He Loves (all of) Us

The controversy of He Gets Us and translating the faith

View

Not quite three years ago, during the tumultuous summer of 2020, Harper’s magazine published what they called A Letter on Justice and Open Debate - it almost immediately became known simply as the Harper’s Letter. It was, during the calls for justice being made, a companion call to keep the norms of free speech and open debate alive and well. The message of the letter swam decidedly against the tide of that summer. The letter was signed by over 150 people all across the spectrum of political and cultural issues. And then it got weird. 

A number of original signers wanted to remove their signature almost immediately. Why the sudden change of mind? They discovered who else had signed the letter: “... within hours of its publication, some who had signed distanced themselves from it, saying they would not have joined if they had been aware of some of the other signers.” These people read the letter and endorsed the message of free speech and open debate, they signed the letter - only to retract their signature when they found that some people, objectionable to them, had signed the letter. Either they were still in agreement with the message and substance of the letter, but didn’t want to be on the wrong team more than they agreed with the message and substance of the letter. Or, once they found out who else agreed with it, they no longer agreed with it. If they are for it, I am against it - if they are against it, I am for it. I don’t intend to talk about free speech and open debate (in this particular dispatch) - I want to talk about this “us / them” or “good people / bad people” or “friend / enemy” dynamic that is so hard to avoid currently, even in the church. 

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5:43-44)

The “He Gets Us” campaign, featuring a well produced, 60-second (and therefore very expensive) ad that ran during the Super Bowl, illuminates this dynamic. The campaign seeks, through these 15, 30, or 60 second spots, to depict Jesus to those who know nothing or almost nothing about him. They tell us that Jesus is one with us in sorrow, that He invited everyone to dinner, that He endured injustice. All of these are true. It isn’t possible, of course, to comprehensively describe Jesus in this format. Some may think the very attempt is so fraught with difficulties that it should be avoided. I can understand why some might feel that way - any depiction of Jesus that is not strictly biblical always (rightly or wrongly) gives me pause. And you can certainly find fault with this or that description.

But I give the designers of this campaign credit - it seems to be a genuine attempt to translate Jesus to your neighbor or co-worker or friend (or maybe to you). Christians, it would seem, should hardly be against the idea of this translation, even if we may disagree on the execution of it. Non-Christians, one would think, would care little one way or another if they are not curious about Jesus. Not surprisingly, given our cultural moment, there was a lot of pushback from both sides of the cultural/political divide. And, also not a surprise, there was pushback from within the church as well, from both conservative and liberal critics.

The controversy began early. One of the first ads in the campaign is called The Rebel. It gives us a (very simplified, 30 second) depiction of Jesus as one who was unfairly judged. The imagery used is designed to be negatively judged by the mainstream viewer, only to then be associated with Jesus and his followers - telling us that Jesus was unfairly judged. Honestly, as I said, I am a bit uncomfortable with the stretched description of Jesus - in a sense that I described above. But, and this isn’t a justification, I have heard worse during sermon illustrations. As I said, it is an attempt to translate Jesus into approachable terms - I just happen not to love this particular translation. But the tenor of a number of some conservative objectors has as much to do with neck tattoos as it does with the translation. Jesus isn’t like people I want to reject. Is He?

For some on the left, the message that Jesus was cancelled is objectionable says less about Jesus than it does about their cultural or political stance. Others who object to key funders for the campaign (they are the bad people) find no contradiction in claiming that they don’t really believe in the Jesus they are “selling”. If those people are for it, I am against it. It doesn’t matter what it is.

While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:15-17)