Another application of Academic Agent's guide to media literacy (though I'm not sure it was intended in this case): if the headline is a question, the answer is "No."
The article itself felt simultaneously tragic and hilarious. One feels somewhat sad for these "sex workers" but I shake my head at their apparent naivety (which may reach the level of "stupidity"). You can't have "consent" be the only criteria for sexual ethics, while allowing all other facets of sexual permissiveness, and then expect that the users whose depravity they prey upon will not immediately jump ship to some other AI that will fulfill their wants.
I hope that the AI will put all the camgirls out of business such that it stops young women from making bad decisions about what they put on the internet.
I thought about this a bit more and want to narrow down my critique. It's related to my first comment, but a bit more focused on why I'm frusttrated by French's comments.
In hite opinion piece, French focuses on the social imperative of how Christians ought to act toward others and misses that the concern over the He Gets Us campaign isn't what Christian love may look like but the Christ behind the Christian.
It's extremely rare for me to meet a Christian who thinks we ought not to love our neighbors and our enemies. If I'm asked why I'm kind to others whom I believe are living in sin, my answer is not "Jesus preached a Gospel of Unconditional Love."
It's not that I want to see an Ad that depicts someone "hammering" a sinner caught in sin, but French paints Ad opposition in this light. He says we should be demonstrating the fruit of a converted life with our lives. This much is generally true, but who "spoke" in this commercial? It was the He Gets Us campaign, and they "explained" the actions with a false Christ behind the actions. This is the point of Samuel Sey's article and French zeroes in on a single sentence talking about the idea that the message would not be simply "Jesus loves you no matter what you do."
Again, the Ad "spoke" about Jesus telling *us*: "This is what Jesus would do, and why aren't you doing it?" Christians, who are otherwise living quiet lives (unlike French, who tells us the kind of Christian he is) have a right to criticize a message that is trying to publically "correct" the Jesus they believe in.
I think French's take on the work of Christ is essentially moving towad a progressive bent - that Jesus "helped" sinners and the opposition he faced was from religious folk who were close-minded and ignored suffering.
That Jesus recieved sinners, however, is always qualified by the way in which He welcomed sinners. He came to those who recognized their sin and came to Him even as He sought them out.
The opposition He faced from the PHarisees owed to their theology of being a "penitent". A person was righteous, in the Rabbinic tradition, if one kept the Law. There was no categoy in their thinking for a "sinner" being recived as righteous in the way that Christ provided. His teaching on the Publican praying, as an example, was in opposition to the way the Pharisees thought. Even if a Publican were to repent, it only made him a pentient and he would have to do the works of the Law in accordance with the ways in which he had violated it. The very offense of the Prodigal Son story is that the "unrightoues son" is received with gladness and restored prior to working off all the damage he had done to his family. The person stadning in the darkness gnashing his teeeth at his father at the end is the Pharisee who cannot understand that, he too, is a sinner in need of the same kind of reighteousness that eludes him.
So, the problem with the way French thinks here is that the ad makes him think of the wrong thin with respect to the work of Christ. It's not that we are are not called to love our enemies. This much is true. But the way that Christ loved His enemies is that He became a curse for His enemies so that all who looked to Himw ould become His friends.
This doesn't mean that we ought not seek ways to serve and love our neighbors. It's only that the idea that what Christ promised is "unconditional love" is a false story. Chrsit came to save sinnwer on condition that they put their trust in Him. This is a condition that God provides by His Spirit but it is an important distinction in the Chrsitian message. The Gospel of the "unclonditional love" of God is a hallmark of Chrsitian Liberalism and French walks right into it.
WWJD is insufficient, because Jesus basically taught 'while you are doing what you do, pay attention to XYZ.' Humankind has been given the Creation Mandate, to rule and develop, and the Great Commission to disciple the nations. These are broader and messier than what Jesus did in his earthly ministry.
My point is this: noting that the church is not acting like Jesus is not necessarily a valid criticism.
I've been a fan of Howard Marks' newsletters for a long time. I think Marks strives to be a pure rationalist. He works to identify and eliminate his biases and to be explicit about the models he uses to make investment decisions. That kind of empiricism can be extended to all areas of life. I found Marks especially useful during the chaotic early days of Covid even though I strenuously disagree with some of his conclusions. I think the Church would benefit if Christian leaders were more analytical and less emotional and impulsive in the way they think about current issues.
So does David French consider it a good thing that the ad is preaching at right-wing Christians to be less hypocritical? I would have thought that French is exactly the kind of guy who would encourage that kind of message. If even David French thought that was over the top, that is really saying something.
If the content of the Gospel is corrupted or damaged in the container of ads, music, preaching, or art. The container has no power, the Gospel has All the power. The effort fails if truth is not presented.
