Collide Magazine » Blog Archive » The Cover We Didn’t Use

The Cover We Didn’t Use

Posted by Scott McClellan on April 21st, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Our May/June issue is just about ready to go to the printer. While we’re busy putting the finishing touches on everything, we also decided that the cover we had in mind might be too offensive for print. After talking it over and thinking it through, we decided not to risk offending people with the image our amazing designer created to go with Tim Stevens’ “Pop Goes the Church” article. However, we like a good discussion on this blog, so we’ll show you the rejected, “is the world ready for this?” cover below.

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Are you offended? Do you love it? Were we right or wrong for opting to go with a different image? Keep in mind that the cover story is “Pop Goes the Church,” and that the image perfectly illustrates one of Tim’s assertions about how Christ would act if he were walking around our 21st-century world instead of 1st-century Palestine.

banned May/June cover

This entry was posted on Monday, April 21st, 2008 at 1:09 pm and is filed under About Collide. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments to “The Cover We Didn’t Use”

Sexy!

posted at 1:26 pm on April 21st, 2008 by Mud Puppy

More than the headphones, It bothers that he doesn’t look like a Palestinian man. On the headphones though…Jesus was all about relationships, not hangin’ in his own little world ignoring the world with the earphones on.

posted at 1:48 pm on April 21st, 2008 by julieH

I dig it. I’m not offended (but then I agree with Tim). I’m glad you were willing to show it and talk about it. I look forward to the alternate cover choice.

posted at 1:49 pm on April 21st, 2008 by Tiffani Barnes

This design is amazing! I love the colors. I’m not sure if I’m offended, but then again I’ve seen classic icons used and re-used so many times that I might be desensitized.

posted at 2:12 pm on April 21st, 2008 by Chris

I think it’s easy for a lot of Christians to pick things like this a part. I don’t really think you were trying to make a theological statement by the cover, but more just making a statement that Jesus was integrated into His culture. If He had come during this day and age, maybe he would have put the earphones on to meditate…maybe He’s listening to Charlton Heston’s audio bible.

posted at 2:18 pm on April 21st, 2008 by Derrick Henslee

Is there a difference between the church engaging culture and the church trying to make a culturally relevant statement? This, to me, smacks of “look Jesus is hip.” Maybe Jesus wasn’t hip. I’m all about engaging culture, but this is a bit self serving.
I heard someone say recently, we should look like the culture, but live differently – unfortunately, we often live like the world, but look differently.

posted at 2:40 pm on April 21st, 2008 by Ryan

not offended at all. ver similar to our ipod angel from a series a few months ago:
http://www.oakbrookchurch.com/images/series/ancient_434.jpg

posted at 2:50 pm on April 21st, 2008 by Jerm

julieH already articulated my exact thoughts!

posted at 2:57 pm on April 21st, 2008 by Chris S.

you guys should have used it! i mean, i understand your decision-making deal, but the reality is the people who read your mag and this blog wouldn’t be offended by that. sure, you want to reach people who may not “get it” or understand the value of what you are trying to say… but i think it would have captured attention and caused people to read.

either way, amazing artwork!

posted at 3:01 pm on April 21st, 2008 by Tim

HEATHEN!!!!

Oh, wait, I like that cover and in no way am I offended by it. Disregard my first line.

posted at 3:03 pm on April 21st, 2008 by Clayton Bell

LOVE Tim’s new book…and love it that you guys went with a new front cover to promo it.

posted at 3:06 pm on April 21st, 2008 by Heather

Love it.
I think a Caucasian Jesus is more offensive. Shouldn’t it be? Jesus wasn’t white was he? Or was he?
I agree with Tim, you should have used it. I think the world is more than ready for this, the Church, well that may be another story. They kind of get caught up on stuff at times
Who says you’re in your own little world because you wear headphones? I think headphones represent music, music represents pop culture better than anything else. But that could just be my assumptions.

posted at 3:08 pm on April 21st, 2008 by Matthew Hawkins

It looks great to me and I’d hope your “hip” audience wouldn’t be offended by headphones Jesus.

posted at 3:18 pm on April 21st, 2008 by John

I don’t like it.

I think He should have sported the infamous white ear buds and some aviators.

posted at 3:25 pm on April 21st, 2008 by Will

It’s great. I’m not offended by it and doubt many of your readers would be as well. Of course, you have to consider future readers. So I understand the decision.

posted at 3:35 pm on April 21st, 2008 by Granata

The Church today needs to lighten up! Advertising is about getting the audience’ attention. This cover – offensive or not – will do just that. Hopefully people would go beyond the mere image and read the heart of the article. I would like to believe that Jesus would be sporting an ipod if walking our streets today in human form. Does that mean he’s not GOD? That He is or isn’t more relative to todays culture? It’s a thought provoking cover. It’s bold and daring. But then again Jesus didn’t sing Rock of Ages in the synagogue and read scripture from the King James Version of the Bible either. So perhaps we need to think this through some more. The stories he used and the lessons he taught were extreme! in His culture. The big whigs of the church conspired to get rid of him because of His contemporary-ism. I’m not supporting seemingly “offensive” art just for the sake of offense – but maybe it’s time to look deeper. Why would this be offensive… or why wouldn’t it be? Hmmmmm Any comments?

posted at 3:38 pm on April 21st, 2008 by KymPossible

I like it a lot, and don’t find it offensive. Good illustration provokes, and this one supports the question (“should the church engage pop culture?”) well.

