Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hand, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and wipe them with a towel that was wrapped around him. -John 13:1-5

As it happens, my most recent blog included a reference to an ad from last year’s Superbowl under the aegis of the “He Get’s Us” series. My topic this time is pulled from the second installment from the same source. This hugely expensive endeavour is the brainchild of a group of “progressive Christians” who have taken on the onerous task of making Jesus relatable. Among the heresies they perpetrated last year was a perversion of Jesus as a refugee to make the case for open borders. Please check out my previous blog where I break down what they got wrong.

While I don’t watch the Superbowl or the ads, I too heard about this year’s installment on one of my regular podcasts. This particular ad featured a montage of individuals that we are to assume are Christians – although a frocked priest is the only individual directly linked to the church – washing feet. The recipients of this gesture include a black youth (tended to by a policeman), people of various ethnicities, socioeconomic levels, age stratifications, and apparent sexual orientations. One washed the feet of a woman outside of an abortion clinic and the priest was tending to a feminized male.

The commercial ends with, “Jesus didn’t teach hate. He washed feet. He gets us.” It then closes with “Who is my neighbour;” a clear hearkening back to the parable of the Good Samaritan. This postscript shows another montage of images from similarly selected demographics to drive the spike home.

While this effort is framed as an outreach to unbelievers, the unmistakable intent was a ham-fisted attempt to admonish Christians into being more tolerant and accepting. As such, my critique will be more blunt than if it was merely a sincere, but misguided effort to witness to unbelievers.

First, what they got right is that Jesus washed feet and taught that his followers should do likewise. He also clearly taught we are to love our neighbours. Both of these callings have contexts that are vital to a fulsome understanding and therefore appropriate application. I happen to take very seriously the duty of the believer to follow the example of our Saviour without equivocation, but to also make sure I am rightly dividing the word of God and not guilty of promoting heterodoxies.

To move past the superficial veneer meant to indict against Bible-believing followers of Christ and sidestep a familiar tactic of progressives to retrofit a worldview through the corruption of the true teaching for a deception. Let us proceed:

(Jesus) came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?” Jesus answered him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.” Peter said to him, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.” Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and head!” Jesus said to him, “The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you.” For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, “Not all of you are clean.” – John 13:6-11

Right away we see that Jesus didn’t want any misunderstanding of what he was doing as he gently chides Peter for failing to grasp the big picture. For us to better understand the context, we need to start with the rationale for the washing of feet.

The reason we in the modern day west do not wash feet isn’t even because it is a cultural practice, but because we don’t walk for miles in sandals and thus require such a process. I’m not a biblical scholar, but am pretty certain that Jesus was calling his followers – and by extension, us – to not be too proud to show loving acts of servitude for one another. For us to actually wash feet of those who visit where there is no such need would be a mere affectation.

We also know that this was an act of humble service and not a larger commentary on the need for overall physical or even, as Jesus hints, spiritual cleansing. He washed their feet because their feet – and only their feet – were dirty. Peter seems to analogize this to suggest that being washed by the Lord requires a complete cleaning and Jesus picks up the analogy by referring to the deceitful intent of Judas. To be cleansed in the full meaning required Christ’s bodily sacrifice at Golgotha.

So, when we get through the trappings, Jesus is directing the disciples to humbly submit to acts of service to one another through leading by example.

When (Jesus) had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he said to them, “Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled. ‘He who at my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.” – John 13:12-20

This final section establishes with certainty that he was calling his disciples to be humble themselves in service to one another. As this took place near the end of Christ’s earthly ministry and he was preparing the apostles to carry out his work, it suggests to me that he wanted to remind them that it was not about them and that they were not to seek their own edification and this gesture was a humbling reminder.

Note also that the disciples were not called to indiscriminately wash the feet of all with whom they crossed paths (i.e., the all-encompassing scriptural definition of one’s neighbour which is tacked on at the end of the commercial). The parable of the Good Samaritan was to demonstrate that Christians are to show compassion to all regardless of their station or beliefs. The priest and Levite that pass by the injured man are failing to show the love of Christ because they see themselves as above or having no obligation to act with compassion. The Samaritan is rightly emulating the call of all believers by meeting the needs of the man. Keep in mind that Jesus tells this parable after a man rightly recites the greatest commandment(s) and wants to know the definition of the neighbour we are to love as ourselves.

The Samaritan did not submit to the injured man, but met his needs – just as one would want someone to help them when we are in a difficult situation. Jesus was not submitting to sinners who reject him, but doing an act of service to his elect who embraced him as the Messiah. We know that from the early church on, Christians have been known for their love for others, including those who treat us with hostility. On the other hand, in Acts we know that fellow believers held their possessions in common, but they did not just hand over what they had to unbelievers. There is a different relationship based on a different calling. This is why we are to endure persecution and even show love for our persecutors, but not submit to them as our masters.

Luke 15 contains further proof of the relationship between the Christ-follower and unrepentant sinner.

Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.” So he told them this parable. What man of you having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. An when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbours, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost. Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” – Luke 15:1-7

Those acquainted with this passage know that Jesus goes on to reference two other parables of losses – one being that of the lost coin and the final and most beloved of all, the prodigal son. The theme runs through all and therefore can be addressed collectively. – Luke 15:8-32

The lost sheep wanders away from the rest that are under the care and attention of the shepherd. The lost coin is deemed to have value to the woman who lost it and she searches until the coin is found and she celebrates the recovery. The prodigal son leaves to live an indulgent lifestyle where he wants the benefits provided by his father, but rejects his rules. The son learns the shallowness of pursuing decadence and selfish desires which brings him to contrition. It is a story of repentance and the depth of love freely offered by a loving father that allows him (as he allows us) to chart his own destiny with the commensurate consequences – either good or bad – depending on our decision to continue on our own way or repent.

I had the privilege of counselling a family where the circumstances bore a strong similarity. A teenaged daughter was rebelling against her mother by using drugs, but relying on her home as a base she could return to, thus enabling her to abuse drugs in relative safety. The mother was clearly not in control, but by allowing this to continue gave a false sense that she was protecting her daughter from greater harm arising from her daughter’s self-destructive choices. The mother agreed, with much reluctance, to not allow her daughter to return until she was ready to break from her habit. This decision was extremely hard, but was borne of love since permitting the status quo would salve her mother’s conscience while allowing her daughter to slowly kill herself.

It took several months with the daughter having been charged with assault, turned to prostitution, and watched a friend die, she hit bottom and came home changed to find her mother welcome her with open arms. She turned her life around and was baptized last year. She has been increasingly taken her faith more seriously and her demeanor has completely changed.

The theme in each of the parables is redemption. Lest anyone question that the lost coin is not similarly about redemption, the parable is closed off by Jesus with: “…I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” The prodigal son actually states that the son had essentially died and was made alive again. Scripture makes clear that we are dead in our sin and therefore, without God’s gift of grace, we perish in a state of unrepentance that will lead to an eternity in hell.

As for the story of the Good Samaritan, it tells us of our Christian duty to care for others as a reflection of our unconditional love – not for one’s sinful state – but their inherent value as persons. We are to show the love of Christ not by rewriting God’s perfect moral standards or confusing the love of the individual with an affirmation that they can continue to sin free of any condemnation.

Going back to the commercial, we are being treated to a gospel that says the highest virtue is to celebrate and lift up others in their sinful state without the promise of salvation. I hate to tell you, but no one is going to feel convicted that they need to turn to Christ when the world and the church is giving them the message – you do you, and we will venerate your self-serving lifestyle choices, victimhood grievances, and similar prodigal paths that will inevitably lead to eternal punishment.

Still not convinced? Let me heap on a few more burning coals:

Imagine your friend was cheating on his wife and sought your unconditional love and non-judgmental attitude as challenging his actions would harm your relationship. What if it was your spouse cheating on you? Would you admire the Christian virtue of the friend you have in common for keeping this news from you? Is adultery a sexual sin that should be condemned while other more socially approved sins can be ignored? What standard are you applying?

What if your friend is having sex with their child – maybe even your own child? Can you judge this sexual sin as wrong if the child or preteen is okay with it because your friend makes them feel accepted and loved? What makes this uniquely sinful but not the full spectrum of what God calls out as sexual sin?

Similarly, if you are a professing believer and have pre-marital sex, is that okay since society has “evolved” to the point that it is normalized? Does this change God’s standard and teaching? If you have done this, have you committed a sin for which you need forgiveness? If your answer is no, what are you basing your justification for overriding biblical teaching? If this is wrong, but not acts of homosexuality, what qualifies you to redraw the lines?

It seems to me that many professing Christians see sin as subjective and is only true if you profess belief in Christ. To believe such a thing would nullify the relevance of scripture altogether. We did not need a saviour to suffer and die on the cross for behaviour that is only true for some and, if determining sin is subjective, malleable, and based on what is approved by the spirit of the age, what does your confession of faith even mean?

As to the other demographics, none of those depicted in the ad are presumed to have had a transformative experience of accepting Christ. The ones doing the foot washing are assumedly acting out their Christian faith by doing an act of servitude to members of an identity group simply because of their group association. More often than not, the intent is to demonstrate one is more virtuous than devout Christians who insist that moral standards come from God alone and that it is pride and hubris to think that you can out-love God by being more tolerant and accepting.

As it happens, I heard today as I was polishing off this blog a video from a pastor who put out a video to refute these heresies using far fewer words than it took me. It is very powerful and gets to the heart of what it really means to show the love of Christ. This reimagining shows a former witch, abortionist, porn star, member of the KKK, new age guru, jihadist, gang member, etc. who gave up their sinful lives and were redeemed by Christ. The tagline: “Jesus doesn’t just get us. He saves us. Such were some of you.” Please check it out here.

When Billy Graham started preaching, he reportedly came away from one of his gatherings troubled by the underwhelming response. A pastor friend pointed out that he had failed to  present the gospel. From that day on, he made sure that he never excluded the central gospel message whenever he spoke. He would end his services with an alter call accompanied by the song, “Just as I Am.” This was not meant to be an affirmation that we could live as we wish and God will accept us in our sin; but that his grace is sufficient to cover the most debased heart that is willing to turn away from our prodigal life and run into his arms.