Comments on: National Council of Churches Statement on UCC ad.

By: nic

nic — Sun, 12 Dec 2004 19:40:55 +0000

oh well, for unhappy gay christians, there’s always the last Morrissey video…

By: Where's The Beef/

Where's The Beef/ — Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:25:51 +0000

>> Could the ad be challenging a widespread view of non-believers that Christians exercise a certain kind of exclusivity that Jesus wouldn’t himself endorse? harry, whence did this speculation spring? And why pander to it by depicting a church with burly bouncers rejecting people on the basis of their appearances—skin color, for instance? The ad was offensive. >> The UCC wants it to be known, particularly by those who may be exploring Christianity, that they are a liberal, inclusive church. russell arben fox, how did the ad convey that message? What was particularly liberal about depicting other churches—non-UCC churches, mind—as barring people on the basis of skin color, for example? If their doctrine is to bash other churches, then, it was not a gooey message. >> So, why wouldn’t these UCC folks film another ad that promotes their business without insulting the competitors and try again? abb1, I second the question. >> Lots of major denominations will stop gay couples from attending. Matt Weiner, a bald assertion. First, there did not appear to be anything in the ad that one could interpret as a depiction of homosexuality. Second, even you detected a hint of that, wasn’t it rather snivelling for the UCC to not be more forthright and open about their actual doctrine regarding same-sex sexual relations? Matt Weiner, solid point about the “Yay, God!” ads. While I disagree with the drift of the the official explanatons offered by the broadcasters and by UCC, it seems to me they all made business decisions in their own interests and that all of them—particularly the UCC —have benefited in the spinning instead of broadcasting the advertisement.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 22:23:42 +0000

Still, even a “Yay God!” message is religious. I haven’t seen one of those ads in recent memory (unless you count seeing one being shot in my apartment complex) but showing those ads would indicate a lack of hostility to religion—though it might not indicate a lack of hostility to the particularity of religion, as Russell mentioned above. None of which is to say that they resemble the UCC ad in any way.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:59:35 +0000

Are there no more Hallmark-card ads for the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints? I think there are, but that’s different: those spots are basically variations on “Yay God! [A message from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints],” as opposed to “Yay Mormoms!” or “Come worship at our church.” I can see where it’s a significant distinction.

By: Bucky

Bucky — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 09:33:09 +0000

Heresy is also religion, to its adherents. The silliness here is the conceit that the networks are independent actors making decisions out of economic self-interest. Maybe 20 years ago. Not now. Now they’re the p.r. machine for the men behind the curtain. Scalia’s in New York saying publicly that the separation of church and state was a mistake. Scalia’s probably headed for Chief Justice. And though I’m sure we all agree it’s pure co-incidence both Rather and Brokaw have bailed virtually simultaneously, there is a thread…

By: bellatrys

bellatrys — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 06:41:25 +0000

In re purported general hostility to religion: I don’t have television now, so I haven’t seen any prime time in a couple years. Do they not run “7th Heaven” any more? Or “Touched by an Angel”, in new or in reruns? Are there no more Hallmark-card ads for the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints? The most controversial part of the ad is the tagline: “God is still speaking.” To those who believe that the KJV was handed down on Mount Horeb in a bound volume to Moses, red lettesr and all, the idea that Christianity is not something petrified that we must fossilize ourselves to match, but a living conversation with the Divine, that we are called to enter into, is a horrifying notion. I know it’s suspiciously like what the rabbis have been doing all along, including one fellow from Nazareth, and that it’s rather hubristic to think that we can cram the Eternal into a box we can carry around in our pockets, but still it isn’t just Evangelicals who would be up in arms about it – the conservative RC base from which I (and Deal Hudson, and Michael Novak) hail will be shrieking “Aaah! Teilhardianism!” and making hex signs to ward off creeping heresy…

By: Jack V.

Jack V. — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 02:38:53 +0000

Harry said:

Is that right? No-one else is mentioned. Could the ad be challenging a widespread view of non-believers that Christians exercise a certain kind of exclusivity that Jesus wouldn’t himself endorse?

