Thanks for engaging. Did Crain not quote the president of the marketing agency behind the ad campaign as saying “Ultimately, the goal is inspiration, not recruitment or conversion.” And she rightly points it a number of times that the "inspirational" Jesus that they point to is not the God-man Savior, but a nice guy who gets us. It seems like she is not making assumptions about the goal, but responding to a stated goal.
The problem with McKendry's reply above is several-fold. First, they specifically say in their FAQ that the goal is not to get people to go to church, so they are essentially working against the "you tell 'em who Jesus is, pastor" model. Second, if *all* of their material simply pictures Jesus a nice guy who understands us and promoted peace and love, what about that description would drive people to a church or conversation with a pastor to hear the gospel? What makes Jesus stand out, then, if he is not explicitly the Son of God? Why would I care that he understands me? If he is just a guy in history, his understanding or lack thereof is meaningless to me. Third, much of their depiction of Jesus will work *against* what the proverbial pastor will try to communicate regarding who Jesus really is - as Crain notes, the campaign feeds and echos pop culture ideas of Jesus rather than contradicting them.
I will grant this: the first rule of advertising is to be memorable (or create buzz/visibility). The saying has been heard that any publicity is good publicity. There is a reason that McDonalds doesn't care how much I hate their jingle as long as it sticks in my head. I don't love that philosophy for the church, but to that extent, this campaign may have some success despite its weaknesses/faults. Some people may become curious and God may use that to draw them to himself. I don't think that excuses the weaknesses/faults.
"I do know that my brother, who is in their target audience of religiously skeptic, appreciated the ads and wants to know more."
Nate, for that I praise God. In the end, God can and will use even our most flawed efforts for his ends. May it be that God wills to draw your brother near such that he may move from skeptic to adopted son.
I like this reflection, Rob. I have to face this regularly in my professional work, and recently in a fairly acute manner. As the Holy Spirit has worked sanctification in my heart and life, I have gotten steadily better at not reacting. There is a time and place to defend oneself in words and actions, but allowing oneself to be insulted without any response is often the most beneficial path. As I have become more practiced at remaining silent, I have found that God often will provide for my vindication himself - and sometime not, and that's ok too.
Hi Rob. Lots of good stuff there, and an evergreen warning. I think the challenge is severalfold:
Defining luxury or riches. As a sliding scale, it's hard to pin down. You talk about "expensive foods". Is McDonald's expensive? Well, yes, much more expensive than eating a simple sandwich at home. What defines a "luxury" car? The poles are plain, but the in-between ground is hard to pin down. In the Reformed tradition we have typically rejected asceticism. But anything beyond asceticism could be potentially described as luxury. Can't any vacation or hobby really be described at some level as a luxury?
Applying this to ourselves mainly, and not projecting on others. The easy tendency is to dismiss our own choices and look over at the richer person and judge their choices. This is likely true of all sin - we prefer not to judge ourselves against the perfect God-man, but rather in comparison to our (we think) more sinful neighbor.
In light of these challenges, I think it best that we speak more about the condition of our hearts, where we find our comfort and security, and whether we practice hospitality and generosity rather than seeking to parse the morality of any particular item like an $800 guitar. I shoot an $800 shotgun when I hunt ducks. Could I have a $350 shotgun? Certainly. But I don't, for a number of reasons that could be examined. Do I think that is sinful? Not at all. In contrast, if I brought you to my home and showed off my extensive collection of never-used expensive guns, expressing my pride and security that I find in that collection (while also demonstrating a lack of care or generosity for those in need), I think I would be giving evidence of the sort of opulence and luxury condemned in Scripture. In the end, it is likely that we are all doing some level of self-justification for our choices, as that is indeed the nature of our sinful hearts. May God grant us the will and wisdom examine our hearts and choices regularly.
Thanks for engaging. I can't speak for "you all" about guns, but I can speak a bit about my guns and hunting. I'd be interested to know if you are a vegan. If not, I might echo you and wonder aloud just what the chicken, pig, or cow ever did to you for you to have them killed and used for your benefit. Are you uncomfortable with me killing to eat but comfortable with yourself killing by proxy? In reality, I don't think that is the right question at all. I would never posit that a duck, goose, or deer has done anything to me, but I will assert that they have done something for me. They have provided me and my family with sustenance.