If we give them ice cream instead of insulin medicine, and they are diabetic they will suffer. Same with tasty substitutes for the gospel.
I'd actually disagree somewhat with Aaron's summary. French's piece doesn't directly agree that the ad is attacking conservative Christians for the sake of engaging with seculars. He seems to think the intended audience is actually Christians (contrary to the stated purpose of "He Gets Us"). French very much considers this a good thing, and *he's* the one using our failure to get the message to, in turn, attack us in front of seculars in his column.
Key sentences:
"Yes, there were Christians who were offended by the ad. But there are millions of others, like me, who watched the ad and felt challenged. We asked ourselves if we were adequately loving and serving our neighbors."
I don't think French is necessarily wrong that at least partly what the campaign wants to do now is browbeat conservative Christians, rather than try to convert seculars. I called out, in a late comment on Aaron's post, that the "He Gets Us" campaign is actually now controlled by a different entity, with a different CEO, and it's unclear what the circumstances were of this taking place, and if this might represent a major change in strategy and priorities.
Just perusing the comments on the NYT site for French's piece pretty well encapsulates what I expect many secular viewers of the He Gets Us ad would be led to think from it:
"These self-professed holier-than-thou "christians" don't love Jesus. They just love telling people that they love Jesus. They hide behind their religion and use it as justification for their bigotry and hatred..."
"What hypocrisy from the religious right!"
"Amen to that. Time to look in the mirror, MAGA..."
I wonder if French would have felt challenged if one of the images in the ad were of a NYT opinion writer washing the feet of a MAGA hat-wearing rural white evangelical.
I'm inclined to think that if you're writing about fellow Christians in the pages of a hostile publication, you always ought to leave that audience a little bit annoyed at you for going too easy on those Christians. When I've searched out critical comments of French coming from the left, they're always along the lines of "Why can't French see that the problem is with Christianity itself?" I can't find anyone criticizing him for going too easy on what's purportedly his own side. Comments about Douthat are much more critical. Some leftist NYT readers really do hate him.
The Guardian: Can AI porn be ethical? - No
Another application of Academic Agent's guide to media literacy (though I'm not sure it was intended in this case): if the headline is a question, the answer is "No."
The article itself felt simultaneously tragic and hilarious. One feels somewhat sad for these "sex workers" but I shake my head at their apparent naivety (which may reach the level of "stupidity"). You can't have "consent" be the only criteria for sexual ethics, while allowing all other facets of sexual permissiveness, and then expect that the users whose depravity they prey upon will not immediately jump ship to some other AI that will fulfill their wants.
I hope that the AI will put all the camgirls out of business such that it stops young women from making bad decisions about what they put on the internet.
I thought about this a bit more and want to narrow down my critique. It's related to my first comment, but a bit more focused on why I'm frusttrated by French's comments.
In hite opinion piece, French focuses on the social imperative of how Christians ought to act toward others and misses that the concern over the He Gets Us campaign isn't what Christian love may look like but the Christ behind the Christian.
It's extremely rare for me to meet a Christian who thinks we ought not to love our neighbors and our enemies. If I'm asked why I'm kind to others whom I believe are living in sin, my answer is not "Jesus preached a Gospel of Unconditional Love."
It's not that I want to see an Ad that depicts someone "hammering" a sinner caught in sin, but French paints Ad opposition in this light. He says we should be demonstrating the fruit of a converted life with our lives. This much is generally true, but who "spoke" in this commercial? It was the He Gets Us campaign, and they "explained" the actions with a false Christ behind the actions. This is the point of Samuel Sey's article and French zeroes in on a single sentence talking about the idea that the message would not be simply "Jesus loves you no matter what you do."
Again, the Ad "spoke" about Jesus telling *us*: "This is what Jesus would do, and why aren't you doing it?" Christians, who are otherwise living quiet lives (unlike French, who tells us the kind of Christian he is) have a right to criticize a message that is trying to publically "correct" the Jesus they believe in.
LAW and GOSPEL
If you want to read the article by Frenchthen you can read it here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240215205418/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/15/opinion/he-gets-us-super-bowl-christianity.html
I think French's take on the work of Christ is essentially moving towad a progressive bent - that Jesus "helped" sinners and the opposition he faced was from religious folk who were close-minded and ignored suffering.
That Jesus recieved sinners, however, is always qualified by the way in which He welcomed sinners. He came to those who recognized their sin and came to Him even as He sought them out.