No one else is explicitly mentioned, but skilled videographers know how to leave a visual impression without saying things explicitly. Like the commenter above intimated, if you see a Volvo commercial that starts off with 3 or 4 people crashing and dying in other other cars, while people who drove Volvos alone survived, the commercial wouldn't have to name the other cars explicitly. The implication would be obvious: Drive another car, and you'll die. That might be relatively harmless -- although untrue -- in the car scenario. But with something as part of your core identity as where you go to church, you might be naturally prickly when a commercial heavy-handedly implies that other denominations exclude minorities by using bouncers. Reverse the situation: Imagine the Southern Baptists producing a commercial showing people going to hell because they attended some other unnamed religious service, while ending on the happy note that Southern Baptists go to heaven. That would be roughly equally offensive. Get the picture?

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 00:49:00 +0000

abb1—But I’d been saving up that line about negative beer campaigning for weeks! Yes, this is a different sort of thing. About “obviously no major denomination is going to stop a homosexual from attending”—the thing is that it’s a gay couple. Lots of major denominations will stop gay couples from attending. I don’t see anything cheap about that part of it.

By: The Gay Millionaire

The Gay Millionaire — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 00:37:31 +0000

Harry, Excellent post and I agree completely. Bravo to the National Council of Churches for their fortitude. I clicked through the link to assist in “piling on the networks.” And the UCC “God is Still Speaking” ad actually did cheer me up. Thanks.—TGM

By: abb1

abb1 — Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:01:42 +0000

No, I don’t watch football, but aren’t those beer ads kinda lighthearted – as opposed to saying directly: our competitors are racists and all ‘round bigots (even though it may be true in some cases). I mean, obviously no major denomination is going to stop a homosexual from attending; even the most reactionary folks like Jerry Falwell always insist that they hate the sin and love the sinner. I still think this ad is a cheap shot. Not that anything’s wrong with that, it’s just that I don’t necessarily see these UCC people as innocent victims.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:56:46 +0000

and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman This, I believe, was the crux of the controversy. If they had simply used the “no evangelizing” line at first and left it at that, the whole issue would have drawn a lot less attention. Given the very convincing “slippery slope” arguments offered above, I don’t really have a problem with that policy. It was mainly the nonsensical (and chilling) reference to the “Executive Branch” opposition to gay marriage (the ad itself makes no reference to gay marriage whatsoever) that set off the controversy.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:27:27 +0000

Thank you, ws?; I didn’t see your post when I wrote that.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:23:11 +0000

Think about it: how many anti-racism public service announcements or ads have you seen? Dozens. Why is it, though, that when one is connected to a “worship with us” message it becomes controversial? But, to the best of my recollection, I haven’t seen one anti-homophobia public service announcement or ad. Surely that’s a large part of what might make the ad controversial; while no major denomination excludes people by race anymore, lots and lots of denominations demand that their gay and lesbian members remain celibate, and that is even something of an issue politically. So it’s at least possible that the controversy is related to the message of tolerance of homosexuality—let me repeat, a message that is explicitly rejected by our ruling political party—rather than to the religious message. In the current political climate that message really sticks out. I also thought that it might be possible that the bits about race are meant to say that excluding gay couples is as bad as excluding non-white people, rather than to say that other churches are racist. But I don’t really think that’s that convincing, so Jack V does have a point there. (abb1—You must not watch football on TV. Miller and Budweiser are running so many negative ads they must be trying to drive down turnout.)

By: why speculate?

why speculate? — Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:17:10 +0000

“Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations,” reads an explanation from CBS, “and the fact 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 on the [CBS and UPN] networks.” http://www.stillspeaking.com/news/release2.html

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:14:41 +0000

I think Scott has it mostly right—this is about avoiding controversy. Not so much because they don’t want people to complain to sponsors, but because they don’t want people to change the channel. I don’t think it was anything in particular about the UCC ad that bothered the networks. Rather, the issue was likely with the next ad: what to do when the next denomination comes in and says something from the other side (“we’re not watered down, like some denominations”, or “you’ll go to hell if you’re not one of us”, or “join us this season in praying for the conversion of the Jewish people”). Better a clear policy against evangelizing ads than to pick-and-choose, thus being forced to accept or reject the hypothetical offensive ad on the merits (and thus offend that particular constituency in a much more visceral way).