And along the way I have done what is good for my soul: I have entered into nature, felt the harsh elements, immersed myself in the sights, sounds, and smells of creation, praised God for his glory displayed in the Marsh Wren, Sandhill Crane, Burr Oak, and the mosquito, and have respectfully pursued for harvest the birds and animals that God has indeed given to us for food. Now, this pursuit (with gun or bow) will not be for everyone, and I would not try to talk you into hunting. But neither is weightlifting, tatting, watching movies, baking, gardening, playing basketball, quilting, etc. meant for everyone. We gravitate toward the pursuits that are healthy and fulfilling for us.
I have several guns for several reasons. The gun one uses for duck hunting is the not the same gun one uses for antelope, which is also not the same gun one uses for rabbits, which is also not the same gun one uses for target shooting, etc. Different guns for different purposes. I have no concerns or thoughts about Armageddon. My guns serve a utilitarian purpose.
I don't carry a gun to church, but I also don't begrudge those who do. I've never judged someone by their watch, but I would offer that under the discussion offered by Rob, a reasonably priced gun for personal protection is more morally defensible than a luxurious watch.
Hopefully this reply sheds a bit of light on a topic perhaps not matching your interests. Thanks again for engaging.
Certainly, Rob. I agree wholeheartedly that the Church ought to regularly exhort in this arena, particularly in the N.A. context where luxury abounds and independence/hoarding/selfishness are cultural touchstones. What will be helpful for us, I think, is when the church leans hard on the principle and leaves the application to the hearer. We tend to get into trouble when we err in either over-specificity in application or under-emphasis on the principle. So, the pastor who never works in a plea/call for sacrificial living and rejection of selfish opulence is erring, just as is the pastor who feels it necessary to impugn any congregational members with a lake cabin or more than one car. Thanks for stimulating us to reflect on these things and the seriousness of the call for us to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Christ.
Hi again, Rob. If absolutely necessary, I think it best that examples be quite general or common to the human experience, so as to avoid the appearance of targeting. So, if one particular member of the congregation drives a Cadillac Escalade, a pastor (or elders) would be wise not to use that particular example (did I just use that example?!?).
I do wonder if specific examples are necessary to get the point across. I think that more common language and explanation than "opulence" can be used, and I think the principle can be applied directly to questions of our heart motivation, security, comfort, etc. without using specific examples of things that the pastor judges to be too far - unless of course the pastor wants to use his own judgment of his own life and decisions as an example. This could be thorny too.
No matter how the question of examples is approached, I think we want to approach the overall topic with urgency, seriousness, conviction, and self-examination mixed with grace, humility, pastoral wisdom, and non-judgmentalism. May God grant us wisdom, humility, and the repentance for the heart-work necessary in this area. Thanks for the conversation. May God bless you and keep you.
It's also perhaps worth reminding ourselves that Jesus was contrasting his limited time remaining on earth with the continued presence of those struggling in this broken world, as opposed to suggesting any indifference to the needs of the poor. The fact that the poor will always be with us is a continual reminder of two things: First, the consequences of sin in this world; and second, the continual call for us to show Christ-like, sacrificial love to our neighbors.
Hi again, Hetty. I ran across a recent article that expands on some of what I was angling at in my response. It doesn't say everything (nor have I), but it is helpful in providing additional perspective.
I would also note that while organizations like PETA get a lot of publicity, the North American model of conservation (the most successful in the world) is radically and intentionally driven by hunters, fishers, and trappers - they are the original environmentalists, before it was cool. Public and conservation land acquisitions and protections are driven largely by (self-voted) taxation on sportsmen (used generically) and by volunteer conservation dollars of sportsmen - we put our money where our mouth is regarding conservation because we have a tie to, appreciation of, bond with, and love for the land and its creatures. This love is formed, fed, and fueled in our times in the field.
I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood you. I thought you were looking for conversation and greater understanding, as you asked a question in response to me. I don't need reasons and arguments to support what I do, as if to justify my actions as I might if I was proposing to eat children. If you would yet like conversation at some point, I'm glad to engage further with you.
