Party Attire

From the installation "Party Time: Re-imagine America". Yinka Shonibare MBE

Matthew 22:1-14

And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: “The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son,  and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.”’ But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’ So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests. But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. So he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

The end result of the contemporary art of Yinka Shonibare and the storytelling of Jesus Christ are identical: nice clothes and a big meal. They both weave narratives in diverse media that culminate with a scene whose focal points involve ornate costumes surrounding an elaborate banquet table. To understand how the two separately came to corresponding images independently one must understand the cultural context of both creators. Both freely reference their personal ethnic traditions but show the listener/viewer it's transcultural and transchronological implications. Both Jesus and Yinka were sharing timeless and global stories. Understanding the context of their nice clothes and big meal stories will also shed light on the meaning of all of their work.


How to Blow up Two Heads at Once (Ladies), Yinka Shonibare, MBE

The Artist

Yinka Shonibare is like many of the other successful artists of the YBA (Young British Artists) generation. He was born in London and received his MFA from Goldsmiths, University of London and has met astounding success being exhibited in the Venice Biennial, Smithsonian Institution, and being considered for a Turner Prize. Yet while a student one of his professors challenged the authenticity of his artwork. He asked Yinka why he wasn't creating "authentic African art." You see, Yinka was born in London but his parents were Nigerian immigrants and he spent portions of his childhood in the United Kingdom and Lagos, Nigeria. In contemporary times it may be understood as offensive for a non-Black professor to tell his Black student that his artwork isn't Black enough. Yinka's identity was not the one dimensional flat character that onlookers assumed it to be. He was Black but he was also Black British and the conception of identity worldwide was changing from something static to something dynamic. But this was the 80's and a young Yinka Shonibare humored his instructor. He went around town looking for "African" things to incorporate into his artwork. By 1994 he settled on the colorful Batik print clothing that is popular in Western Africa. By this point the colorful Batik prints were recognized worldwide by Black Africans, Black African immigrants in the West, Blacks from the African Diaspora and non-Black/non-Africans alike as the "African" look. Yet the history of Batik print was a little more intricate than the monolithic cultural notion that surrounds it. Batik is worn by Africans but it is not African itself. It is an Indonesian wax resist dye method that allows multiple colors to be printed on fabric. yet it was the Dutch who adopted this method and created the mass produced market in West Africa. Their factories in the Netherlands and Manchester, England churned out this print on American cotton (picked by Black American slaves from the African Diaspora) to clothe buyers in Nigeria. In this ornate global market Europe was creating the symbol of African identity. Yinka started creating scenes of Victorian opulence where the costumes (designed in the height of European historical fashion) are all created from Batik print cloth. These works comedically critiqued European and African notions of cultural, racial and national homogeneity. It also discussed colonialism, post-colonialism and the centuries old phenomenon of globalization. All of these cultural, historic and contemporary considerations are tied into the context of Yinka's nice clothes and big meal.


Three Graces, Yinka Shonibare, MBE

The Setting

Jesus' parable of the Wedding Banquet (known as a few other names) in Matthew 22:1-14 is similar to many of Jesus' other parables. The story is a sermon through narrative and symbols. The symbols refer to parties in Jesus' immediate first century context, yet they have lasting implications for following Christ in a contemporary setting. However mare than any other parable, Matthew 22:1-14 may have the most cultural considerations that need explanation to the reader. The details of wedding rituals in Jesus' day are key to understanding the symbols of Jesus' parable. First of all the marriage process had two parts, it is still the same today in traditional Jewish weddings. Wikipedia explains it this way:

"Technically, the Jewish wedding process has two distinct stages: kiddushin (sanctification or dedication, also called erusin, betrothal in Hebrew) and nissuin (marriage), when the couple start their life together. The first stage prohibits the woman to all other men, requiring a religious divorce (get) to dissolve, and the final stage permits the couple to each other. The ceremony that accomplishes nisuin is known as chuppah.
Today, erusin/kiddushin occurs when the groom gives the bride a ring or other object of value with the intent of creating a marriage. There are differing opinions as to which part of the ceremony constitutes nissuin/chuppah; they include standing under the canopy - itself called a chuppah - and being alone together in a room (yichud). While historically these two events could take place as much as a year apart, they are now commonly combined into one ceremony.^"

