CNN video re “the ‘big money marketing’ of Jesus that’s set to air during the Super Bowl:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2023/01/27/jesus-campaign-he-gets-us-superbowl-kansas-right-wing-lead-foreman-vpx.cnn


Tom Foreman (CNN): “The message is stark, arresting and backed by $100M. It’s an ad campaign from anonymous donors via a non-profit to “market Jesus as a patient, loving, inclusive cure for our divisive times with the tag line 'He gets us'”.

Jason Vanderground, President of HAVEN – “We’re trying to unify the American people around the confounding love and forgiveness of Jesus.”

The campaign website says: “Jesus called out the toxic religious and political systems, led the protest against the walls that divide us and broke the chains that held women in bondage. Jesus was a refugee and an immigrant.”

Tom Foreman: “The campaign says: “It is an outreach to young Americans whom polls show are abandoning Christianity and other faiths at a historic pace.”

Jason V. (Christian): People “see Christianity as hypocritical, judgmental, discriminatory.”

Chrissy Stroop, former EV: “I believe it’s a PR effort and website strategically developed by right wing Evangelicals to rope people in with inclusive-sounding messaging and get them plugged into local churches that will eventually teach them that to be a Christian means to support right-wing politics.”

Tom Foreman: “This whole big money marketing of Jesus just makes some Christians uneasy. [NG holds up hand] … The campaign plans to release two new commercials during the Super Bowl where … some 30-second spots are going for $7M a pop”.

-----

I wonder how well this statement is received: “…broke the chains that held women in bondage”.

Because, uh ...

And this: “Jesus was a refugee and an immigrant.”

If you believe that is so why are some self-proclaimed Christians not more welcoming to refugees and immigrants in our day I wonder.

And why wouldn't you take that $100M and use it to help your fellow humans in need in more practical ways? It could go some way in alleviating suffering that's likely occurring in your own neighbourhood or nearby as we speak.

Too, how receptive to a 7-second flash of a religious message will a raucous football crowd be? I, for one, don't like ads with my sports.

And I don't get the connection between a sports venue on Big Game day and a sombre religious message. Unless they're planning on showing Jesus the Quarterback in their ad maybe?

I'm going to go out on a limb (and risk committing blasphemy in at least 2 realms) by saying I'm thinking Jesus would rather be at the World Cup for the footie. The Super Bowl is OK but the World Cup rocks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2023 02:54PM by Nightingale.

If Jesus fed 5000 with a few loaves and fishes, what might he do with $100 million?

But then there is an old country song - something about "Drop kick me Jesus through the goal posts of life".

I'm sorry, but the Evangelicals sold their souls to the devil, and they didn't even negotiate a decent price.

Frankly, if Jesus were going to a party, I think he'd prefer a quinceañera in Tucson, for several reasons.

I've seen some of the commercials -- the campaign is already up and running. I don't think they will accomplish what the donors hope they will accomplish. I think it's far too late for that. Christianity in developed nations is on the decline.

Jesus won't be going to the Superbowl. He's a Cincinnati fan.

I think a guy from Nazareth be more into soccer.

Who watches the Super Bowl anymore? I was at the beach yesterday and it was packed. The NFL is a has been.

I generally agree with you; I hate the Superbowl, with its endless commercials and its enormous halftime spectacles that have nothing to do with sports.

But yesterday was a surprise. I had not planned to watch the game but some things fell through and I had the game on in the background as I worked and ended up watching much of it.

It was a great game: two superior teams, incredible coaching (looking at you, Reid), and very competitive play. It was probably exceptional in that regard, but this particular Superbowl was a serious sporting event.

Way to trivialize Jesus by linking him to sports contests when there are so many other things we would hope Jesus would prioritize.

Marketing for Jesus is how they want to spend money? Do they honestly think all of humanity has been in a coma and have not heard of Jesus? Things like this make it even harder for me to take Jesus pushers seriously.

Eventually (I hope), Jesus will be plugging his favorite beer and snack treats.

With an animated on-screen character, there'd be no residuals to pay!