Thanks for this reflection, Rob. These are wise and helpful words, and they are particularly helpful because they are rooted in spiritual realities, not psychological appeals. May God bless your ministry.
Posted in: 'He Gets Us' Super Bowl Commercials - What Did You Think?
Hi Nate,
Thanks for engaging. Did Crain not quote the president of the marketing agency behind the ad campaign as saying “Ultimately, the goal is inspiration, not recruitment or conversion.” And she rightly points it a number of times that the "inspirational" Jesus that they point to is not the God-man Savior, but a nice guy who gets us. It seems like she is not making assumptions about the goal, but responding to a stated goal.
The problem with McKendry's reply above is several-fold. First, they specifically say in their FAQ that the goal is not to get people to go to church, so they are essentially working against the "you tell 'em who Jesus is, pastor" model. Second, if *all* of their material simply pictures Jesus a nice guy who understands us and promoted peace and love, what about that description would drive people to a church or conversation with a pastor to hear the gospel? What makes Jesus stand out, then, if he is not explicitly the Son of God? Why would I care that he understands me? If he is just a guy in history, his understanding or lack thereof is meaningless to me. Third, much of their depiction of Jesus will work *against* what the proverbial pastor will try to communicate regarding who Jesus really is - as Crain notes, the campaign feeds and echos pop culture ideas of Jesus rather than contradicting them.
I will grant this: the first rule of advertising is to be memorable (or create buzz/visibility). The saying has been heard that any publicity is good publicity. There is a reason that McDonalds doesn't care how much I hate their jingle as long as it sticks in my head. I don't love that philosophy for the church, but to that extent, this campaign may have some success despite its weaknesses/faults. Some people may become curious and God may use that to draw them to himself. I don't think that excuses the weaknesses/faults.
Posted in: 'He Gets Us' Super Bowl Commercials - What Did You Think?
"I do know that my brother, who is in their target audience of religiously skeptic, appreciated the ads and wants to know more."
Nate, for that I praise God. In the end, God can and will use even our most flawed efforts for his ends. May it be that God wills to draw your brother near such that he may move from skeptic to adopted son.
Posted in: Blessings and Accusations
I like this reflection, Rob. I have to face this regularly in my professional work, and recently in a fairly acute manner. As the Holy Spirit has worked sanctification in my heart and life, I have gotten steadily better at not reacting. There is a time and place to defend oneself in words and actions, but allowing oneself to be insulted without any response is often the most beneficial path. As I have become more practiced at remaining silent, I have found that God often will provide for my vindication himself - and sometime not, and that's ok too.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Hi Rob. Lots of good stuff there, and an evergreen warning. I think the challenge is severalfold:
In light of these challenges, I think it best that we speak more about the condition of our hearts, where we find our comfort and security, and whether we practice hospitality and generosity rather than seeking to parse the morality of any particular item like an $800 guitar. I shoot an $800 shotgun when I hunt ducks. Could I have a $350 shotgun? Certainly. But I don't, for a number of reasons that could be examined. Do I think that is sinful? Not at all. In contrast, if I brought you to my home and showed off my extensive collection of never-used expensive guns, expressing my pride and security that I find in that collection (while also demonstrating a lack of care or generosity for those in need), I think I would be giving evidence of the sort of opulence and luxury condemned in Scripture. In the end, it is likely that we are all doing some level of self-justification for our choices, as that is indeed the nature of our sinful hearts. May God grant us the will and wisdom examine our hearts and choices regularly.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Hi Hetty,
Thanks for engaging. I can't speak for "you all" about guns, but I can speak a bit about my guns and hunting. I'd be interested to know if you are a vegan. If not, I might echo you and wonder aloud just what the chicken, pig, or cow ever did to you for you to have them killed and used for your benefit. Are you uncomfortable with me killing to eat but comfortable with yourself killing by proxy? In reality, I don't think that is the right question at all. I would never posit that a duck, goose, or deer has done anything to me, but I will assert that they have done something for me. They have provided me and my family with sustenance.