The last line is critical for our understanding of Jesus' parable: "historically these two events could take place as much as a year apart." So the community would become aware of the marriage long before what we understand as a "wedding ceremony" would take place. So like the parable, the guests would receive an invite long before the wedding and then be alerted again when the wedding was about to occur. Here's the kicker: nobody knew when the wedding would occur before hand and when they did, it would be immediate. Remember Jesus' parable of the Ten Virgins? It is based on the idea that they do not know when the bridegroom will arrive. He could show up at any time and they would have to be ready for the wedding to occur at any moment. This was the common practice. Not only were brides expected to be ready for a wedding at a moment's notice, so were the invited guests. So in Matthew 22:1-14, when the servants go out to announce the wedding the second time, it isn't an announcement of a wedding later on that year, later on that week or later on that day. The announcement was for a wedding that was happening now. The expectation was for the guests to drop everything and come now! So what was the guest to do who was in the middle of doing farm work or sleeping and had no formal attire on? Weddings in Jesus' time not only provided special clothing for the bride and the groom but also for each guest. It is like a fancy restaurant that requires that all male diners wear a jacket. For those who don't have a jacket, the restaurant provides one. The immediate cost of the banquet and clothing comes at great expense to the family that throws the wedding, therefore it is understandable that they would expect all invited parties to attend. Jesus' parable illustrating the kingdom of heaven as a wedding banquet then comes with the underlying themes of costliness, family and duty that all of his original listeners would understand. That is also the theme that belies the message to the present day reader. All of these cultural, historic and contemporary considerations are tied into the context of Jesus' nice clothes and big meal.



Big Boy, Yinka Shonibare MBE

The Story

The context of culture is key to gleaning meaning. So now that we understand the significance of fancy attire and elaborate feasts in the Anglo-Nigerian and Palestinian Jewish context, let's consider the meaning of them symbolically in Jesus' parable. It may not surprise you that the wedding of the King's Son is a reference to the marriage of Christ (the Son of God) to his people, the Church (known as the Bride of Christ). Throughout Scripture there have always been references to the relationship between Divinity and the Elect. God and Israel are often referred to as a married couple... often in a bad marriage. Yet the consummation of God's union with His people comes through His Son's self sacrificial ransom of them. And the People that the Son saves and takes as his bride is not only Israel, but the Elect among all the world. So when we see the servants announcing the Son's marriage in the beginning of the parable, it is an announcement of a kiddushin . It is the Prophets declaring that God's people have been betrothed or promised to Him. He has taken Israel to be His people and they take Him to be their God. This kiddushin is a sanctifying act. It testifies that there is yet a future date when God will ceremonially bind himself to the fullness of His people by revealing His fullness in the Messiah. So when the servants announce the wedding the second time, it is John the Baptist preaching that the wedding banquet/kingdom of God is at hand/now. Collectively these servants were rejected and killed. Those who murdered the prophets are punished by the destruction of their city (a less than veiled reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and all other previous destruction and diaspora by foreign invaders). Then the King asks the servants (the Apostles) to invite any and everybody to the wedding banquet. This is a reference to the admittance of Gentiles into God's people but also the poor, the sinful, the marginalized and anyone else whom the now judged religious leadership had failed to present the message of Mercy too. It is the open call of Grace. Yet the open call of Grace also comes with a covering of Grace. This is the wedding garment that the one wedding guest has neglected to wear. St. Augustine was the first expositor to point out that these garments were provided by the wedding party free of charge by the banquet host. He also saw the wedding clothes as symbolic of charity (works of unconditional love). Martin Luther agreed that the wedding garments had been provided for the guest but thought that the garment represented Christ himself (as our spiritual covering). John Calvin also had ideas about what the provision of the wedding clothes symbolized. In true Reformation fashion he focused it around the notion of faith and works:

"As to the wedding garment, is it faith, or is it a holy life? This is a useless controversy; for faith cannot be separated from good works, nor do good works proceed from any other source than from faith."

 I like to think that it is symbolic of the provision of holiness. Since Hebrews 12:14 says:

"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord"

But then upon looking at the verse again, maybe it is holiness and peace with all men. Whether this covering is charity, faith, works, peace, holiness or Christ himself, I think that we can make the same conclusion. God has freely provided that which he requires. Ultimately the wedding garment is Grace, a free and unmerited gift. Those who have been invited to the banquet that is the kingdom of God have been given the Grace of charity, faith, works, peace, holiness and Christ himself to be covered in. All of the context of Grace is tied into God's nice clothes and big meal.



Scramble for Africa, Yinka Shonibare MBE

“For many are called, but few are chosen.”