And who doesn't like Jesus?  (rhetorical; please do not answer!)

But did Jesus win the office pool?

I'm okay with it as long as there’s no wardrobe malfunction.

Christians prioritizing The Great Commission. Who would have thought it.

Kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Christians prioritizing The Great Commission. Who
> would have thought it.

To me, kentish, it’s not about the great commission. It’s about the money and the ulterior motive. (Ulterior motives are exceptionally close to the top of my list of undesirable and often despicable endeavours).

As I said above, with One Hundred Million dollars, how much could one do to provide essential assistance in their everyday lives to people in need?

Going by the 30-second ad buy for $7M and the apparent plan to buy two spots, it seems like there should be a lot of $$$ left over. The video/article isn’t all that precise, now that I look at it again. If they're spending $100M they'd get more than two ads. But even $14M (for two ads) is a LOT of money for what seems to likely be little return.

Re motive, or ultimate (or non-transparent) plan: It seems like a good idea to check out who is doing the buy and their various objectives. It’s likely there *is* more to it than perhaps meets the eye because how many football fans are you going to really personally reach, especially on the day of the biggest game? Also, from the video clip, as Foreman says, it is apparently known that the proselytizing efforts come with a side helping of at least one other objective, namely a political ploy.

So in my OP I was not intending to decry the Christian emphasis on proselytizing efforts (although that’s not my favourite part of Christianity) but rather (1) a hidden agenda (I seriously dislike those); (2) the amount of money involved in a likely low-yield effort; and (3) an apparent political motivation when you drill down on it.

As we are asked not to get into partisan politics here, I didn’t emphasize that part of the discussion.

But for me it’s distasteful due to the money and the apparently political motivation. That’s what I was attempting to address, not the commission thing – other than to say, again, I am not that fond of it. Partly due to some of the aspects of it that are mentioned in the following articles:

The Conversation:

https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-great-commission-and-why-is-it-so-controversial-111138

Excerpt:

“The Great Commission certainly motivated Protestant efforts to convert nations and peoples in Africa and Asia in the 19th century. It also fueled more recent efforts by evangelical Christians to “missionize” Catholic Latin America. Indeed, Latin America would not have become so Catholic without indigenous peoples being dominated by European imperialism and colonialism.

“Missionary efforts sometimes served economic interests relating to trade and resources as well religious ones.
Additionally, converting conquered peoples was a powerful way of extending political control.

“Converting others to Christianity raises a fundamental question about whether religious diversity is a reality to be celebrated or an obstacle to be overcome. Given the complex history of missionary activity, the meaning of the Great Commission will continue to be a subject of debate as Christianity confronts a rapidly changing world.”


Christianity.com:

https://www.christianity.com/jesus/early-church-history/great-commission/the-great-commission-is-the-great-command.html

Excerpt:

“This is what is known as the Great Commission. In the original language, these words are a command. That is why we call this the Great Commission and not the Great Suggestion. And I believe that to fail to do this actually could be a sin. “A sin?” you might say. “Well, maybe we should do more, but it is not a sin if I don’t share the gospel.”

“But I think it could be, because James 4:17 says, “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” This is called the sin of omission, which is not doing what you are supposed to do.”

-----

“I believe” and “I think it could be” are not the most persuasive Christian apologetics statements I’ve ever heard.

We will have to disagree on this one Nightingale. Christian evangelism has been the heart of the religion as modeled by Christ himself during his lifetime. It is not about to run its course. As to the motives of those behind this particular effort I will assume they are about souls rather than politics. The quality of the effort is another matter. It has received criticism from some other religious groups on the basis that it is too general to have the effect the creators might desire and that the money could be better spent on more practical efforts.

Kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It has received criticism from
> some other religious groups on the basis that ... the money could be better spent on more practical efforts.

Yes, this is my immediate reaction too. That was meant to be the main thrust of my post.

It's OK, Kentish - we can disagree here and there (perhaps quite a bit) but we'll always have football, England, and Scotland Forever in common. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2023 07:39PM by Nightingale.

