« Respect Life? | Main | "I Don't Know How It Works" »
December 01, 2004
Excluding the "Inclusive"
Sort of interesting -
Two nets reject United Church of Christ ad
- As church bells chime in the background, a burly bouncer guards the velvet ropes at the church entrance.
"No, step aside, please," he tells two men holding hands. "I don't think so," he says to a young black girl, blocking her entrance. A Hispanic man and a person in a wheelchair are also denied entry.
The scene fades to black and a message: "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we."
Hoping to boost the numbers of a dwindling denomination, the United Church of Christ launched a nationwide television ad campaign Wednesday, banking on this 30-second spot to let all viewers know they are welcome in the pews.
But two major networks have declined to air the ad, deeming it "too controversial" because it champions one side of the public debate on gay relationships.
Spokespersons for both CBS and NBC cited longstanding policies against accepting what is known as issue advertising.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83472d1cf69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Excluding the "Inclusive":
Comments
I know a couple of Catholics who joined the so-called United Church of Christ because they agreed with its liberalism.
Posted by: Steve Jackson at Dec 2, 2004 6:49:20 AM
What offends me is that it does seem as though the commercial isn't so much one church reaching out as claiming that other churches don't.
Also, apparently being gay is represented as equivalent to both a disability and a difference in skin color -- does that mean that being black is a disability, an abnormality, or a temptation?
And why is it only minorities they reach out to in this commercial? "We're so virtuous we'll even take _you_ -- and we'll pat ourselves on the back for it."
Posted by: Maureen at Dec 2, 2004 7:18:40 AM
Saw it last night on Discovery Channel. The ad said "Jesus didn't exclude anyone." Well, I suppose that if nothing is a sin, then that whole sheep/goats thing becomes moot.
Posted by: Mike Walsh, MM at Dec 2, 2004 7:36:44 AM
"Dwindling denomination" says it all doesn't it? When Christians attempt to water down the faith to attract members, the Holy Spirit changes attract to subtract.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Dec 2, 2004 7:39:53 AM
Good Morning America just ran a story on the ad. They censured CBS and NBC, by tone of voice, for not running the ad because it's controversial. Then the host explained that ABC, on the other hand, never runs religious ads, "which is different."
*eye roll*
Posted by: Maureen at Dec 2, 2004 7:43:06 AM
Wow, Ignatius seems like a nice fellow.
Of course, the Catholic Church doesn't turn away sinners at the church door.
And what mainstream church in the US is turning away blacks, hispanics, and the handicapped on Sunday morning?
Posted by: S.F. at Dec 2, 2004 8:44:08 AM
About ten years ago I started studying technical philosophical ethics, because I had been pressed into service on short notice to teach the subject. My conclusion over the years has been, put an ethical argument in the hands of the unethical or immoral, and (s)he will use it to oppress and marginalize the ethical or moral position.
It's a real problem in the professions. The sleaziest lawyers will threaten their adversaries with ethics complaints.
The "inclusive" are leaders in the use of this strategy.
Posted by: AH at Dec 2, 2004 9:29:27 AM
"You ask what mainstream church in the U.S. is turning away blacks? Try the largest protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention"
Heh -- is that why so many Black Americans are Baptist? Last time I looked they were legion. The operative word in the statement is "largest protestant denomination" -- that ain't because its 100% Caucasian! And do you even want to get into the teachings of the Pentecostal churches regarding human sexuality?
Posted by: Christine at Dec 2, 2004 9:35:30 AM
I think this commericial would be perfect for the Catholic Church, with three small changes:
1) Put the "bouncer" in a Roman collar.
2) At the end, as the "bouncer" is turning people away left and right, have the camera pan behind him to show what they're being "excluded" from--fiery gates with a placard above bearing the word: "Hell"
3) Then fade to black and the words: "Jesus gave his life to turn as many people away as he could. So do we, until the end of time."
Posted by: John Heavrin at Dec 2, 2004 10:02:38 AM
Amy,
Since you'll have to read this to delete this, I think I'll leave a good bye note.
The religious right, have Balkanized this country. I've given up on the idea of debate or dialogue. I'm now just a militant secularist who seeks to marginalize those who threaten me.
I'll vote for anything that hurts the Catholic Church precisely because it hurts the Church. I'll defame it, attack it, and support those who will subvert it.
We are enemies.
Posted by: Ignatius at Dec 2, 2004 10:13:57 AM
Christine,
At least in the 1970s, there were some Southern Baptist congregations that did not permit blacks to worship in their churches. This issue was atmospheric problem for Jimmy Carter in the 1976 presidential campaign if I recall correctly. I do not know whether that is still the case.