The Royal invite

Politically Yinka Shonibare sees himself as a Republican. That is not to be confused with the American concept of a Republican as opposed to a Democrat in the United Sate's two party system. In the British context, a Republican is opposed to the Monarchy. A British Republican is an advocate of a Republic without the trappings (even ceremonial) of being governed by a Monarch. Yet Yinka Shonibare himself is part of the overall trappings of the British Monarchy. You may have noticed that on each image I have typed his name as "Yinka Shonibare MBE." The "MBE" stands for "Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire". It is "the most junior and most populous order of chivalry in the British and other Commonwealth honours systems. It was established on 4 June 1917 by King George V," In 2004 Yinka was given this honor from the Queen for his service to the United Kingdom. The irony of receiving an honor from the empire was not lost on this Republican artist who critiques the evils of colonialism. yet in an interview Yinka shared that he was wooed by the grandeur of the monarchy whilst in the palace to receive honors from the monarch. Receiving a gift from a Monarch is hard to refuse. The conclusion of Jesus' parable ends with a notation about receiving a royal invite and gift: "For many are called, but few are chosen.” The parable of Matthew 22:1-14 centers around obedience to the King. The invite to the wedding is a command to attend. But solely focusing on this aspect will lead to the subtle overall truth behind the royal invite: it symbolizes friendship with the King. The guests have been given a gift by the Monarch. It is a very costly gift (for the King) that comes with a duty (for the guest). Yet all relationships (especially a friendship) come with those terms of gift and duty. Receiving a gift from a Monarch is hard to refuse, yet some do. That is the message of Jesus' story: Grace is free, Grace should be accepted, Grace is of ten rejected, Grace demands changes and Grace provides for that change. Many have been called t Grace, few responded, Some of those who verbally responded did not respond in their heart with change and therefore will not be chosen. The unstated ending of this parable is an invite. You have been called to dine with the King. What are you going to wear?



Dressing Down, Yinka Shonibare MBE

Framing Sheep

Away from the Flock, Damien Hirst

John 10:1-10

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the doorkeeper opens

When we look at or imagine sheep, we see more than sheep. We see sweaters in the making. We see counting devices that act as sleeping aids. We see dinner. We see cuddly creatures that should be cartoonized and turned into stuffed animal dolls for children. When I look at a sheep I see someone with the same hair texture as me. We project every image onto the animal except that of the animal. Scripture is no different in it's treatment of sheep. Sheep are used as a symbol of humility, obedience, innocence, etc. In today's scripture reading Jesus used sheep as a metaphor.The contemporary artist Damien Hirst used real sheep...not a painting of a sheep, not a sculpture nor a performance piece about the idea of a sheep but an actual dead sheep. Yet he even found a metaphor in it for the human experience, stating that it was like "“that failure of trying so hard to do something that you destroy the thing that you’re trying to preserve.” In an interview with Mirta D’Argenzio he revealed that "the title came after Hirst completed the work and observed the 'tragic beauty' of the animal. The lamb, identifiable within Christian iconography as Jesus, has been separated by death from the living so that, 'you kind of feel sorry for it.'” Christian imagery has long used the image of a sheep for Jesus, echoing the "Lamb of God" image presented in the New Testament. However, in this scripture reading Jesus isn't referring to himself as the sheep but to us as the sheep.



Away from the Flock, Damien Hirst

Preserving Sheep

When Damien Hirst first displayed this piece (and others like it), he and his fellow YBA's (Young British Artists) were catapulted to fame. This artwork was bold, confrontational and controversial. Yet one cannot argue that what he was doing was new. He was preserving a dead animal in formaldehyde. Taxidermists and high school biology students have been doing some variation of this for generations. But Damien Hirst took preserving a sheep and made it Art. Hirst use of the formaldehyde barrier protected the dead sheep from being exposed to decay. Jesus opens up his parabolic metaphor by making obvious statements that everyone would agree with then using that common ground to make a deeper assertion. They all center around the argument that the best way to protect precious possessions is to put it in a protective barrier. Everyone would agree with this because everyone does this. To the Ming Dynasty of China it's precious possessions to protect was it's people. So it reinforced and completed a series of walls to protect them against Mongol invaders. We now know it as the Great Wall of China. In the Wild West frontier era of the United States cattle rustlers were a constant threat to rancher's primary investments. Then Joseph Glidden invented barbed wire as a way to protect and contain livestock. To the ancient Palestinian Jews that Jesus spoke to sheepfold or an encircling wall was the best way to protect your sheep. The key to any if these barriers is to channel entrance to one guarded point. The guard at this portal decides who is safe to enter and who is a threat to keep at bay. Anyone who hops the gate, scales the wall or cuts into the fence at any other place does it because they have malicious intent. They are barbarians hoards, outlaw rustlers, thieves and robbers who either desire to harm the sheep or the owner of the sheepfold (by stealing the sheep). Everyone of Jesus' listeners understood this. As observant Jews they probably also caught his veiled references to Psalm 23. They understood that they (Israel) were the sheep and that the Lord was their shepherd. What some of them didn't understand was that Jesus was saying that the thieves and robbers were the Pharisees, Jesus was accusing them of being the agents of death and decay that he was sealing the sheep against. The doorkeeper would not open to them for he knew that to let them beyond the protective barrier would expose the sheep to spiritual decay.



Away from the Flock (Divided), Damien Hirst

Dissecting Sheep

and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.”