I did a survey of depictions of Jesus in art – from the golden-haired Nordic Jesus to fully Soul-Glo’d Black Jesus. I like that we don’t have a photo of Him. Every culture looks through a different lens. Some emphasize power (Byzantine depictions); some suffering (Jamaican); some look a bit like he’s on Valium (European renderings). Actually, the chiaroscuro rendering here looks a bit Middle-Eastern, though I agree in general he would look less white.

@ Will: Yeah, buds are more “consumer”. This looks more like “DJ Jesus” or “Content creator Jesus”. I’m more offended by soporific, sanitized depictions of Jesus than anything (mostly western art).

DJ Jesus. I am so using that.

posted at 3:46 pm on April 21st, 2008 by Allan W.

@Kym and others, the Church today needs to get back to the Bible regarding images of the Rock Star Jesus:
1 Cor 11:14
Exodus 20:4
Isaiah 53:2b

posted at 3:53 pm on April 21st, 2008 by Robert

OK, really full muff headphones? Either Jesus is on a flight sporting his Bose noise cancellation gear or you need to actually move forward from 1985 and get some iPod ear buds. If you are going to be culturally relevant…

posted at 6:54 pm on April 21st, 2008 by Ken Holsinger

Not having read the article yet, it’s hard to give an educated opinion. It is interesting that the subject of the title is the Church (the Bride) but the subject of the artwork is Jesus (the Groom). In that sense, it seems like it doesn’t quite illustrate the point. If the article focuses on the bride’s attention to/involvement in pop culture, I think it was certainly the wrong cover. If the focus is more on how the church keeps trying to dress Jesus up like some chuck taylor-wearing, fad-following, emo-rocking pansy – then this cover was heading in the right direction

posted at 7:03 pm on April 21st, 2008 by Matt Donovan

I like it! It would have been very appropriate.

posted at 8:37 pm on April 21st, 2008 by MandoRon

not offended at all. love it. what do you think he’s listening to?

posted at 10:08 pm on April 21st, 2008 by micah

I’m still laughing over the image, not wanting to overspiritualize anything. On the other hand, I agree with Will…white earbuds much better than the Bose.

On the (almost) spiritual side, would Jesus be tuning out the culture around him? What’s playing on his ipod, anyway…angel music or some good Jewish jazz?

posted at 10:15 pm on April 21st, 2008 by Marla Saunders

Is it meant to be Jesus…?!? Yeah, I get it, but Jesus was Jewish, and came from the Middle East, so didn’t look like that anyway! I think it represents the idea well. There would have been no problem using it. I am more offended by a giant billboard on the highway that has a verse in the KJV version about condenmation, which has been placed by a church 2000km away! Gee – thanks to them, great for the way we express Go

posted at 12:43 am on April 22nd, 2008 by Graeme

I like the image, but also agree its better you didnt use it.

I don’t think he’s listening to music… he might be putting finishing touches on intro video for his church or editing a sermon soon be put on his church website.

posted at 12:57 am on April 22nd, 2008 by Jaco

I agree with the others who are more offended at Jesus looking like a white guy than sporting headphones. Can we get some good designers on “there is no beauty that we should desire Him” from Isaiah?

I also have to agree with julieh, though, that I don’t think a pop culture Jesus would really walk around with headphones on. I get the connect, but it does kind of negate the relational thing. Maybe a boombox on the shoulder instead of headphones?

posted at 7:16 am on April 22nd, 2008 by Lex

I’m quite sure he’s listening to DVNO by Justice!

posted at 9:17 am on April 22nd, 2008 by barton damer

I’m offended that Jesus dyed his beard pink. He’s more of a platinum blonde guy in my mind.

posted at 1:38 pm on April 22nd, 2008 by Matthew

Not offensive at all; but he’s gotta have earbuds. I figure he’s grooving to a little Herbie Hancock.

Great cover, great discussion and excellent topic.

posted at 1:41 pm on April 22nd, 2008 by beth

Love the cover.

While I get the objections of others that Jesus would not wear headphones because he was so relational, I do not agree. Jesus was very relational, but he didn’t spend all of his time with others. Maybe this is a PERFECT representation of how Jesus would spend some of his “alone time” in 21st Century.

posted at 1:51 pm on April 22nd, 2008 by Tim

I asked Scott to pull the picture since it didn’t look anything like me.

posted at 2:43 pm on April 22nd, 2008 by Tim Stevens

@ Tim – LoL.
–
Scott, I wasn’t offended but sometimes using caution is good. I love the classic headphones.

