rae ([info]kenotic) wrote,
@ 2004-12-01 23:38:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
networks ban controversial church ad
i may lose some respect from some . . . but a few comments on the below story . . .

- obviously, the "bouncer" motif is a shot at intentional hyperbole, but the commercial itself is really unfair.  i know of no church that's faithful to the Gospel that would turn anyone away from its doors for such a reason.  in my own church, as a matter of fact, a good friend of mine recently "came out" (ie: repenting, asking the church body to forgive him, and asking for help as he struggles).

- i suppose what we're supposed to get from the ad is more of a "we don't even believe that homosexuality is wrong" vibe, thinly veiled as simply having "open doors", when in fact, most everyone's doors are opened.  the notion that evangelicals and other orthodox Christians have an expectation that sinners (of all stripes) repent and turn away from their sin likely offends them.  they really should try a little more transparency instead of relying upon cute quips and ridiculous imagery.

- at the same time, i find it curious that the networks wouldn't allow the ad, citing "controversy".  seems rather laughable and hypocritical of them, considering the tripe that they tend to produce themselves.

- but, the UCC abandoned the Gospel long ago (despite what their official statements say), so this is unsurprising.  a small symptom of a much larger problem.

i shouldn't wait til so late a night to write.  i make myself sound unintelligent and i can't remember half of what i want to say.  anyway, here's the story.

CBS, NBC ban church ad inviting gays
Networks wont run church spot featuring gay couple; say ad runs contrary to company policies.
December 1, 2004: 7:56 PM EST
By Steve Hargreaves, CNN/Money Staff Writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The CBS and NBC Networks have refused to run an ad by a liberal church promoting the acceptance of people regardless of sexual orientation because the networks believe the ad is advocacy advertising.

The 30-second spot, run by the United Church of Christ, features two muscle-bound bouncers standing outside a church, selecting people who could attend service and those who could not. Among those kept out are two males who appear to be a couple. Written text then appears saying, in part, "Jesus didn't turn people away, neither do we."

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples...and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast," the church quoted CBS as saying.

A CBS spokesman confirmed that the ad was banned, but would not comment directly about the above statement.

"It was against our policy of accepting advocacy advertising," said the spokesman.

An NBC spokeswoman said the problem with the ad was not its depiction of same sex couples at church, but its implication that other religions are not open to all people.

"It went against our long-standing policy of not accepting ads that deal with issues public controversy," said the NBC spokeswoman.

"It's ironic that after a political season awash in commercials based on fear and deception by both parties seen on all major networks, an ad with a message of welcome and inclusion would be deemed too controversial," said Rev. John Thomas in the statement.

"We find it disturbing that the networks in question seem to have no problem exploiting gay persons through mindless comedies or titillating dramas, but when it comes to a church's loving welcome of committed gay couples, that's where they draw the line."

NBC couldn't comment on the seeming contradiction by the networks who aired a slew of controversial political ads during this past election but now refuse to air the ad from the United Church of Christ.

The commercial can be viewed at www.stillspeaking.com.

The church says the ad has been accepted on a number of other networks, including ABC Family, BET Discovery, Fox, Hallmark, TBS and TNT.

TBS and TNT are owned by Time Warner (Research), which also owns CNN/Money.

CBS is part of Viacom (Research) while NBC belongs to General Electric (Research).

The Cleveland-based United Church of Christ claims 6,000 congregations with 1.3 million members.



(Post a new comment)


[info]lightmanx5
2004-12-01 10:01 pm UTC (link)
> - but, the UCC abandoned the Gospel long ago (despite what their official statements say), so this is unsurprising. a small symptom of a much larger problem.
I don't know much of anything about the UCC, so can you cite proof for your statement?

~JOSh-X

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]erdufylla
2004-12-01 10:31 pm UTC (link)
I argue with that point. Though I'm not entirely sure I consider myself Christian (okay, I'm just not...), I am still a member of the UCC. (I don't know if Rae actually knows that or not.) The UCC has not abandoned the gospel. They merely do not chose to judge, and have a very open acceptance policy that allows you to interpret the bible just about any way you choose.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

intrigued
[info]bbike135
2004-12-01 10:53 pm UTC (link)
just curious. if you don't consider yourself a christian, why be a member of a church? i, also, do not know much about the United Church of Christ. if you're not a christian, why defend the gospel and your church? i don't get it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: intrigued - [info]erdufylla, 2004-12-01 10:56 pm UTC

[info]kenotic
2004-12-02 06:51 pm UTC (link)
this is part of precisely why i say that they've abandoned the Gospel, Liz. naturally, human intelligence and reasoning will go into any efforts of interpreting what the Bible says, but when a church undermines its authority and essentially says "the Bible means whatever you want it to mean, even if you want to ignore some parts, some authors, or whatever", what's to stop an individual or a congregation from saying "well, we don't really believe Jesus died for anyone, but he sure was a nice guy. we should be like him." nothing, and that very trend has largely taken hold within the denomination.