The opposition He faced from the PHarisees owed to their theology of being a "penitent". A person was righteous, in the Rabbinic tradition, if one kept the Law. There was no categoy in their thinking for a "sinner" being recived as righteous in the way that Christ provided. His teaching on the Publican praying, as an example, was in opposition to the way the Pharisees thought. Even if a Publican were to repent, it only made him a pentient and he would have to do the works of the Law in accordance with the ways in which he had violated it. The very offense of the Prodigal Son story is that the "unrightoues son" is received with gladness and restored prior to working off all the damage he had done to his family. The person stadning in the darkness gnashing his teeeth at his father at the end is the Pharisee who cannot understand that, he too, is a sinner in need of the same kind of reighteousness that eludes him.
So, the problem with the way French thinks here is that the ad makes him think of the wrong thin with respect to the work of Christ. It's not that we are are not called to love our enemies. This much is true. But the way that Christ loved His enemies is that He became a curse for His enemies so that all who looked to Himw ould become His friends.
This doesn't mean that we ought not seek ways to serve and love our neighbors. It's only that the idea that what Christ promised is "unconditional love" is a false story. Chrsit came to save sinnwer on condition that they put their trust in Him. This is a condition that God provides by His Spirit but it is an important distinction in the Chrsitian message. The Gospel of the "unclonditional love" of God is a hallmark of Chrsitian Liberalism and French walks right into it.
WWJD is insufficient, because Jesus basically taught 'while you are doing what you do, pay attention to XYZ.' Humankind has been given the Creation Mandate, to rule and develop, and the Great Commission to disciple the nations. These are broader and messier than what Jesus did in his earthly ministry.
My point is this: noting that the church is not acting like Jesus is not necessarily a valid criticism.
I've been a fan of Howard Marks' newsletters for a long time. I think Marks strives to be a pure rationalist. He works to identify and eliminate his biases and to be explicit about the models he uses to make investment decisions. That kind of empiricism can be extended to all areas of life. I found Marks especially useful during the chaotic early days of Covid even though I strenuously disagree with some of his conclusions. I think the Church would benefit if Christian leaders were more analytical and less emotional and impulsive in the way they think about current issues.
So does David French consider it a good thing that the ad is preaching at right-wing Christians to be less hypocritical? I would have thought that French is exactly the kind of guy who would encourage that kind of message. If even David French thought that was over the top, that is really saying something.
If the content of the Gospel is corrupted or damaged in the container of ads, music, preaching, or art. The container has no power, the Gospel has All the power. The effort fails if truth is not presented.
If we give them ice cream instead of insulin medicine, and they are diabetic they will suffer. Same with tasty substitutes for the gospel.
To be clear, he DID like the ad.
I'd actually disagree somewhat with Aaron's summary. French's piece doesn't directly agree that the ad is attacking conservative Christians for the sake of engaging with seculars. He seems to think the intended audience is actually Christians (contrary to the stated purpose of "He Gets Us"). French very much considers this a good thing, and *he's* the one using our failure to get the message to, in turn, attack us in front of seculars in his column.
Key sentences:
"Yes, there were Christians who were offended by the ad. But there are millions of others, like me, who watched the ad and felt challenged. We asked ourselves if we were adequately loving and serving our neighbors."
I don't think French is necessarily wrong that at least partly what the campaign wants to do now is browbeat conservative Christians, rather than try to convert seculars. I called out, in a late comment on Aaron's post, that the "He Gets Us" campaign is actually now controlled by a different entity, with a different CEO, and it's unclear what the circumstances were of this taking place, and if this might represent a major change in strategy and priorities.
Just perusing the comments on the NYT site for French's piece pretty well encapsulates what I expect many secular viewers of the He Gets Us ad would be led to think from it:
"These self-professed holier-than-thou "christians" don't love Jesus. They just love telling people that they love Jesus. They hide behind their religion and use it as justification for their bigotry and hatred..."
"What hypocrisy from the religious right!"
"Amen to that. Time to look in the mirror, MAGA..."
I wonder if French would have felt challenged if one of the images in the ad were of a NYT opinion writer washing the feet of a MAGA hat-wearing rural white evangelical.
Well observed.
Recall this piece of Aaron's, which I agree with:
https://www.aaronrenn.com/p/pick-the-right-forum
I wrote this comment:
I'm inclined to think that if you're writing about fellow Christians in the pages of a hostile publication, you always ought to leave that audience a little bit annoyed at you for going too easy on those Christians. When I've searched out critical comments of French coming from the left, they're always along the lines of "Why can't French see that the problem is with Christianity itself?" I can't find anyone criticizing him for going too easy on what's purportedly his own side. Comments about Douthat are much more critical. Some leftist NYT readers really do hate him.
Yeah. French thinks the ad is critiquing conservative Christians and that's a good thing - but he certainly agrees it is critiquing them.
I would read the column myself but for the paywall. Its nice to have people like you read the NYT so I don't have to!