told me I shouldn't watch Saturday Night Live. 

I mentioned that perhaps, as a friend suggested, the Jesus doll could come with a cross and nails set, and wouldn't that be inappropriate?

A caller told me this might be a good idea, to give kids a good visual...of a crucifixion.

I mentioned that perhaps, in addition to the push-a-button-and-he-quotes-John-chapter-20, we might consider a push-button-and-his-nose-lights up function, and would that be inappropriate?

A caller told me my line of questioning was inappropriate.

Comments

[Doug Hannah]

This is all well and good and comes with the broadcast territory, as you well know, but I want to focus on what's really creepy: The striking resemblance between the Jesus Doll and you.

Or should I spell that You?

[Seth Ward]

Is he, or should I say He holding a London Fog wool trench coat? Nice.

[Fayola Shakes]

I got it and appreciated your sarcasm until you got to the cross and nails bit. Are you serious? Like, seriously? Someone seriously thinks that's a good idea? A cross and nails set? What's next? A cat o' nine tails with a mail-in rebate? These are the same folks that took their five year-olds to see The Passion.

[Douglas_Coombs]

Half of me says, "Let's not be crass with our Lord, the God of the Universe."

Half of me says, "What can it hurt?"

Half of me says, "The commercialization of Christ is just plain wrong."

Half of me says, "Jesus was a man just like you and me. He got indigestion, boogers and picked his feet with the twelve. This can't be any worse than playing with GI Joe action figures."

Half of me says, "But you know that if you were a kid with a Jesus doll, you would make him hit other dolls and be disrespectful with him."

Half of me says, "But it is just a doll and if I had had a Jesus doll I might have actually thought once in awhile about how violently I played with toys. That, at least, is an improvement and a move in the right direction."

As you can see, this is a tough one for me. I'm still undecided which side I will take: Brant's or the Vast Majority of Brant's Callers'.

Doug

[rob smith]

I am with Doug Hannah on this one.

[Brant]

Regarding the eerie likeness, I was hoping no one would notice.

"London Fog" - that kills me.

Douglas C, didn't you like the Jesus hot air balloon?

[Matt Wright]

Since we are being a little sarcastic here...I prefer the "Buddy Christ"
http://jsbstash.stores.yahoo.net/budchrisdass1.html

Although, he kinda looks like you too...

[Steve_11]

It is nice to know that Jesus sported a neatly trimmed Van Dyke. I thought the dutch invented that much later? Looks like he spends some time at the gym, too.

I think the doll is a great idea. It gives children the opportunity to act out "Christ-like" behavior with a doll, just as they do Barbie, GI Joe, and other action figure behavior.

Now I know some little pranksters would put Barbie's clothes on Him; others would heretically use Him as a hammer or in otherways grieve the Holy Spirit with the doll, but that is between them and their Maker.

I think it should come with a little "Water Into Wine" kit with some cheap plastic urns. *Water not included.
It would also need the Almighty's Warning: Being drunk with wine may prevent entry into Heaven.

[euphrony]

I think, Matt W., that I prefer the Buddy Christ Bobblehead better.

As to Brant being the Incarnate Returned, I'm more inclined to think the resemblance stems from his serving as action figure/bobblehead model - you know, as a part-time job to raise Christmas money. Any confessions, Brant?

As to the doll itself; just what we need. Another way to compartmentalize the infinite into a easy-to-handle package. I'm sure that when it ships, the whole irony of "God in a box" is lost on most.

[diana herb]

Brant, upon seeing the Jesus doll, my 3 year old exclaimed, "Jesus!" I wonder if he would do the same upon meeting you?!
Your distant relative,
diana

[Brant]

I'd certainly love to find out, Diana.

Also possibly confusing: I have taken to wearing a white tunic, usually with a nicely-folded, grey, London Fog coat about my arm.

[euphrony]

I like the new picture up top. It's a little small, and hard to see, but it looks like there are red horns on that accordian player. Is that your alternate persona, Brant? Just shave and pull the hair back to let the horns out and you go from Christ-like to playing like the Devil?