By the way, all of this reminds me of Sunday. I was sitting behind a gentleman who was listening to his music before the service began on his iPod. I leaned over and saw that he was listening to Korn.

posted at 3:30 pm on April 22nd, 2008 by Terrace Crawford

@ Allan W…DJ Jesus!!!…somebody please do some art with Him behind a table cupping one ear and spinning vinyl!

But make Him look Pakistani or it’s no good.

posted at 5:02 pm on April 22nd, 2008 by Will

Looks good to me–I think you should have used it (says the guy who works for a site with ’sucks’ in the title).

posted at 9:24 am on April 23rd, 2008 by Kevin D. Hendricks

I hear what you guys are saying about the lack of earbuds…but I think Jesus would be all about the fully uncompressed bass response that over-the-ears provide. I doubt he’d use iTunes either. Those songs sound awful on nice speakers/fones.

posted at 9:25 am on April 23rd, 2008 by matt

Not at ALL offended! The general masses — the “traditional church” advocates may have been offended — but then, they probably wouldn’t even take a look at progressive COLLIDE. Our own experiences in our “traditional New England Evangelical Congregational Church” with the media we now use regularly during our worship has been, likewise, mixed — from video clips that perfectly illustrate the message we hear both sides of the issue: the, “now I get it!” & “I CAN relate!” to “have we come to church just to see movies?” & “next, we’ll be offered popcorn as we come in the door!” [I must also interject… this isn’t a clear-cut generational thing — I, a member of the “baby-boomer” generation, am largely responsible for bringing most media to the services (locating clips, editing/formatting, projecting). We embrace technology as a means to reach our congregation & the “seekers” out there — I’m sure Christ would do the same!

posted at 10:43 am on April 23rd, 2008 by Sandy Wilson

Glad to see there’s lots of good discussion on this topic. However, I want to make a distinction. I think people DO get the point of this cover (haven’t read the mag yet). “Should the church engage/use/create pop culture?” is a great question, and this image is provocative enough to get me to read it.

The question, “would Jesus engage in pop culture, personally?” is a separate question. In spite of my affinity for “DJ Jesus” (great T-shirt!), I just don’t think Jesus would engage pop culture much.

Even as I make this stuff, I feel a real tug on me back in the direction of personal simplicity and silence. Jesus retreated to the wilderness to spend time with his Father, not meditate with music in his ears. His communion required silence, solitude, and concentration.

While I am immersed in and contribute to pop and visual culture every day, I don’t want to lose my grip on these holy disciplines. It’s a challenging dualism that I can’t resolve at the moment. This image brings that internal dialogue to the surface for me.

posted at 12:08 pm on April 23rd, 2008 by Allan W.

great artwork. it’s a chame it wasn’t used, but thanks for posting it regardless. helps create conversation and spurs on some ideas here in our creative arts ministry.

posted at 3:16 pm on April 23rd, 2008 by J-del

I Like it! Im not Offended by it. I believe Jesus would have used culture to show His power and Love to the world. Ever means possible. I like the design, but The headphones almost seem alittle outdated. I dont know Im just shooting it out there. It is definitely an eye catcher. I know if people saw it, most would be interested in reading it to see what it was about. Im sure most would read and see what Tim is talking about. I love what you guys do. Keep it up.

posted at 3:20 pm on April 23rd, 2008 by JON BRADLEY

[...] on top of you, each roar shakes your apartment just a little. I like to imagine dear, sweet, baby Jesus is just rocking out with his subwoofer. This also gives me precedent to justify my sub at 2am to my [...]

posted at 12:26 am on April 24th, 2008 by in the air tonight « 3rd and long

Frickin awesome. I have to make decisions like this on a weekly basis. Most of the time the graphics I design for our Sunday services don’t raise too many eyebrows but once in a while I like to push the envelope. Compared to some things I’ve had to not do, I think your cover is pretty tame and works great for the title. Here is one that got axed for me:

posted at 11:15 am on April 25th, 2008 by Clayton Borah

oops I guess html is not allowed. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2219/2315368080_495bf2bce2_m.jpg

posted at 11:16 am on April 25th, 2008 by Clayton Borah

subtly captures the irony of a church who will be simultaneously offended by this and yet do this very thing – much imagery there to consider from cultural relevance to technology’s inherent isolationism to the cultural non-conformist who becomes an icon of the very culture he “detests” – I think the image of Jesus is striking and shock-value is good; but it is misleading because the question is about the church and, unfortunately, I’m not sure our world can equate the two

posted at 12:32 pm on April 25th, 2008 by kdekker

[...] to everyone who participated in the discussion following my “The Cover We Didn’t Use” post, which featured an iconic image of Christ plus some headphones to convey an idea from Tim [...]

posted at 12:35 pm on May 5th, 2008 by Collide Magazine » Blog Archive » The Cover We Did Use

Church Media Group, Inc.