I thought the ad was an effective one. I also think, however, that CBS was right to turn the ad down, but for the wrong reason. The sole reason why the ad should have been turned down was its explicit criticism of other churches that do not share their point of view on "inclusion" (ugh) issues. I do not think the TV ads from the Mormon Church, the LCMS, and the United Methodists criticize other churches. Had the UCC's ad only extolled their own policy of "inclusion" without criticizing other churches, then then ad should have been approved. CBS's rationale that the network won't accept ads on controversial issues of the day seems silly.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Dec 2, 2004 10:23:44 AM
Oh. Please Amy, don't delete Ignatius' last post. Let it stand as a testament that the anti-catholicism out there is real.
Of course, is Ignatius a real name or a cowardly pseudonymn? At any rate, Ignatius and Heavrin seem to be on the same page.
Posted by: Chris-2-4 at Dec 2, 2004 10:23:59 AM
Chris24,
Can't speak for Ignatius, but John Heavrin is my real name.
As for being on the "same page": I doubt if I've ever agreed with anything he's ever posted, or he with anything I have.
My post was intended to convey my view that the Catholic Church, though accused of being "exclusive" by a p.c. culture with which we're surrounded, is actally engaged in the business of trying to exclude as many people as possible from Hell, and always will be. If you interpreted my post as an attack on the Catholic Church, you misinterpreted it.
Posted by: John Heavrin at Dec 2, 2004 10:38:02 AM
Patrick, indeed that was the case. But I am thinking of our time and while I would not be so foolish as to claim that racism no longer exists in some religious bodies, Cleveland is full of Baptist churches that welcome all people, and Catholic Churches such as St. Stan's in Cleveland's historic Slavic village are attracting and educating Black and Hispanic children at the parish school.
Much progress has been made.
The thing that turns me off about the UCC ads is precisely what you mention, the implied criticism of other church bodies that don't see issues the way the UCC does. And people haven't exactly been flocking to the UCC and beating its doors down.
Posted by: Christine at Dec 2, 2004 10:38:50 AM
I second Chris' suggestion. Leave Ahab's declaration intact (all it needs is "from Hell's heart, I stab at thee").
It's rare to see such honest, euphemism-free clarity. Bracing--and instructive, to boot.
Posted by: Dale Price at Dec 2, 2004 10:38:56 AM
It's an attack ad on demoninations which hold that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. It creates a straw man caricature of a demonination that doesn't exist.
The problem I have is not with their affirmation that they accept persons who commit homosexual acts without a belief that such conduct is sinful, but the negative comparison they make with other demoninations for holding the contrary, historical belief.
Posted by: Patrick Sweeney at Dec 2, 2004 10:56:57 AM
I'll vote for anything that hurts the Catholic Church precisely because it hurts the Church. I'll defame it, attack it, and support those who will subvert it.
We are enemies.
These are the remarks of a petulant child, not a Catholic forming his conscience. The only responses I can imagine are a sigh or a stifled giggle.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Dec 2, 2004 11:07:13 AM
"I'm now just a militant secularist who seeks to marginalize those who threaten me."
And here I thought that Ignatius was an undercover agent for Opus Dei.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Dec 2, 2004 12:06:37 PM
I just don't see a problem with the UCC ad. Perhaps my outlook is too contentious? But within very wide bounds I don't agree with banning statements I disagree with. And I agree with the poster above who thinks it's effective. And I think John's rebuttal ad is inspired.
Posted by: Christopher Rake at Dec 2, 2004 12:25:20 PM
John Heavrin:
I'm sorry, I see it now. I misunderstood at first and thought you were implying that those who enter the church enter hell but that was okay because we excluded too many people anyway.
My most sincere apologies.
Posted by: Chris-2-4 at Dec 2, 2004 12:39:02 PM
No problem, Chris-2-4...if it could be filmed, it would be more clear that it would *seem* to be "admitting" the implied charge of the actual ad, that Catholics are excluding people...only to show at the end what the Catholic Church is actually trying to "exclude" people from.
As for the militant Ignatius, may he find his Manresa as did an earlier militant Ignatius.
Posted by: John Heavrin at Dec 2, 2004 12:51:21 PM
Didn't Ignatius mention a few weeks back that he has cancer?
Posted by: Faith at Dec 2, 2004 11:40:19 PM
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005980
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Dec 3, 2004 9:08:49 AM
Someone might be interested in my take on this controversy.
DCM
http://davidmorrison.typepad.com/sed_contra/2004/12/the_ucc_ad_cont.html#trackback
Posted by: David Morrison at Dec 6, 2004 11:19:59 AM
