Also, even bending over backwards to appease the powers that be isn't ever going to be enough -- a major flaw for the "engager strategy" in Negative World. Despite the herculean woke efforts of this campaign, they are still being "called out" for not being "inclusive" enough, i.e. failing to offer full-throated endorsement of the Rainbow Reich. Give it up, guys, they're going to hate you no matter what.
I missed the ads during the Super Bowl but watched them here. I’m struck by what Aaron said about none of them talking about Jesus as our Redeemer. Just finished reading the “Origins of Paul’s Religion” by Machem and the most enlightening point revealed to me was that Paul didn’t talk much about Jesus’ miracles (if at all) or His teachings, but how Jesus was his redeemer and died for him. Whether the “He Gets Us” campaign is preevangelism or not at some point “He Gets Us” must get to “He Redeems Us.”
The foot washing video would not be inappropriate if aimed at an evangelical audience, just as a reminder how we ought to feel about our "enemies". The problem in aiming it toward a secular audience is it plays into the narrative that Christians are all hate-filled bigots who are condemning others instead of being like Jesus.
Appreciate the willingness to reassess here, Aaron.
I can get behind the notion that evangelism (or pre-evangelism) aimed at the left may need to be unappealing to some of our sensibilities. But maybe a first test for this sort of evangelism is that it shouldn't just give secular leftists ammo to attack conservative Christians and further convince themselves that we're wrong about everything while they're right and already have it all figured out.
Maybe the "He Gets Us" market research dept. came up with different results, but I honestly think the idea is extremely widespread on the left that Jesus (if he existed) was just a really nice guy. The sort of guy who might just happen to wash your feet. E.g., there's something like this from this SNL bit from about a year ago: according to it, the authorities killed Jesus because of his "radical message of peace and love."
It's rare that secular depictions of Jesus ever portray his wrath, portray him as crazy, ignorant, etc. He's almost always a really cool, chill teacher. If any actual words of his from the Bible are depicted, it's the preaching of the Beatitudes.
Under this view, practically every group in our society is nicer/more tolerant than conservative Christians and therefore more Christlike. So when "He Gets Us" reinforces this message, it just reinforces the idea that one doesn't actually need to engage with Christianity or the Bible. You'll be far more Christlike by following the current leftist moral fashions.
I find it ironic how much some like to emphasize how countercultural Jesus's message was, but apparently that message is fully in line with today's cultural values. And I suppose this fits in with a Progressive, Whig view of moral progress and Jesus being ahead of his time. I could imagine a leftist reading the Gospels and thinking things like, "Of course Jesus loved tax collectors, he realized how necessary taxes are for a civilized society," or "Look at how Jesus advocated for sex workers!"
One of the chief obstacles to the Christian faith is the “Jesus” of popular culture. The Jesus of the Bible affirms Scripture: the “Jesus” of popular culture rejects Moses, David, and Paul. We need to proclaim that the Bible is not just the Word of God, but the Word of Jesus - so Marcionite has our culture become.
The throwing the pro-lifers under the bus part (why is it always us?) is especially surprising considering the Green family is pro-life and went to the mattresses on the HHS contraceptive mandate, all the way to the Supreme Court. Perhaps they have changed, or perhaps they didn't think through it carefully enough.
This is a very late follow-up (hopefully Aaron also sees it), but I wanted to call out that I recently noticed that "He Gets Us" is now apparently controlled by a different organization: it moved from the Servant Foundation (to which the Greens are/were donors) to a new group called Come Near (none of whose donors I believe have been disclosed). There is also a new CEO, Ken Calwell of Papa Murphy's.
I can't seem to find anyone who has discussed the exact nature of this transaction. Maybe it was always part of the plan to set up a new, independent organization, or maybe some like the Greens or others at the Servant Foundation saw how the campaign was faring and decided to quietly cut ties, perhaps even selling the brand and its assets to this new organization.
