Sunday, during the Super Bowl, there was a commercial produced by the campaign “He Gets Us.” The commercial showed people washing the feet of a woman seeking an abortion, a transgender man/woman, an immigrant, etc. The purpose was to say that Jesus didn’t hate but rather washed feet. This commercial has received praise but seemingly much more hate from both conservative and progressive Christians alike on all social media platforms. 

(Listen to this article instead of reading it, here)

For the record, I do not typically engage with the hotly debated Christian topics of the day, but rather, generally, allow the emotionality to calm before responding. I have found that it is usually unwise to address an issue in the heat of the moment and to allow the culture to dictate what I am and am not going to talk about. However, the more I saw people discussing the issue, the more I felt the need to respond with, hopefully, a more balanced approach. 

My goal is to both critique and appreciate all sides of opinions about the commercial while also trying to encourage a path forward for Christianity in America that is more united than divided. Unfortunately, the debates over the commercial have demonstrated the deep divide that currently characterizes American Christianity. 

That said, here are a few issues I would like to address. 

Jesus Only Washed the Disciples’ Feet

It is true that Jesus only washed feet once and that of the disciples (John 13:1–20). However, this does not mean the story is not applicable to how we are to interact with and treat our neighbor. Jesus says in verse 14, “So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.” The point of Jesus’s action is to show his disciples how they ought to treat their neighbor. They are to become servants of one another. 

The more important question is whether Jesus’s point should be applied to people one might believe are living in sin (however one might define sinful activity). I would argue yes. Yes, we are called to serve (metaphorically to wash the feet of) all people, even if we believe them to be living in sin. For Jesus did not merely wash his faithful disciples’ feet, but even Judas’s feet. John goes out of his way to begin this scene by telling the reader that “the devil” had already entered Judas’s heart (John 13:2). John most definitely does this to make the point that Jesus’s foot washing included his betrayer. 

I believe this is a significant theme in the ministry of Jesus. My master’s thesis was on the Lord’s Supper in Luke’s Gospel as a culmination of Jesus’s table fellowship with tax collectors and sinners. In this work, I argue that, in Luke’s Gospel, while Jesus does call sinners to repentance, their sin is not a reason for exclusion from the table, even the Lord’s Table. This is demonstrated in Jesus’s table fellowship throughout the Gospel but most notably with Judas, the sinner of sinners in Luke’s Gospel, inclusion at the Last Supper (the same context as John’s foot washing). 

In Luke’s Gospel, the actions of Jesus with tax collectors and sinners contrast the beliefs of the Pharisees (i.e., the religious devout). The Pharisees condemned Jesus for eating with them, while Jesus says this is the very reason he has come (Luke 5:32). Therefore, if washing the feet of or eating with a “sinner” is considered an approval of their actions, then we are acting just like the Pharisees, and Jesus is guilty as charged. However, if washing feet and holding table fellowship is an expression of love that will hopefully lead to a call to repentance (as is the case with Zacchaeus in Luke 19:1–10), then we are following in the footsteps of Jesus. 

I don’t want to discount the importance of repentance, nor do I want my belief in repentance to become a barrier to my ability to love and serve my neighbor. As difficult as it might be, we must balance our belief in repentance with our calling to wash one another’s feet. 

Could the Money Have Been Spent Better?

Another important question that has been asked about the advertisement is whether the money spent on a commercial supporting love and inclusion could have been better spent on initiatives that actually provide love and inclusion. This answer is complex, and I’m unsure if there is a right or wrong answer. I tend to be biased towards the side of action over words, but I also understand that there are times to show Jesus through words and images and times to show Jesus through action. I think it is easy for us to sit back and critique how the money was used, and we might be right in doing so, but I think it is also important to celebrate, at least cautiously, the fact that Jesus was shown to millions of people. 

Who Made/Funded the Project? 

I have actually found this point quite interesting. People I know on the conservative side of the debate do not believe the commercial was an accurate portrait of Jesus. Therefore, they do not believe the message or the people behind it are genuinely Christian. People I know on the progressive side of the debate have discovered that the people and organization behind the He Gets Us campaign are theologically conservative/evangelical and are upset because they disapprove of the exclusive nature of much evangelical theology. So, in the end, no one seems to like the creators. 

I would remind everyone of Paul’s words in Philippians 1:15–18, “Some proclaim Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from goodwill. These proclaim Christ out of love, knowing that I have been put here for the defense of the gospel; the others proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but intending to increase my suffering in my imprisonment. What does it matter? Just this, that Christ is proclaimed in every way, whether out of false motives or true; and in that I rejoice.”

Why Are We So Mad? 

Ultimately, my biggest confusion is why everyone is so mad and/or scared. For those who agree with the message, why are you so mad about who funded the campaign? If you disagree with how the money was spent, and you may be correct, why are you so angry even though people heard about Jesus? 

If you disagree with the message, why are you so afraid of Christians believing something different than you? Though you might have liked a mention of repentance or don’t believe the story of Jesus’s foot washing was applied correctly, is it really that evil to present a message that perhaps we should love and serve people different than us and those with whom we disagree? Is the entire church really at risk because during the Super Bowl the suggestion was made that we should wash the feet of someone who got an abortion or someone who is transgender? If that message is enough to bring the whole enterprise down, perhaps our churches have replaced Jesus Christ as the cornerstone. 

Conclusion

So, here’s my plea. First, as a universal body of believers, we would find a way to have productive conversations, agree to disagree, and ultimately find unity within diversity. That we would model Paul’s words, “Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” (Phil 4:8). 

Second, that we would all pursue imitating the life of Jesus that was lived in perfect harmony with God. Rather than our first step being debating the finer points of Christian ethics or what Paul might have meant by this passage or that in order to build ourselves up and look down upon opposing theologies, let our Christian lives begin and end with imitating the life of Jesus. 

By: Spencer Shaw