if a church wants to do such things, that's fine. if so, though, they should just be honest when doing so and stop feigning Christianity when there's really no semblance thereof.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]witherxaway
2004-12-01 10:35 pm UTC (link)
i have heard that the UCC doesn't believe in the trinity? im not sure though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]erdufylla
2004-12-01 10:36 pm UTC (link)
That is untrue.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]witherxaway, 2004-12-01 10:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]erdufylla, 2004-12-01 10:59 pm UTC

[info]kenotic
2004-12-02 06:51 pm UTC (link)
you may be thinking of the Unitarian-Universalists.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]witherxaway, 2004-12-02 07:10 pm UTC

[info]kenotic
2004-12-02 06:23 pm UTC (link)
the United Church of Christ is pretty notorious for being the one of the most theologically liberal denominations in the U.S. that still claims to be "Christian" (along with its Canadian counterpart, the United Church of Canada).

take for example, their "What We Believe" page or their official Statement of Faith. at a casual read, those look like perfectly orthodox statements, but one really telling thing about them is that both completely neglect to state what the denomination believes about Scripture. of course, that fact in itself doesn't really mean anything, but it does point to the reality that (as a whole), they've drifted farther and farther away from key biblical doctrines (the divinity and centrality of Christ and his work, for example).

there's a group within the UCC, though, called the Biblical Witness Fellowship that's attempting to restore biblical Christianity to the denomination. check out their site for some more specific examples for the UCC's possible apostasies.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]phlebas
2004-12-03 01:53 am UTC (link)
"God judges all humanity and all nations by that will of righteousness declared through prophets and apostles." is actually stronger than what either the Apostles' or the Nicene Creed says about Scripture.
Any church that actually includes that "we're all on a spiritual journey and at different places on that journey" as part of their "what we believe", though...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]whobyfire78, 2004-12-03 08:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]phlebas, 2004-12-03 08:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]whobyfire78, 2004-12-03 08:53 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]phlebas, 2004-12-03 09:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]whobyfire78, 2004-12-03 09:20 am UTC

[info]erdufylla
2004-12-01 10:33 pm UTC (link)
But the thing is, Rae, the UCC is essentially one of the only Christian churches out there that is fully open to gay people. They perform gay marriage, they openly accept gay people in their congregation, and they do not try to tell them that they are wrong or are sinning in the eye of the church and god and whatever. Other churches may have open door policies, but are they really welcoming? UCC is. And that's the point.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]kenotic
2004-12-02 07:04 pm UTC (link)
i know of no legitimate church of Jesus Christ which isn't welcoming to sinners of all stripes. they even let me in. :) (and i'm not saying that to be cute. i'm serious.) the main problem i have with the ad is that they're unfairly and dishonestly trying to say that they're the only church that'll lovingly minister to homosexual people. that's simply false, and they know it. i understand that their membership has been declining in the last few years, and i guess this is one way they're trying to put asses back into the pews.

at the same time, though, i also know of no legitimate church which accommodates and coddles sin (in any form). now, of course, a church can't expect someone who doesn't believe to change their behaviour, but i don't see anything "unwelcoming" in lovingly and gently helping fellow believers out of their sins.

"God loves you as you are" is a true statement, but it doesn't equal "God wants you to stay as you are." to paraphrase a really cheesy author who i normally can't stand, i think He's too loving to want us to stay as we are.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]erdufylla
2004-12-02 08:47 pm UTC (link)
they even let me in.

Yes, but they forced you to get married or leave. That's not an open doors policy. That's manipulation and judgement. If that's Christianity, then I'll live without it, thank you very much. That's not the Jesus I want in my life.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

a 'girlie man' Jesus? - [info]bbike135, 2004-12-02 10:11 pm UTC
Re: a 'girlie man' Jesus? - [info]whobyfire78, 2004-12-03 08:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kenotic, 2004-12-03 07:06 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kenotic, 2004-12-03 07:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]whobyfire78, 2004-12-03 08:56 am UTC

[info]raij
2004-12-01 10:39 pm UTC (link)
Interesting post. I agree with your statements, but it seems like a can of worms has been opened. I guess I'll watch this thread to see what develops.

-dP

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]kenotic
2004-12-02 07:04 pm UTC (link)
oooo, controversy! *laugh*

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]veryunderstated
2004-12-01 11:01 pm UTC (link)
"they do not try to tell them that they are wrong or are sinning in the eye of the church and god"

that right there seems to me to be the begining at least of abandoning the gospel. but that's a whole nother arguement that i shall leave up to people who have the desire keep it going.

