The Sacred Sandwich



Print This Post Print This Post


  • Comment by Robert — June 14, 2011 @ 11:40 am

    Oncetuponatime, alongtimeago, “homeboy” was illustrated to me as “you’re one of us, you’re one for life & we’ll die so you live” … of course, they’d also steal, kill or any other thing.
    We’ve got to be careful about using “foreign” language lest we encumber the Gospel of Truth with meanings it doesn’t have. Just because a term has common parlance does not mean it is devoid of its previous “foreign” meaning.
    Yes, Jesus died that I could live … and yes, I will die so He might be honored … but He gave no authority to me to kill in His name, or steal, or “any other thing”.
    So … pass the wool.

  • Comment by Adam Cummings — October 17, 2011 @ 12:39 pm

    I do not agree at all that what matters is the heart, as some suggest in the comments here. I recall back when I was a kid… ahem, like, a few years ago (some would still call me a kid)… Carmen singing, “Who’s in the house? JC!” I think it’s extremely disrespectful. He is your friend, yes. Your homeboy? No. He is your benevolent king, full of mercy and grace. Would you presume on a royal king that showed you favor and brought you into His house, walk up to him, slap him on the butt and cackle, “Wuttup, homeboy?” If you say it’s in the “heart” of whomever is wearing such a shirt, then you’ve succumbed to the postmodern idea that there is no real meaning in words. So, respectfully, that should be considered before making too many comments of that nature. No offense to the commenters. All love intended. 🙂 But, I’ve seen this crowd. I’ve been in a prayer group where a guy with this mentality prayed, “Lord, be coo. Just hang with us today. Amen!” Trust me; the Lord was NOT pleased with this prayer. Very good post. I’m not against wearing Christian items at all. But, I am against that being your only Christianity, and I am against treating Jesus like some dawg of yours.

    Remembering King Jesus,

  • Comment by filthy dog — December 13, 2012 @ 1:03 pm

    If the tee shirt was not disrespectful but more tasteful eg: a simple cross and a scripture like JOHN 11:30 I and my Father are one. would that be acceptable and prehaps be a more positive debate ,I wear several such tee shirts , I choose them carefully and my reason is if someone reads the message displayed , it may prick there conscious or encourage them to faith ?

  • Comment by Juan Jeanniton — April 19, 2013 @ 12:20 pm

    Dear Sirs,

    I am glad that you have brought up this issue! These modern innovators who say “Jesus is my Homeboy” (i.e. on a level with one’s worldly friends and casual “chums”, or in any manner like unto THEIR sort of casual informal “friendship”) need to be told EXACTLY what an American Orthodox rabbi told his congregation in 1867!

    ‘Orthodoxy is not that unbending, unyielding, bigoted opposition to improvement which our opponents represent it; it understands perfectly well what the spirit of the age requires. But it can yield nothing to public clamour, nor to the demands that seekers of innovation may make’ that public worship be willing, ready, and able to relax or abrogate any of its distinctive fundamentals in order to ‘accomdate itself to every phase of history. Such a religion would be none at all.’ – Isaac Leeser, Discourses on the Jewish religion – Volume 9 – Page 90.

    Yes, Jesus is meek and lowly in heart and affable unto us. But ALL the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord. The true Christian faith is that Jesus Christ is very God, no less than that He is very Man. And we must REVERENCE and FEAR Jesus AS GOD. St. John Chrysostom understood this! Yet modern Christians of the 21st century wanted to behave towards Jesus like these fallen Romanoid “christians” of St. John Chrysostom’s own ARCH-DIOCESE of the 4th century AD, professing faithful attendance to the Church’s sacred meetings, assemblies, and synaxes, dared PRESUME to behave!

    To wit, these very same people would not dare to RUN THEIR MOUTHS or even whisper anything nor even privately and quietly greet their friends when attending a worldly heathen spectacle of a buffoon moving to laughter, or a raunchy meretricious abandoned harlot dancing for the entertainment of the male members of the audience! Yet they raise such a TUMULT and CRY in Church!

    ‘John Chrysostom in Antioch (before 398), (24) Ambrose in Milan (339-397), (25) Augustine (d. 430) in North Africa, (26) and Caesarius of Arles (503-542) (27) all bemoan the alcoholic vigils of their clergy and flocks. Augustine even had to admonish the newly baptized youngsters not to show up drunk at vespers on Easter evening! (28)

    Chrysostom in Constantinople (398-404) accuses his congregation of roaming around during church services; of either ignoring the preacher (30) or pushing and shoving to get nearer to hear him, (31) when not bored or downright exasperated with him;(32) of talking, especially during the scripture lessons ; (33) of leaving before the services are over; (34) and, in general, of causing an uproar and acting as if they were in the forum or barbershop-or worse still, in a tavern or whorehouse (35)-his words, not mine.

    The women cause distractions by the way they deck themselves out in finery, makeup, and jewelry. (36) The youth, whom Chrysostom calls “filth rather than youth,” spend their time in church laughing, joking, talking, he says. (37) The large crowd at the Easter Vigil is more a mob than a congregation, he tells us. They come to church like they go to the baths or the forum, without devotion or spiritual profit. “It would be better to stay at home,” the exasperated Chrysostom concludes. (38)

    The way the sexes behave in church just exacerbated the general scandal of church-going in Constantinople, according to Chrysostom. The presider greets those in church with “peace,” but the reality he has to face is more, he says, like “all-out warfare” everywhere. “Great is the tumult, great the confusion here in church! Our assemblies differ in nothing from a tavern, so loud is the laughter, so great the disturbance, just as in the baths, in the markets, with everyone shouting and causing an uproar!… [In church] we behave more impudently than dogs, and pay as much respect to God as to a whore!… The church … is no different from the forum… nor probably even from the stage, from the way the women who assemble here adorn themselves more wantonly than the unchaste ones there! Hence we see that many profligates are enticed here by them, and if anyone is trying or intending to corrupt a woman, I suppose no place seems better than the church! (39)

    “For indeed,” he continues, “if one could see what is said by men and women at each synaxis, you would see that their talk is filthier than excrement!” (40) Chrysostom says things were so bad they needed a wall in church to keep the men and women apart! (41) Similarly, Augustine in North Africa complains that in church the men move in and out, chattering and making dates with their lady friends, (42) (as indeed Augustine himself did before his conversion, according to his own Confessions).’

    Yet we are repeating the very SAME mistakes! And vulgarity in the affairs of religion can never be religious or pious! Vulgarity in religious and ecclesiastical affairs is INTRINSICALLY and ESSENTIALLY IRRELIGIOUS and IMPIOUS!

Comments are now closed.