The United Church of Christ will debut a new ad tomorrow showing churches using ejecter buttons in the pews to “eject” those that don’t fit. This ad is probably even more controversial than the bouncer ads from 2004. No broadcast network will air the ads according to representative I met from the UCC today.
I believe these ads do good. Christianity has been linked too often to evangelical mega churches for middle class whites. Too many people link Christianity with opposition to abortion and gay marriage. I believe these ads do a great deal of good by reminding people that Christianity is a great faith. The church should reflect the diversity of the community. My LGBT church welcomes everyone and I think they do a great job in making sure everyone feels comfortable.
Do these type of ads give you a more positive impression of the United Church of Christ and Christianity in general? Do you think they’re controversial for the sake of being controversial?
No, actually, I like the commercial. I don’t believe in god, or any god, but from a marketing standpoint, I like it. It seems to me that the attitude of your denomination, as opposed to the more “mainstream” ones is highlighted nicely by this commercial.
You DO know that if this commercial were to air on regular tv, there’d be some piiiiiiiiiiissed off evangelical types. I want to see it on tv, not because it’ll piss someone off, but because it seems to precisely project the values that you want, or at least, it creates distance from what your values are as opposed to what “their” values are.
I think a mod is going to push this to the opinion forum soon, however.
It’s quite disappointing that no one will run these ads. There’s quite a bit of pressure on the more tolerant, ‘mainstream’ Christians to raise their voices and show that the faith is not defined by its more extreme wing, similar to the pressure on more moderate Muslims to do the same thing.
But when a group of tolerant, accepting Christians actually stands up and actually tries to make its voice heard, to set itself apart from the fundies, no one will carry their message because it’s ‘too controversial.’
It is a sad day when a religion that purports to preach love and forgiveness for all people is considered ‘too controversial’ for spreading a message of acceptance and inclusiveness.
But some of them are. Not all of them, but some. And if those particular churches make it a point to object to certain types of people, they have no reason to whine when people point that out to them.
It isn’t just about things like gay couples. There are a lot of churches where the congregation seems more interested in being seen, gossiping, and doing other things besides worshipping. If you don’t dress the right way, speak the right way, or have the right occupation you really don’t belong.
Well, I doubt Fred Phelps is actively recruiting from gays and lesbians. Or even Democrats for that matter
I shoulda added that I don’t necessarily think that the implication is incorrect, just that that was the contraversial point. No one is shocked by the message that churches should be inclusive, but most people see thier church as inclusive, and the commercial suggests that they might not be.
Which begs the question you asked: are there any mainstream christian churches that are barred to other largish groups of people. Certainly many churches see homosexuality as a sin, but I think that, in my experience, they don’t bar gays from membership. Indeed with the christian emphesis on forgivenss, etc. they actively try to recruit “sinners”. At least in theory.
Realize it’s wikipedia, but here’s a page with an overview of the major christian denominations views on homosexuality. Many seem to think it’s a sin, several don’t allow for practicing gays to be part of the church leadership, but I couldn’t find any that barred gays from membership.
This page has some more information on specific denominational positions on homosexuality. A quick glance reveals that the Church of Christ (not affiliated with the UCC, but a very conservative denomination popular in the South) will not let homosexuals be members, and the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the US, requires all gays and lesbians to “renounce their lifestyle” if they want to remain members.
I like these commercials. Yes, most of the criticism lies in the idea that they promote the idea that all non-UCC churches are exclusive, but I can’t see how any unbiased person would come to that conclusion. They point out, quite rightly, that there are exclusive churches out there, and I can’t believe that’s a controversial point at all. They don’t name any specific churches or denominations, and if your church truly feels that they welcome everyone, there’s nothing to worry about, is there?
Or Republicans. Fred Phelps’s church is, basically, Fred Phelps, and those members of his family who have not run away. It’s not really a “church.”
Personally, I think the commercials are great.