In any case, my Spidey-senses tell me the change of advertising strategy and change of control/ownership aren't a coincidence.
I think it just shows that Green is keeping an arms-length distance from this thing. Either because he's mentally checked out, he's willing to bite his tongue and trust these people that this is how you need to address the young people today, or he's just not in control of the organization now and he might possibly have stopped giving to it.
A bit off-topic, but in support of the idea that "Negative World" means in some ways "the US in general follows the lead of San Francisco," I tried to see how far back the trend went -- it's at least as early as 1978. I wonder how many people back then would have predicted that the whole country was going in this direction...
1978: An OPC church in SF dismisses an openly gay organist, leading to a years-long campaign of vandalism and harassment, culminating in arson of the pastor's house while his family is sleeping inside, law enforcement does nothing:
It seems like that church is still there. But there is zero information about its leadership on the website, presumably to shelter them from harassment:
As you said in your book Life in the Negative World: “Consider, for example, the well-publicized problem the church has reaching men. This has long been known and discussed, yet millions of young males continue to turn to secular men’s gurus like Jordan Peterson, not the church, for answers and advice. Why? In part because Peterson is willing to speak truth to them clearly and compellingly.” Page 153.
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.
It's that horrible horrible misanthropic look featured in the Life of Julia video. (I know there's a name for that style, I just can't remember what it is.)
Also, even bending over backwards to appease the powers that be isn't ever going to be enough -- a major flaw for the "engager strategy" in Negative World. Despite the herculean woke efforts of this campaign, they are still being "called out" for not being "inclusive" enough, i.e. failing to offer full-throated endorsement of the Rainbow Reich. Give it up, guys, they're going to hate you no matter what.
https://www.themarysue.com/he-gets-us-controversy-explained/
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/controversy-over-he-gets-us
I missed the ads during the Super Bowl but watched them here. I’m struck by what Aaron said about none of them talking about Jesus as our Redeemer. Just finished reading the “Origins of Paul’s Religion” by Machem and the most enlightening point revealed to me was that Paul didn’t talk much about Jesus’ miracles (if at all) or His teachings, but how Jesus was his redeemer and died for him. Whether the “He Gets Us” campaign is preevangelism or not at some point “He Gets Us” must get to “He Redeems Us.”
And that’s why many people argue that Paul does not speak for Jesus (or God) at all, and that his writings are not the Word of Jesus.
I don't know if anyone can access this link, but check out the ad produced that gets it right.
https://twitter.com/j_bambrick/status/1757419713825517684?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1757419713825517684%7Ctwgr%5E8bbfcfb6048d2c1375c8f13215090c4092b32460%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fnews%2Fpastors-powerful-alternative-to-controversial-he-gets-us-super-bowl-ad-goes-viral
The foot washing video would not be inappropriate if aimed at an evangelical audience, just as a reminder how we ought to feel about our "enemies". The problem in aiming it toward a secular audience is it plays into the narrative that Christians are all hate-filled bigots who are condemning others instead of being like Jesus.
Appreciate the willingness to reassess here, Aaron.
I can get behind the notion that evangelism (or pre-evangelism) aimed at the left may need to be unappealing to some of our sensibilities. But maybe a first test for this sort of evangelism is that it shouldn't just give secular leftists ammo to attack conservative Christians and further convince themselves that we're wrong about everything while they're right and already have it all figured out.
Maybe the "He Gets Us" market research dept. came up with different results, but I honestly think the idea is extremely widespread on the left that Jesus (if he existed) was just a really nice guy. The sort of guy who might just happen to wash your feet. E.g., there's something like this from this SNL bit from about a year ago: according to it, the authorities killed Jesus because of his "radical message of peace and love."
https://youtu.be/hj6E2_3nraQ?si=8YhXEj8BqTFR3GD2
It's rare that secular depictions of Jesus ever portray his wrath, portray him as crazy, ignorant, etc. He's almost always a really cool, chill teacher. If any actual words of his from the Bible are depicted, it's the preaching of the Beatitudes.