Apart from which, Nightingale, you never fail to meet the imagined persona I see in your posts.

I hope that is a positive, kentish. Knowing you (only in cyberspace, but still) I will assume so and thank you very much for your kind comment.

I'd love to share a cup of tea with you and your wife some day. Mine is Yorkshire Gold, thankyouverymuch. :)

All good including the tea.

There's a good chance I've posted these before but once is never enough! :)


Royal Scots Dragoon Guards – Going Home

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRWY7a-O_p0



Royal Military Edinburgh Tattoo - 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49Ag2bjgUIw

I made a math error (what a surprise!) or really just a misstatement re the $$ and length of a single commercial: I said above that it was a 7-second commercial but it's actually 30-seconds for $7M.

My margin-of-error time to edit my post is up so I have to explain myself here below my OP.

Speaking of math, I think the article/video isn't quite precise enough to fully explain what they're actually doing with the $100M. Buying two commercials is mentioned. If the cost is $7M for each commercial of 30 seconds they could buy far more than two commercials if they were planning on using up $100M at that one game. (Don't ask me to calculate exactly how many but it's more than two).

So I'm a little confused. Still, it's a lot of money, whether for 30-seconds x 2, or more.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2023 03:07PM by Nightingale.

The larger amount of money could be for the entire ad campaign, which is already up and running.

I may be wrong, but this sounds so very Mormon. Mormons like to do things publicly--I'm a Mormon campaign, TV ads, etc--that make Mormons feel good but have virtually no affect on anyone else.

I don't think the evangelical use of Superbowl adverts is going to make a difference anywhere but in the minds of those who are already evangelicals, who will feel like they've finally "arrived." The campaign may cause some believers to switch denominations or congregations, but I don't think it'll move the needle with non-believers.

Could be wrong. I just don't think conversion works over nachos and beer.

"and broke the chains that held women in bondage"

Standard grade A+++ christian hypocrisy.

https://www.webmd.com/women/news/20220630/abortion-opponents-dont-want-patients-crossing-state-lines

"Several national anti-abortion advocacy groups and lawmakers in Republican-led states are pushing forward with plans to block people from crossing state lines to seek the procedure elsewhere."

"The National Association of Christian Lawmakers, an anti-abortion organization led by Republican state legislators, has also begun working with the authors of the Texas abortion ban, the Post reported. The group is exploring model legislation that would restrict people from crossing state lines for abortions."

That's just more performance art. Constitutionally, no state can prevent its residents from traveling to another state for what is a legal purpose in that other state.

These jokers are just doing things to please their supporters with no chance of substantive success. It really is "Mormon."

Yes, but that they are even trying, however performatively, illustrates the hypocrisy.

I believe what we are seeing is a struggle for the heart and soul of evangelism.

We've seen the White Nationalist faction in action for years, and I don't know the predisposition of the sponsors of this program but I did see today an advertisement entitled "He Knows US" that highlighted the commonality between Jesus as a refugee and Latinos as refugees. If this advert was part of the new campaign, it may well represent an attempt to get beyond the reactionary faction and return to the sort of thing Jesus taught.

What will this campaign offer and how will it be received by the various parts of the evangelical movement. To me, that will be instructive to observe.

I'm being cynical, but I see that as a ploy to appeal to Latino voters (as if it might make up for the blatant racism against brown people).

I fully agree with that, dagny. My point was simply that there is a big part of the evangelical Christian movement in the United States that will take offense at outreach to Latinos let alone to the implicit comparison of them to Jesus (not to be confused with Jesus).

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... I did see today
> an advertisement entitled "He Knows US" that
> highlighted the commonality between Jesus as a
> refugee and Latinos as refugees. If this advert
> was part of the new campaign, it may well
> represent an attempt to get beyond the reactionary
> faction and return to the sort of thing Jesus
> taught.

I hope the second statement above is true but I didn't get that impression, at least from this brief video and the back story. One of my misgivings, mentioned in the OP, is the way some people advocate against accepting refugees or at least do nothing to reach out and assist them if possible.

Mostly it's the gigantic expenditure that I also question.