I say this as a nondenomination Christian, but Christian churches in North America (and maybe overseas, I don’t know) have to take some responsibility for the fact that a lot of people perceive them as being exclusionary and bigoted. It’s true that some are not. It’s true that some are very inclusive indeed. It’s true that they’re entitled to whatever opinions they choose to have.
But it’s also true that Christianity, for a long time, was a force of progressive values in North America; Christians were at the forefront of the abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement. Here in Canada Christians were at the forefront of movements for worker rights and social fairness. The perception of many people, including myself, is that that is no longer the case, and that Christian churches seem to spend a lot of their time worrying about an evil homosexual agenda and spreading creation science, two things that do not, incidentally, really exist. (Yes, I know the RCC doesn’t pimp creationism.) No longer are they worried about social justice; now the big issues are spreading social injustice and lying about evolution. Even the Catholic church, which in most matters is relatively mainstream, threatened the Prime Minister of Canada with excommunication for having the nerve to support equal rights for gays. (Curiously, they don’t seem to object to equal rights for Muslims or Jews or other people doing non-Catholic things.) What’s worse is that damned few Christian organizations are rejecting this position and saying with any sort of enthusiasm, “We reject this notion of robbing people of their civil rights.”
If Christians don’t want to be seen as bigots then the onus is on them to stand up and say, as loudly as the regressive jerks are shouting their agenda, “That’s not what we stand for as Christians.”
If the United Church is standing up and saying “Gays are welcome here, we’re all God’s children” then great. Fantastic. Someone’s defending the faith.
I believe the claimed reason for rejecting the commercial is that they don’t accept ads that promote one religion over another. Which, of course, is nonsense.
Um, how exactly does a church “deny membership”? I went to a church which was pretty socially conservative, but they didn’t exactly throw people out. They might preach things that were offensive to some people, & some people might decide to leave for that reason, but I’m not aware of anyone being formally asked to leave.
Well, it does happen. One of the newer visitors at my church (which happens to be UCC) was denied communion at his Greek Orthodox church, and was told that unless he changed his fairly liberal theological beliefs, he wasn’t welcome there anymore.
I know at least one other friend of mine who came out to his parents and friends; he was then told not to come back to his church (I don’t know the denomination- a conservative Korean church) unless he repented of homosexuality.
So yeah, it does happen. It may have happened at your church, even. It’s usually a quiet process, I’d imagine, that they don’t make too public, but even so, you can definitely be asked to not return to a church. For gays and lesbians, it may be more common that they try to counsel you, ask you to attend some awful camp, or simply be given literature that tells you why homosexuality is wrong, but either way, it’s rejection, pure and simple.
I’ve heard from some that that’s the problem the Christian Left is having. We won - and in winning, we made ourselves irrelevant. The values that were fought for (equality, civil rights, etc.) became mainstream to the point where they weren’t seen as “Christian” values anymore and the church is no longer the only (or even the central) place to advance them. (As opposed to the Christian Right - they go to church to look for ways to become politically involved.)
So, if a person wants to advocate for prison reform, they don’t head to the churches quoting Matthew 25, they find the local prison reform advocacy group (which is most likely a secular group) and head there. Which is great for prison reform, but not so good for the church staying a political or social change vehicle. (Of course, this leads to the question as to whether a church should be political).
foolsguinea, most of the churches I’m familiar with do have a process of some sort for becoming a “member” as opposed to someone who attends. While going through that process, someone can be denied membership. But what I’m guessing is more common is that people are shunned (that last frame in the commercial where the family visibly moved away from the woman in the pew), ostracized, made to feel distinctly unwelcome. The problem isn’t just the content of the sermons but the behavior of the congregants.
I liked the bouncer commercial better than the ejector commercial (plus, a crying baby isn’t exactly the same category as some of the other ejected groups.)
I think that the fact that networks are refusing to air the commercial is proof of the message’s truth. I also think that the people who are opposing the UCC are maybe shooting themselves in the foot by trying to suppress it, if the word of mouth gets out anyway (which I think it will). Not that I think those people shooting themselves in the foot is in any way a bad thing :).