Under this view, practically every group in our society is nicer/more tolerant than conservative Christians and therefore more Christlike. So when "He Gets Us" reinforces this message, it just reinforces the idea that one doesn't actually need to engage with Christianity or the Bible. You'll be far more Christlike by following the current leftist moral fashions.
Correct.
I find it ironic how much some like to emphasize how countercultural Jesus's message was, but apparently that message is fully in line with today's cultural values. And I suppose this fits in with a Progressive, Whig view of moral progress and Jesus being ahead of his time. I could imagine a leftist reading the Gospels and thinking things like, "Of course Jesus loved tax collectors, he realized how necessary taxes are for a civilized society," or "Look at how Jesus advocated for sex workers!"
One of the chief obstacles to the Christian faith is the “Jesus” of popular culture. The Jesus of the Bible affirms Scripture: the “Jesus” of popular culture rejects Moses, David, and Paul. We need to proclaim that the Bible is not just the Word of God, but the Word of Jesus - so Marcionite has our culture become.
The throwing the pro-lifers under the bus part (why is it always us?) is especially surprising considering the Green family is pro-life and went to the mattresses on the HHS contraceptive mandate, all the way to the Supreme Court. Perhaps they have changed, or perhaps they didn't think through it carefully enough.
This is a very late follow-up (hopefully Aaron also sees it), but I wanted to call out that I recently noticed that "He Gets Us" is now apparently controlled by a different organization: it moved from the Servant Foundation (to which the Greens are/were donors) to a new group called Come Near (none of whose donors I believe have been disclosed). There is also a new CEO, Ken Calwell of Papa Murphy's.
I can't seem to find anyone who has discussed the exact nature of this transaction. Maybe it was always part of the plan to set up a new, independent organization, or maybe some like the Greens or others at the Servant Foundation saw how the campaign was faring and decided to quietly cut ties, perhaps even selling the brand and its assets to this new organization.
In any case, my Spidey-senses tell me the change of advertising strategy and change of control/ownership aren't a coincidence.
I don't know about them specifically, but in my experience it's common for cultural engagement types to implicitly criticize the pro-life movement.
I think it just shows that Green is keeping an arms-length distance from this thing. Either because he's mentally checked out, he's willing to bite his tongue and trust these people that this is how you need to address the young people today, or he's just not in control of the organization now and he might possibly have stopped giving to it.
A bit off-topic, but in support of the idea that "Negative World" means in some ways "the US in general follows the lead of San Francisco," I tried to see how far back the trend went -- it's at least as early as 1978. I wonder how many people back then would have predicted that the whole country was going in this direction...
1978: An OPC church in SF dismisses an openly gay organist, leading to a years-long campaign of vandalism and harassment, culminating in arson of the pastor's house while his family is sleeping inside, law enforcement does nothing:
https://www.billygraham.ca/stories/attacked-but-not-silent/
https://wng.org/sift/in-the-beginning-1617251629
It seems like that church is still there. But there is zero information about its leadership on the website, presumably to shelter them from harassment:
https://www.sfopc.org/
1993: Gay mob prevents Lou Sheldon from preaching at a Baptist church in SF, the gay-run police and city government shrug their shoulders
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2625
As you said in your book Life in the Negative World: “Consider, for example, the well-publicized problem the church has reaching men. This has long been known and discussed, yet millions of young males continue to turn to secular men’s gurus like Jordan Peterson, not the church, for answers and advice. Why? In part because Peterson is willing to speak truth to them clearly and compellingly.” Page 153.
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.
Well put. What a joke. The funniest part of it was the images looked like they had been made by AI!
It's that horrible horrible misanthropic look featured in the Life of Julia video. (I know there's a name for that style, I just can't remember what it is.)
Or... Maybe not. On second glance it looks a little more photorealistic, so That might be where the AI part comes in?
I know. Another example of glomming onto a trend.