[Brant]

It's not me. I was just creeped out by my picture, juxtaposed with the doll.

[euphrony]

Sure, sure. I still think your just juxtaposing your two alter egos side by side.

Who knew the Prince of Darkness played the accordian? It all starts to make sense, now.

[Alice the Brit]

LOL - that's a lot of halves Mr Doug Coombs! You are 3, might I even say a trinity of whole people.

I agree the doll looks REALLY like Brant, I saw him yesterday - it's a splitting image. (Incidentally why DO people say spitting instead of splitting??)

Alice the Brit

P.S. I have a new car, God is good :)

[Douglas_Coombs]

Brant,

Too many of your loyal readership are agreeing with you. I’m going to throw caution to the wind and ignore my reservations about the crass commercialization of Christ for the sake of balancing out this discussion.

Sure, making Jesus into a doll is putting God in a box: so is making a movie about Christ. How many people are opposed to Passion because it puts God in a box? Was Leonardo daVinci way off base to paint Jesus in the last supper? What about Chick tracts (ignoring theological issues and looking solely at the art)? Is it wrong for an artist to render Jesus within his or her works? What about those books that describe God and his works? Don’t many of them put God in a box? You don’t seem to have a problem with Jerry Jenkins (e.g., http://branthansen.typepad.com/letters_from_kamp_krusty/2006/10/gimme_three_ste.html). Why is what his artistic expression so inherrantly superior to the Jesus doll? Was it the theology? Sure the doll is a direct artistic rendering of Christ (with Jesus as the main and only point), while the Left Behind Series books render Jesus as the guy behind the scenes stepping in in ways the popular evangelical culture is comfortable with. I would argue that this simple, direct artistic rendering of Christ is sometimes an advantage. For one thing the doll sticks to direct Scripture quotes, instead of dubious interpretations of apocolyptic writings. Is it worse to artistically render Jesus’ physical features incorrectly than it is to artistically render the theology and actions of Christ incorrectly?

Toys are the prevalent creative medium of our very young budding artists. There is nothing inherently wrong with letting them play with a Jesus doll and more than there is something wrong with an actor playing Christ or an artist/sculptor depicting him. Children are generally not good writers, but hey have wonderful imaginations. The stories they tell with their toys are their “books.” Whether something is right or wrong depends on the particular creative expression of the artist. Thus piss Christ is very bad art and the Sistine Chapel ceiling is very good art.
http://www.uniurb.it/Filosofia/bibliografie/Bataille_GiuliaFrattini/images/Serrano%20Andres,%20Piss%20Christ%201987.jpg
http://history.hanover.edu/courses/art/micsis2.jpg

I think your biggest problem with the doll is that it resembles you, personally. If I were you, that would freak me out as well. Since you are obviously making these moral judgments under a cloud of anxiety and duress (e.g., the new accordian player picture), your illogical thinking is easy to overlook. Maybe the manufacturer should have made the dolls face a blob of light. Then you would have stood a chance at seeing its true artistic worth in the hands of a little child (Mt. 19:14 & Mk. 10:14).

Doug

[Brant]

Douglas, I give you props for at least trying. Noble.

You misunderstand me, entirely, on the Left Behind series by the way. As I said, I'm not a fan.

I'm not saying a Jesus doll is "wrong", per se. There's precedent for it. Dolls are used in some religions, certainly. And years ago, the idea of a Jesus doll was already used, as a mockery, in the movie Dogma.

I'll merely ask you the same questions, by way of analogy: How about a Jesus with cross and nails set? What if his nose lit up? Would you find it inappropriate?

What say you about "Testamints", sold in "Christian bookstores"? Sure, it seems almost blasphemous in the way it reduces our ultimate story of covenant with God, but it does leave us with minty fresh breath. Any concerns...?

Any concerns about WHY, exactly, the God of the Israelites didn't want graven images? I've heard it put that in Islam, images of God are forbidden, because Allah is unknowable. For the Isaelites, it was quite the opposite: God spurned images of Him because He was LIVING with them -- for real. He was tabernacling among them, but humans like to turn the tangible. But the tangible is not Him.