And along the way I have done what is good for my soul: I have entered into nature, felt the harsh elements, immersed myself in the sights, sounds, and smells of creation, praised God for his glory displayed in the Marsh Wren, Sandhill Crane, Burr Oak, and the mosquito, and have respectfully pursued for harvest the birds and animals that God has indeed given to us for food. Now, this pursuit (with gun or bow) will not be for everyone, and I would not try to talk you into hunting. But neither is weightlifting, tatting, watching movies, baking, gardening, playing basketball, quilting, etc. meant for everyone. We gravitate toward the pursuits that are healthy and fulfilling for us.
I have several guns for several reasons. The gun one uses for duck hunting is the not the same gun one uses for antelope, which is also not the same gun one uses for rabbits, which is also not the same gun one uses for target shooting, etc. Different guns for different purposes. I have no concerns or thoughts about Armageddon. My guns serve a utilitarian purpose.
I don't carry a gun to church, but I also don't begrudge those who do. I've never judged someone by their watch, but I would offer that under the discussion offered by Rob, a reasonably priced gun for personal protection is more morally defensible than a luxurious watch.
Hopefully this reply sheds a bit of light on a topic perhaps not matching your interests. Thanks again for engaging.
Eric
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Certainly, Rob. I agree wholeheartedly that the Church ought to regularly exhort in this arena, particularly in the N.A. context where luxury abounds and independence/hoarding/selfishness are cultural touchstones. What will be helpful for us, I think, is when the church leans hard on the principle and leaves the application to the hearer. We tend to get into trouble when we err in either over-specificity in application or under-emphasis on the principle. So, the pastor who never works in a plea/call for sacrificial living and rejection of selfish opulence is erring, just as is the pastor who feels it necessary to impugn any congregational members with a lake cabin or more than one car. Thanks for stimulating us to reflect on these things and the seriousness of the call for us to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Christ.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Next time you find yourself in the position to pour out expensive perfume on the King of Kings, you take that chance, Dan! ;)
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Hi again, Rob. If absolutely necessary, I think it best that examples be quite general or common to the human experience, so as to avoid the appearance of targeting. So, if one particular member of the congregation drives a Cadillac Escalade, a pastor (or elders) would be wise not to use that particular example (did I just use that example?!?).
I do wonder if specific examples are necessary to get the point across. I think that more common language and explanation than "opulence" can be used, and I think the principle can be applied directly to questions of our heart motivation, security, comfort, etc. without using specific examples of things that the pastor judges to be too far - unless of course the pastor wants to use his own judgment of his own life and decisions as an example. This could be thorny too.
No matter how the question of examples is approached, I think we want to approach the overall topic with urgency, seriousness, conviction, and self-examination mixed with grace, humility, pastoral wisdom, and non-judgmentalism. May God grant us wisdom, humility, and the repentance for the heart-work necessary in this area. Thanks for the conversation. May God bless you and keep you.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
It's also perhaps worth reminding ourselves that Jesus was contrasting his limited time remaining on earth with the continued presence of those struggling in this broken world, as opposed to suggesting any indifference to the needs of the poor. The fact that the poor will always be with us is a continual reminder of two things: First, the consequences of sin in this world; and second, the continual call for us to show Christ-like, sacrificial love to our neighbors.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Hi again, Hetty. I ran across a recent article that expands on some of what I was angling at in my response. It doesn't say everything (nor have I), but it is helpful in providing additional perspective.
More than just meat | Christian Courier
I would also note that while organizations like PETA get a lot of publicity, the North American model of conservation (the most successful in the world) is radically and intentionally driven by hunters, fishers, and trappers - they are the original environmentalists, before it was cool. Public and conservation land acquisitions and protections are driven largely by (self-voted) taxation on sportsmen (used generically) and by volunteer conservation dollars of sportsmen - we put our money where our mouth is regarding conservation because we have a tie to, appreciation of, bond with, and love for the land and its creatures. This love is formed, fed, and fueled in our times in the field.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood you. I thought you were looking for conversation and greater understanding, as you asked a question in response to me. I don't need reasons and arguments to support what I do, as if to justify my actions as I might if I was proposing to eat children. If you would yet like conversation at some point, I'm glad to engage further with you.
Posted in: How Is God So Joyful When The World's So Sad?
Thanks for this reflection, Rob. These are wise and helpful words, and they are particularly helpful because they are rooted in spiritual realities, not psychological appeals. May God bless your ministry.