Advertisers have always borrowed imagery and ideas from culture. They appropriate the image, the language, and the icons of culture and reinvent them to sell something—a notion, a life, a thing. But when they borrow from religion, and especially Christianity, the reaction is not just critical, but sharp and split.
Recently, there has been a discernible pattern: a tendency for brands to depict characters who bear a superficial resemblance to Jesus—think long hair, beard, white toga, moral fibre—without actually referencing Jesus. What results is a marketing ploy that strives to create an instant connection. In so doing, there is an ultimately disturbing question: when does artist inspiration cross the boundary into religious exploitation?
Why Jesus Keeps Appearing in Ads:
In one of the most recognisable figures from human history, Jesus is an icon who radiates compassion, sacrifice, moral clarity, authority and integrity. This is a powerful metaphor for advertisers.
“Jesus-like” character can signal goodness or moral superiority. Convey trust and authenticity. Provide instant depth to stories. Spark conversation (and controversy). In a crowded digital landscape, controversy itself is often the point. Attention is currency, and religious imagery guarantees it.
The Line Between Symbolism and Sacrilege:
For believers, Jesus is not a metaphor or aesthetic. He is sacred. When advertisers use Christ-like imagery to sell sneakers, fast food, or tech services, it can feel trivialising—reducing faith to a costume or visual trope.
The issue isn’t just offence; it’s intent. Many campaigns borrow religious visuals while stripping them of meaning. The message becomes: we want the power of this symbol, without the responsibility of what it represents. That’s where the line is crossed.
Irony, Satire, and the “It’s Just a Joke” Defence:
Marketers often defend these campaigns by leaning on irony or satire. But satire works best when it punches up with clarity and purpose. When religious imagery is used vaguely—without critique, context, or respect—it often feels less like satire and more like provocation for clicks. Saying “it’s just a joke” doesn’t land the same way when the subject is deeply tied to identity, belief, and community.
Does Controversy Equal Success?
From a metrics standpoint, these ads often “work.” They go viral. They trend. They get shared, debated, and dissected. Brand Trust is hard to measure. The most difficult thing about building trust as a brand is creating something that people will actually want to buy. While some brands may appeal to audiences who appreciate bold, edgy marketing, others will simply walk away from those brands. For those who buy products based on faith, family values, or social responsibility, the negative impact of disrespect shown during a marketing campaign will stick with that consumer long after the campaign has ended. Shock marketing may generate short-term visibility for a brand, but over time, it erodes the brand's credibility and trust.
Respectful Creativity Is Still Possible:
Religion does not have to be a taboo subject in an advertising campaign. However, to use religion appropriately in advertising campaigns, advertisers must
- Have a clear purpose for using religion in their advertising campaigns
- Be aware of the cultural and theological ramifications of how they are using religion as a part of their advertising campaigns
- Be willing to accept that they will receive constructive criticism from consumers regarding their advertising campaign
- Avoid taking the lazy route with their advertising campaigns by using visual clichés.
Recently, a leading global fashion brand launched a spring advertising campaign featuring a young man styled with long hair, a beard, and flowing white clothing. In the primary image of the campaign, the young man is shown standing barefoot in a sunny urban alleyway, with his arms slightly open. Around him are other models, diverse in appearance and ethnicity. The tagline of the campaign states, "A Bit Like Jesus."
The creative team intended irony and cultural commentary—positioning the brand as rebellious, ironic, and “above old taboos.” Internally, the concept was praised for being bold and meme-ready, especially for younger audiences. Within hours of launch, backlash erupted.
Public Reaction:
Religious organisations, and in particular Christian communities, condemned the brand as minimising and commodifying the sacred religious icon. Hashtags addressing the boycott trended in several international countries. Ministers and religious bloggers posted side-by-side comparisons of the advertisement and traditional images of Jesus, concluding the similarity was purposeful and in poor taste. Some critics, who were unaffiliated with any religion, condemned the advertisement as lazy provocation. Worth noting, in particular, is how this upset responded most fervently in areas where Christianity continued to be embedded in their cultural identity, regardless of whether said individuals publicly ascribed.
Brand Response:
The company first defended its ad, saying: “The ad is clearly intended to refer to themes of compassion and togetherness, rather than religion.” This only made the matter worse as it was seen as an attempt to avoid responsibility for its actions. Within 72 hours of the incident, the advertisements began to be removed from billboards and social media sites. An apology was finally given by the brand regarding its misinterpretation of religious significance. Retail partners began to remove their brand from public displays.
Business Impact:
- Short-term: Large increases in brand mentions and traffic, but with predominantly negative opinions.
- Medium-term: measurable sales decline in key markets and damaged relationships with distributors.
- Long-term: the campaign became a case study in advertising ethics, often cited in marketing courses as an example of cultural miscalculation.
Why It Crossed the Line:
Religious figures are not just cultural symbols. Unlike mythology or pop icons, figures like Jesus represent living faiths with billions of adherents. Irony doesn’t translate universally.
If creative teams think they are cleverly subverting cultural norms, other people may believe they are being mocked instead. The commercial nature of the advertisement will likely only make the situation worse. Using religious or sacred images as selling tools makes the advertisement look exploitative to many people, especially if they do not subscribe to any particular belief system.
Key Takeaway:
The key takeaway is that although there is a lot of provocation in the advertisements, such provocations without any cultural empathy could prove to be dangerous for the brand; however, while it is possible to have a respectful engagement with religion in advertising, brands can still fall into the trap of using sacred imagery solely as an aesthetic tool or punchline without recognizing the emotional and social impact associated with these types of representations of people and their beliefs.
Final Thoughts:
When brands create advertisements that come across as "a little like Jesus," it is usually a deliberate action to utilise the authority, morality, and emotional weight of the person depicted. Therefore, the question is not whether or not brands can use these types of images—rather, it is whether or not they should. Brands should consider the possibility that instead of using religion as a way to draw attention to their products, they would be better served by using creativity that respects people's faiths and tells a meaningful story while doing so.
References: