[Previous entry: "International judges rewrite law to suit selves"] [Next entry: "Thanks for the advice, Bish"]
07/11/2004: "The latest panacea"
From the Washington Post, here's the Smart Guys' latest answer to the mainline malaise: advertising. When admen and religion get together, silliness results:
"Among 20- to 30-year-olds, everybody's heard of the gay bishop. And in focus groups, the words that keep coming up are that we are a 'progressive,' 'open' and 'nonjudgmental' church," said Daniel B. England, the church's director of communication.
Thus, the Episcopalians will launch their first national TV ad campaign on Election Day with a 15-second spot that pivots off the presidential campaign to appeal for new members.
"We think this could be a very divisive election," England said. "We're saying to people, 'If you're fed up with all the divisions, you might want to take a look at us, because we're in the business of inclusion, not division.' "
Inclusion isn't the opposite of division, but leave that aside. Is there any more ferociously divided denomination in America than the ECUSA, precisely over that gay bishop Dan England thinks is such a boon? Is there any ostrich with his head further buried in the ground than Dan England? Or, if that's not the case, is there any politician more dishonest than Dan England? (Your choice.)
The UCC's ads are especially edgy. One shows a pair of bouncers manning a rope line outside a church, admitting a white heterosexual couple but barring gays and racial minorities. "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we," the ad says.
"Edgy" is one word for it. "Dishonest" (see a theme developing here?) is another. Who exactly is the UCC contrasting itself with? Fred Phelps' homophobe heaven? Yeah, that's takes guts. Mainstream evangelical and Pentecostal churches? They are no more racially exclusive than any mainline denomination (in fact, there are probably more of them that are multiracial than in the whole mainline put together). As far as it goes, there aren't many conservative churches that wouldn't warmly embrace any gay person who came to the door, the difference being that they would then let that person know what the biblical standards of sexual conduct are. The UCC's ads, like so many of its national actions, are not about congregational life nearly so much as making a political statement. The story quotes one UCC pastor, the Rev. Richard A. Weisenbach of the First Parish Congregational Church in Wakefield, Mass., saying that he fears the UCC "is committing suicide" by promoting itself as a church without fixed principles. "You don't grow a church by telling people you're going to do whatever they want you to do," he said.
"The main thing ads do is make your own members feel good–and that ain't a bad thing," said the Rev. Eric C. Shafer, director of communications for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which began a $7 million campaign in 1999.
Said David Strand, director of public affairs for the more conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod: "It's like Buick ads trying to make sure Buick owners stay loyal to the brand. That sounds kind of crass, but that's how it works."
Isn't that a wonderful use of God's money–to help members "feel good." And Strand of the non-mainline LC-MS simply demonstrates that the silliness isn't restricted to mainliners. Are TV ads really going to keep people in the Missouri Synod, as opposed to the Christian life that people experience in their local church? I don't expect to have a relationship with my Buick. That's why brand-loyalty ads work. Relationally-oriented community life is supposed to work a bit differently, don't you think?
"I've always called advertising fertilizer–it only can fertilize a larger effort to evangelize," the Lutherans' Shafer said. "Now I think it's Miracle-Gro."
So, what do you have to show for that seven mil, Eric?
(Hat tip: Hampton)
