cartoon: career change?
Leave a Reply
Trackback URL
http://www.nakedpastor.com/archives/4735/trackback
-
artist. cartoonist. teacher.
-
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
As one of the masses in pic #2, I feel oddly ridiculed here. Like, I’ve chosen to sit in the pew, be inhumanely treated, led to slaughter….while the guy up front is feeling much better about himself. Gently I say, give me a little credit, Dave.
David,
You’ve nailed it again. I think it’s time to publish a coffee table book of the cartoons. Particularly appropriate for Sunday afternoons.
Heather,
I have a dear friend who refers to many folk who sit with their eyes glazed on Sunday as they stare towards the stage as “pew fodder.” Which is exactly what many of us have become. Perhaps you are not one of us. I salute you in that.
oh snap.
I sincerely hope, Bill, that the day I become pew fodder is the day I stop going. Without some kind of engagement (even if, for a season, it feels like no more than a cerebral engagement), what is the point? A Sunday morning run, listening to some excellent tunes, would make more sense, at that point.
Heather: Ya… I agree. I would say “if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.” i mean in terms of this cartoon. thanks!
hmm … wonder what kind of good analogies could be drawn from free-range, antibiotic-reduced, hormone free, organic farming (as opposed to feedlot, factory-farmed churchianity)
jp: exactly!
I’m not tame – I’m a tiger.
Bill: I’m working on that book right now
NP, if I may raise a well-intentioned but honest inquiry.
In a recent post you said: “Others can set the boundaries and distances between themselves and me and our community”
This struck me at the time, it stood out. Can I ask how this pledge is consistent with these sorts of cartoons, in which you frequently (sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly) accuse Churches of gross malpractice – such as here, in which the object of your parody treats his congregation like cattle? Or perhaps in an earlier cartoon, in which you deconstruct an otherwise innocent church sign and assume the very worst in literally every single word used?
I don’t understand how you can say you’re not setting up boundaries, when – as far as I can see – a large minority of your cartoons criticise mainstream ecclesiology? Is this not the *epitome* of creating distance?
Nathan L: “your cartoons criticise mainstream ecclesiology”
I don’t think NP suggests that he isn’t exploring, dismantling, erecting, prodding, or setting up boundaries … I think at the heart of the issue is the intention behind it (as far as we are able to access our own or others intentions, why often remain a partial mystery).
Is the intent to maliciously wound, or poke fun at, or express NP’s frustration, or challenge dominant ideas that often don’t go unchallenged? I don’t think NP is trying to erect solid fences (from my limited perspective) but I do think he wants to challenge the status quo.
I’m not sure what counts for “mainstream ecclesiology” as there seems to much diversity throughout the Christian tradition both East and West. However, I do think it important to ask questions about how the organized church and its leaders function … they are “sometimes” (not always) immune to questions and standards that other organizations and leaders are subject to.
Leaders claiming to speak from God and organizations claiming to reflect something of God’s purposes/plans ought to be lovingly scrutinized and not blindly followed in my estimation. The NT is never that clear on an ideal structure for “ecclesia” or the gathering, especially trying to make sense on what are particular directives in scripture and what are quasi-universal.
One other word in partial defense of NP (not that he necessarily needs it) – I don’t see the cartoons as being applicable to all churches or leaders, but definitely some. And they usually highlight tendencies, temptations or foolish paths probably many of us would like to avoid.
As an aside, I think the quote about “Others can set the boundaries …” is fairly context specific – I don’t think it is a statement on boundary setting and criticism in general.
JP SAID: “I think the quote about “Others can set the boundaries …” is fairly context specific – I don’t think it is a statement on boundary setting and criticism in general”
Well, that’s the issue isn’t it? Everything is context specific, and whilst NP’s statement about boundaries had a context, I want to know how THAT context fits in with THIS context. To complain about the establishment of boundaries and to promise to avoid them, only to draw cartoons that appear to go out of their way to deconstruct traditional methods of church, seems to me conflicted.
I’d go further than this. I’ve been reading NP’s blog for over a year, and the cartoons are *very* frequently jabs at ways of doing church, approaches to church, approaches to the bible, approaches to ministry, etc. The consummation of this came about three weeks ago when NP drew a (very clever, to be fair) cartoon of an otherwise innocuous church sign, with annotations next to every single word outlining why they don’t mean what is being said but in fact mean something very negative. I remember being impressed at NP’s creativity, but depressed at his lack of charity. (And keep in mind that I say this as one who has consistently read and enjoyed NP’s blog for a long while now.)
Now, put yourself in the shoes of one who goes to a Church who speaks in the way that sign speaks, or one who writes those Church signs, or one who uses the same language as that Church sign. Would you feel like between yourself and NP there is an open meadow, or a boundary firmly separating your approaches to ecclesiology?
Again, I’m not getting at NP. I get the strong sense of sincerity and integrity in his posts. But I *am* wondering how he can despair of boundaries, only to seemingly construct several of them a week. I certainly don’t feel like I’m singing from his song sheet, and we’ve both been educated in the same tradition!