Replies

more an observation of the use of it for a questionable commecrial purpose.

how does the excercise of one's religion -- real or alleged -- qualify as a "questionable commercial" purpose? I mean, if he wasn't promising that people buying his paintings would get into heaven sooner would be able to stay out of hell no matter what they did, what's the problem?

Well, let me say it this way.

First of all, it is not against the law to market things in any way one wishes. As a capitalist, I support the free market and say more power too him. Whatever he wants to do.

However, as a Christian I am uncomfortable with marketing basically secular materials to other Christians on the basis of "Hey look! I'm a Christian too!" We do that kind of thing in politics all the time. Think John Kerry suddenly hanging out in a Catholic Church.

Now, if Kinkade was interviewed and happened to mention that he is a Christian and is inspired by his faith...no problem. That is why President Bush's faith has never bothered me. He has pretty much used it to explain his world view.

I guess for me it is about purpose. If it is used as a PLOY, I believe from a spiritual/moral perspective that is wrong. If it is an explanation of world view, that is a different issue all together. And if it is just about "marketing" well, its a free market and people are free to do what they see fit.

I just find it disingenuous and shallow. Christianity is not an exclusive buying club where you display your membership card at the door and leave with giant jars of artichoke hearts.

"how does the excercise of one's religion -- real or alleged -- qualify as a "questionable commercial" purpose?"

Because I don't believe Kincaid's work is intended to be a tribute to the glory of our Lord. It is intended instead to make money for Kincaid. The use of religion is OK for the first premise, but not the second, IMO.

Beyond that, it seems questionable whether Kincaid is a good Christian, or whether his work reflects well on Christianity.