I should probably keep my mouth shut but I just felt like it, I'm a jerk sometimes yo.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]whobyfire78
2004-12-02 05:50 am UTC (link)
Really? Because actually, Jesus didn't address the issue at all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]kenotic, 2004-12-02 07:06 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]whobyfire78, 2004-12-03 05:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kenotic, 2004-12-03 06:43 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]raij, 2004-12-02 08:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]whobyfire78, 2004-12-03 05:11 am UTC
my $.02
[info]songsmith
2004-12-02 08:13 am UTC (link)
>>that right there seems to me to be the begining at least of abandoning the gospel. but that's a whole nother arguement that i shall leave up to people who have the desire keep it going.<<

I agree with you on that. The gospel message is that we are all filthy sinners and hopelessly lost and completely dependent upon Christ's work. That's hard for people to hear... that was even hard for me to type just now, and I've believed it ever since I can remember.

There seems to be an "all-or-nothing" issue here. For the most part anyway, at least the way i'm perceiving it. One side says "homosexuality is not wrong, let's let everybody in the church and grant membership with all its privileges and let anybody get married to anybody they want, and we don't judge at all, if you think you're sinning then repent, but if you don't then that's great, carry on with your life." (that is, of course, really extreme; some probably tend toward that but not all the way.) And the other side would be something like, "homosexuality is an unpardonable sin" (which is not scriptural, and nobody actually says, but some would seem to believe that).

The thing is, you can't get around Romans 1, which says homosexuality is a sin (not in those exact words, but it's descriptive enough to get the meaning across). At the same time, where does it say that the homosexual is any better or worse than I am, full of (heterosexual) lust, self-rightiousness, hatred... things I have to lay before Christ every day, several times a day usually. We all depend on His mercy in the same way. The gospel is about loving God and loving each other. We show our love for God in the way that we love each other; the two go hand-in-hand.

I would have to see the commercial for myself to really form an opinion on it (it looks like Rae put a link to it, but i can't look at stuff like that at work because it eats up the bandwidth that the programmers need in order to program, or something like that, i am not technical enough to explain it). But, if it showed a gay man or woman on his/her knees being invited into the church, that would be awesome, IMO. It can also show the adulterer, murderer, former hindu priest, thief, former terrorist... kneeling beside the homosexual, all struggling with their own sins, all depending on Christ's work for their salvation.

Now THAT would be a cool commercial. Think I should pitch it to the network??

(sorry this was so long. i didn't mean to start a tangent and then i couldn't stop.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: my $.02 - [info]raij, 2004-12-02 08:23 am UTC
Re: my $.02 - [info]whobyfire78, 2004-12-02 09:15 am UTC
Re: my $.02 - [info]songsmith, 2004-12-02 02:43 pm UTC
Re: my $.02 - [info]whobyfire78, 2004-12-03 08:35 am UTC

[info]erdufylla
2004-12-01 11:01 pm UTC (link)
Let me add one more thing to clear up the confusion. The UCC does not say that sinners don't have to repent. They do. What the UCC does say is that it is not up to other humans to decide what sin is. That's between yourself and God. And they do not believe homosexuality is wrong, no.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]kenotic
2004-12-02 07:17 pm UTC (link)
i wonder what would happen if a homosexual member of a UCC church went to his/her pastor asking for prayer because he/she did believe that homosexual activity is sin. would the pastor try to convince the parishioner that it wasn't, or would he trust that the parishioner and God had agreed on the matter and offer prayer.

anyway, random wondering. i guess the only other comment i have in response to this is that other ("conservative") churches don't say that it's up to other humans to decide what sin is, either. they do, however, rely upon the Bible as the foundation for their faith and practice . . . not just "yourself and God". Christianity isn't (or shouldn't be, i guess) so individualistic.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]whobyfire78, 2004-12-03 08:38 am UTC

[info]whobyfire78
2004-12-02 05:09 am UTC (link)
I had a long, detailed response drawn out but then I realised I'd simply be banging my head against an all-too-familiar wall.

Your statements regarding the UCC are obviously based upon limited or no experience with the denomination, so I'll chose not to address those.

*shakes dust off sandals*

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]kenotic
2004-12-02 04:00 pm UTC (link)
see my response in your journal, Chris. if you still choose to call my statements invalid based on the fact that i haven't been to a UCC service, i provided you with a link to a group within the denomination that agrees with what i've said.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]normlessness
2004-12-02 06:15 am UTC (link)
Yes indeed. All churches' doors should be open. A church can still preach against sin, but still accept and love everyone.

(Reply to this)


[info]joffridus
2004-12-02 11:29 am UTC (link)
Not unintelligent at all. Well stated for a state of tiredness.

(Reply to this)


[info]yardenxanthe
2004-12-02 12:08 pm UTC (link)
Who needs an ad when you can get more publicity from being denied air time?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]kenotic
2004-12-02 12:26 pm UTC (link)
seriously.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jjostm, 2004-12-02 12:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]erdufylla, 2004-12-02 08:49 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kenotic, 2004-12-03 07:12 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]whobyfire78, 2004-12-03 05:10 am UTC

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…