Of course, kids don't think that deeply...which creates another concern.

To shape my kids' view of Jesus: I don't want it to be even a reverently-rendered movie, let alone an irreverent, incredibly drone-talking doll. (You should hear this thing -- ridiculous.)

I want my kids to look at the church -- Jesus's actual tangible body -- and say, "I've seen him."

Or, for $24.95, I can buy a ridiculous, reductive, monotonous, boring, frivolous doll that will be thrown in with the stuff from Build-a-Bear or get left to mildew in the trunk.

It's not wrong, it's just stupid. I'm sorry. You'll have to forgive me. Again, I give you props for trying.

[Steve_11]

OK, I just had to add this thought.

Forget for the moment that it supposed to be a Jesus doll. Just look at his hairstyle and posture.

The doll HAS to come with a big gold chain necklace with a big gold cross hanging from it.

Think of the irony, yet also the current cultural relevance.

I don't know about you, but He looks like He's going "clubbin'". Pull his string and instead of: "Hey baby, what's your sign?", He says: "Comest thou hither, oh woman of Scorpio".

[Seth Ward]

Are you comparing a Da Vinci painting of Christ with the Plastic Jesus with the Kung Fu Grip holding a London Fog coat? Doug, Doug, Doug. Know thy argumentative self. Even if the doll maker gets the skin color right I tend to lean towards the Da Vinci if we are measuring works of beauty and inspiration. Ask yourself this: Do you think that the pope would commission a room in the Sistine Chapel to be decorated by this Jesus action figure? Toy, mind you. Not statue, or work of artistic expression. Not a heart-rending display of a miraculous event. A T-O-Y.

The action figure Jesus is el lame-ola because it reduces Christ to a toy. A figure that Children think that they can add to their toy box along with their squeeze-me-pee-pee dolls. Probably the worst part about the toy is that itself. It places him in a place where plastic toys and forgotten collectables go. Maybe somewhere where people don't have enough imagination to build a mud-pie you might find a youngster to which this creepy thing would have a lasting positive impact. But if I had opened this figure on any snowy Christmas morning I would have been ticked and would have felt guilty that I hated my new Jesus doll. Already at the age of 7 I am feeling unnecessary religious guilt. I mean, that shouldn't start till at least 9 right?

So do they have the artistic 'right' to make a toy Jesus? Well yes. Just like I have a right to make fancy gingerbread Jesus cookies and sculpt the crucifix out of my Mashed Potatoes. Or invent a Jesus Monopoly game! Heck why stop there? Why not Jesus ping pong, cards, football, and Risk- the Jesus apocalypse edition.

What about Jesus cooking accessories? Pots and pans all made to look like clay. Maybe some Jesus furniture...? Toiletries? Antacids?

Sometimes the masses are correct in their judgment. The world can even see the absurdity in this thing and they rightly refuse to manufacture it.

[isaiah543]

Forgive me for getting all serious on a sarcastic post, but your comparison of Judaism vs. Islam's take on graven images leads me to throw out this FWIW factoid.

How shall we reverence the Name? Islam says (in a way interestingly discordant with their approach to images) that you should chant Aaaaaaalluuuuuuuaaaaaaaahhhhh... Aaaaaallluuuuuaaaaahhhh.

But Judaism just says, don't ever pronounce YHWH.

That seems somehow related to this post, but my family just walked in the door and I have munchkins to separate. So you'll have to connect the dots for me and hopefully you'll come up with something more lucid than I would have.

[Brant]

Well, dang, I would've asked YOU that. You're the theologian, I'm a clown on the radio.

Fundamental to me: What was behind the prohibition on the name? I never understood that, though I won't be surprised if it's widely-known.

[Douglas_Coombs]

Seth,

"Even if the doll maker gets the skin color right I tend to lean towards the Da Vinci if we are measuring works of beauty and inspiration. Ask yourself this: Do you think that the pope would commission a room in the Sistine Chapel to be decorated by this Jesus action figure? Toy, mind you. Not statue, or work of artistic expression. Not a heart-rending display of a miraculous event. A T-O-Y.

The action figure Jesus is el lame-ola because it reduces Christ to a toy."

Nobody would do something so childish as commision a cartoon for a chapel, because chapels are made for adults and adult artistic tastes. If you wouldn't have wanted a Jesus doll, then it obviously wouldn't be a good gift for you. I tend to think that that is likely a result of cultural conditioning as to what "cool" toys are, not something inherent to any particular genre of toy.

I had some friends growing up who went to the local Chinese Baptist church. Within their community, they had all sorts of Jesus stuff to motivate kids. One of the most popular items were Bible Trading Cards. This was back in the day when every boy traded baseball cards in my home town. Now most kids would have thought that Bible trading cards were dorky and uncool, but these kids were passionate about collecting them... not quite as passionate as pokemon addicts later were, but still pretty hooked. This addiction led kids to read the entire Bible in a year. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so... even though some of the trading cards had cartoonish pictures of Jesus and other Bible characters.

I'm having a really hard time figuring out where people in this thread draw the line. If it is "stupid" to have a 3-D doll representation of Jesus which quotes Scripture, what about a 2-D comic book version of Jesus? Is that "stupid" too? Sure, no Pope would have commisioned the Sistene Chapel to be painted in comic book stylistic figures, but does that make Bible comic books inherrently stupid or bad? If Bible comic books are stupid or bad, what about childrens' Bibles, many of which aren't all that different from a Jesus comic book. The only difference to me between a Jesus trading card or story book and a Jesus doll is that books and trading cards usually do the story telling for the child, while for dolls the child's creativity is usually allowed to do the story telling. Oh, yeah. That and pictures are 2-D representations of Jesus, while dolls are 3-D. However, I consider the dimensional difference to be practically inconsequential.

I guess I just think if someone is going to mock something as being really stupid, they should have good reasons for that and be able to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable means of communicating Jesus to kids. So far, the people dissing the doll seem to have laid out a gut reaction, instead of a line of reasoning that can be applied to other similar products.

Doug

[Doug Hannah]

The more I study the doll pictured here, I actually think it mostly resembles Billy Ray Cyrus which is coincidental, probably.

/ignoring the theological discussion
//keeping the sarcasm alive
///don't really understand the accordio-demon pic

[Douglas_Coombs]

Brant,

You said, "I'm not saying a Jesus doll is "wrong", per se. There's precedent for it. Dolls are used in some religions, certainly. And years ago, the idea of a Jesus doll was already used, as a mockery, in the movie Dogma." If you are talking about the use of dolls in cultic religious ceremonies or as a mockery of Christ, then we are on two completely different wavelengths.

It seems to me that your objection to the Jesus doll can be broken up into two categories (feel free to correct me here): 1) The doll being a trite commodotization of the Gospel and 2) The doll being a "graven image" of the God-Man, Jesus and children being impressionable and prone to mistaking the image for the real deal.

Regarding #1, I mostly agree with you. I just don't think we can scapegoat this one product. I also don't think that it is really all that black and white an issue. Personally, I wouldn't buy my kids a Jesus doll, because I think our culture overemphasizes the friendly side of Jesus and makes him too familiar a friend. That's why the Buddy Jesus doll is so funny to some people. It actually represents the way some people seem to view Jesus. I think a Jesus doll would come too close to representing the attitude that "Jesus loves me and my country, despite my divorce, remarriage and the unjust wars. God is all about forgiveness not hate." It posseses an element of truth, but is skewed. Personally, I want to teach my kids that God is A) a Father but B) also the Sovereign Creator of the universe. As such, He is a God of beauty and worthy of reverence. That's one reason why I dislike the Brimax Bible story books and love the stories of Saints and Prophets told by Tomie de Paola and Margaret Hodges. I feel the illustrations have actual artistic worth and the stories aren't completely dumbed down.