Putting dead animals encased in formaldehyde was not a one time affair for Damien Hirst. Nor was displaying a sheep in this manner. A year later he would do another version of "Away from the Flock", but he would dissect this one in two. He actually called it "Away from the Flock (Divided)", "dissecting" is more of my word. Dissection denotes not only dividing something into parts, but rather dividing it into parts to better understand it. That is why we call Bible study/biblical exegesis "dissecting the scripture." When we dissect this part of the scripture we find that it dissects the nature of the sheep (the Christian). The first thing that we come to understand about the Christian and sheep comparison is that it is based on the sheep's listening skills. Apparently they are keen and Middle Eastern shepherding techniques are all based on them. Sheep can actually distinguish the voice of their shepherd from other voices. So they really won't follow others. This analogy was so tight that now you can understand why the Pharisees didn't follow where he was going with the illustration. It just appeared that he was just sharing shepherding instructions. When we dissect the analogy a Christian should have similar auditory capabilities. Hence we refer to the elect/people that God has chosen as "the called." Christians are not just the spiritually hungry and curious but those who (through the aid of the Holy Spirit) have recognized Jesus' voice amongst the cacophony of other voices claiming to be Truth. In recognizing Jesus as God they set out not only to be a "believer" but a "follower." That is the second quality that we share with sheep. Faith without deeds (of following) is dead. So by dissecting the sheep/Christian we not only makeup of sheep but also the potential behavior of the sheep. A sheep cannot do what it was not designed to do (like fly) and a person cannot do what the Holy Spirit has not called them to do (like have faith and works that glorify God). So the question begs: if sheep can recognize their shepherd how can Christians recognize the voice of God? Like with most parables, Jesus will eventually make it clear.



Away from the Flock (Divided), Damien Hirst

Encasing Sheep

Jesus used this illustration, but they did not understand the things which He spoke to them. Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

So what did Damien Hirst do that made his work artwork? Butchers have split sheep in parts for the ages. Students and taxidermists have suspended innumerable animals in formaldehyde. In fact it was probably one of them who did it for Damien Hirst because he is notorious for employing others to do his work for him. Well Damien Hirst is the one who encased it in a frame and put it in a gallery. In short he made it Art because he appreciated it as Art and made others see it as Art. In fact he had this to say of it “It’s not a ‘preserved’ lamb, it’s a dead lamb. But then it does have a kind of new life.” It is the framing in a casing of a gallery setting that gave it its new life as Art. So what did Jesus do that made his ministry different from the Pharisees? They were rabbis who taught about Scripture and were followed by disciples as well. Yet Jesus accused them (explicitly this time) of having come to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. Like with Damien Hirst, it is in the encasing of the sheep that the new life is found. You may have gathered by now that Jesus is the "good shepherd" in this parable but have you also come to realize that he is the one that constructs the sheepfold and gives it its formaldehyde-like powers to preserve you from death and usher you into new life? At this point in the parable Christ pulls no punches and says directly "I am the door of the sheep(fold)." Middle Eastern shepherds had a practice of standing in front of the opening to the sheepfold like a Samoan bouncer guarding the entrance into an exclusive night club. When they got tired they would sit in front of it. At night they would sleep in front of it. They were the only entry point and they decided who would and would not get beyond the velvet rope. The key to protecting the sheep is encasing them in exclusivity. That is not to inflate the ego of Christians but just to illustrate how valued they are by God. Platinum was just another really strong metal until someone valued it as jewelry. It may just look like dark silver to others but it is even more precious to the owner. Since we are that precious to Jesus, he shares the benefit of the sheepfold: life, and abundant life.



Away from the Flock (Divided), Damien Hirst

So that is what is behind Jesus' usage of sheep in this parable. It is also what separates Jesus from Damien Hirst and the Pharisees. The more I think about it Damien Hirst's artwork is a better illustration of the Pharisees' followers than Jesus'. Therefore the title of "Away from the Flock" is befitting. It is what happens when a sheep is drawn away from the sheepfold by one who has climbed up some other way rather than entered by the door. Yes the sheep may be look preserved but as Damien Hirst has pointed out it is still dead. Christ didn't come to beautify dead sheep and make them lifelike like Lenin "lying in state." Christ came to give you actual and full life. Yes I am talking about the afterlife but I am also speaking of the here and now. To often we live with the evidence of spiritual death lingering over us. That is the most that the Pharisees could promise their disciples: a reminder of their constant struggle with sin and God's judgment. I am not fully disparaging this because it is a necessary first step, however their is a second one too. This second step is not only a "freedom from" but also a "freedom to." It is a freedom from death and sin but it is a freedom to live, love and experience the fullness of what God has created you to be. That is the promise of the Good shepherd. Come back to the flock.