Too, the apparent underlying political motivations (not discussed due to reason I stated above). That is honestly the aspect I most object to - a hidden motivation. That is dishonest and is very distasteful to me. Also, an aspect not likely to be signed off on by the Preacher at the centre of the religion.

I saw the ads last night.

They seemed to be well-intended, but obtusely misguided for all the reasons noted already.

There's another way I see it as problematic: if they're going to reach out to "everybody," the way they did in these adverts, then they need to be prepared to follow through when they come to church, want to join congregational leadership, etc. In other words, evangelizers need to be prepared to accept the other people just as they are, welcome them, and include them.

For example, I can't see my late dad's church--where "dressing down" meant wearing a blazer and slacks instead of a proper suit--being eager to have bikers, and BLM protesters, and LGBTQ people, etc, in the pews with them, let alone as vested members of the congregation.

This movement probably stems more from the non-denominational mega church movement though, and those churches could certainly accommodate "different" sorts of people in terms of seating capacity, but I think they would be equally unlikely to let them genuinely become an integral part of the fabric of the church.

In other words, if the effort bears any fruit, then the follow through can't be, "come to our church and be like us." The evangelizers need to adapt to the evangelized, not vice versa.

I completely agree.

If a family of Latino immigrants with limited English and shoddy clothing entered one of those chapels, they would be shunned if not escorted out. This campaign is no better than the "I'm a Mormon" campaign of yesteryear.

The problem isn't the lipstick: it's the pig.

Exactly

*Gone fishing*



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2023 05:17PM by Lot's Wife.

I already knew that, but-

No word yet on where he’ll be seated!

with regular fans (which side ???) on the 50, or,

In the broadcast booth doing the color or play-by-play, or,

In the blimp ?

maybe he’ll set a good example for TBM Mormons & be on the clean-up crew... ya think?

Will the teams be taking a knee ?

I think I misunderstood some of the facts about the $100M campaign so this is my correction: 1) because I like to be accurate and 2) because I like to be specific wrt details.

I've read about this He Gets Us campaign all over the place by now. As an aside, not that I'm high church at all, but the slogan seems overly casual to me. I guess that shouldn't be surprising as the campaign is directed at trying to bring younger people into the fold. They apparently prefer casual over formal. But to me, even though I'm casual too for the most part, I don't tend to think of Jesus in casual terms as in let's be buddies. Maybe there's a scriptural reference I've overlooked or some exegesis I've missed on that score that says we're all buds together.

The way the one-hundred-million-dollars is noted in all the articles I've seen or videos I've heard so far make it read or sound to me like the entire hundred-million-dollars was being used for a few ads at the Super Bowl. That incredible expense was what I was reacting to in my OP for this thread.

But it seems the campaign is indeed $100M in total, whereas they bought two ads for the Bowl at a total cost of $14M (although I've seen another post here mentioning $20M). In any case, this post is to say that I was incorrect, it seems, in my OP here, stating that they were intending to spend $100M all at the one game this past Sunday.

So, yeah, $14M or $20M is still a lot of dosh. But it's not $100M. So I stand corrected on that score.

Still, there is apparently $100M earmarked for this specific purpose of advertising Jesus in his new ?friendlier persona. In general, I still think that's a ton of $$$ that could be spent in much more concrete ways to provide direct assistance to people in need. No matter what their religious beliefs are.

Another random thought that struck me:

These videos/adverts may actually be better directed at the current church membership, sort of like a homily. They're largely the ones who need to better understand the campaign's message. They're the ones who need to understand that Jesus gets everyone. People outside the church don't necessarily need to know that, especially if they're aren't interested in the church anyway.

The message seems to be, "come to church in spite of whatever we don't like about you."

It even seems unnecessarily divisive to effectively say, "you're extremely different (or "bad"), but we're reaching out to you anyway."

This morning, dailykos.com ran with a story that appeared in the Washington Post stating that the group funding these ads are known for their anti-abortion rights and anti-LGBT work, and that it is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

So...LW is right. This group *is* nefarious!