Also, I view the Jesus doll similarly to the commodotization of the Scriptures. Do we really need a new Bible translation every sigle year? Do we really need to repackage the NIV 250 different ways to market it to different target audiences? Isn't this indicative of materialism invading the Church holding tremendous sway in the most sacred of subjects?... On the other hand, which edition of the Bible can I point to and say that it is inherrantly wrong or stupid? It seems like it is a matter of cultural context to me.

In other words, I don't really think it is the Jesus doll that is wrong as much as the culture that produced it. In fact, I think that the moderate usage of such products can actually sometimes be helpful in a child's faith formation. To go even further, (confession time) I actually had a David and Goliath toy set when I was a child. Now, Brant, I know you are pretty old and probably lived out your childhood way before such toys came out. Please, though, bear with me on this one. The generational gap isn't all that large. Even though I didn't think playing David and Goliath was as cool or fun as blowing stuff up with my GI Joe action figures, that feeling was very much a part of my cultural conditioning and a product of the kids I hung around with who weren't into Jesus. I still did enjoy playing with the David and Goliath dolls on occasion and consider the experience to be a good one.

With that as background, A) testamints have no instructive value to me, so I wouldn't buy them. B) the nose lighting up on a Jesus doll has no connection to the person of Christ and would merely be an attempt to make a mockery of Him. C) I don't think I would want my kids to reenact nailing our Lord to the cross, since it is the reenactment of a horrible crime. I don't want my kids to reenact horrible crimes as a rule, not that it has anything to do with religion. The key to all of these for me is that the reasoning behind my decision should be applied to more than just a Jesus doll.

I need a break, so I'll tackle the idolotry part later.

Doug

[Douglas_Coombs]

Brant,

I'm particularly confused on your views in the "graven image" section of your reply.

You said, "Any concerns about WHY, exactly, the God of the Israelites didn't want graven images?... For the Isaelites, it was quite the opposite: God spurned images of Him because He was LIVING with them -- for real. He was tabernacling among them, but humans like to turn the tangible. But the tangible is not Him.

I want my kids to look at the church -- Jesus's actual tangible body -- and say, "I've seen him.""

So, is it that you want your kids to see Jesus in the "church," "Jesus' actual tangible body" and not a doll, or that you don't think we should make statues of Jesus because it would make God too tangible and "the tangible is not Him." Is God tangible or isn't He? Is it inherrently wrong to make an image of Him or isn't it?

To answer your question about why God didn't his people to make graven images, in all seriousness, I think God answered that best in Exodus 20 ""You shall have no other gods before me.
[4] "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
[5] you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God" Obviously, God had a problem with people making graven images because they had problems with confusing the creation of their own hands with the creator of the universe. In fact, after Moses is done giving the ten commandments, he immediately says in v. 23 "You shall not make gods of silver to be with me, nor shall you make for yourselves gods of gold." These people were immersed in a culture that worshiped graven images. Because of this, God didn't just forbid images of Himself, He forbade images of any living creature or even images of any object. The point was obviously not that images are inherrantly bad, but that people worshiped them. That,is the "why" you refer to.

If images were inherrantly bad, then God wouldn't have commanded that the ark of the covenant have seraphim formed into the cover. What about the bronze oxen/bulls that held the great "sea" in the temple? Also, if images were really evil, then God wouldn't have made Moses make an image of a snake, so that everyone who looked at that snake image could be healed. *Sounds pretty freaky to me.* Can you imagine what would happen if Bishop brought a car image to the meeting next Sunday and said, "Look at this car image and be healed of your lust for cars." OK, bad example: Seriously, though, can you imagine any instance where a respected Christian would do anything resembling this? Isn't this God who told Moses to make the bronze serpent, the same One who forbade the manufacture of graven images? What gives?

"Of course, kids don't think that deeply...which creates another concern." Dude, how old are they? Your daughter is old enough to steal the show and charm everyone with her ballerina performance. Don't they have this creature/creator thing down, yet. Tell you what. Send them to mass with me. We'll straighten that out real quick.

Doug