September 25, 2009
This is a powerful advertisement campaign.
It seems to achieve all that the creators set out to do:
The key issue to understand is that the ads are not meant to deliver the Gospel…. The key word here is that the ads are designed to create interest and to challenge people in terms of their understanding of what Jesus actually said. They are designed to connect with the community and encourage people to seek out more information.
Th opening line: “Hey Jesus, thanks for everything. Like, thanks for sunshine but what about sunburn” despite on surface level seeming to be superficial actually opens up the age old apologetics suffering question: If there is a God why is their suffering and pain?
You can see the success of this launch statement with the response of the wider community on media websites. Here is a sample of comments from media website Mumbrella:
- see what god did down in victoria earlier this year
- Why did my sister get gang raped and bleed to death in a park – Jesus has the answers – how nice
- Hey Jesus, Thanks for everything. Like, thanks for sunshine, but what about cancer?
These are huge questions and this is where I see the advertisements as a success.
They start up this dialogue and incite people to question. It also tackles the big ills of our world and our toxic culture of consumerism, body image and self worth, social isolation in an age of digital friendship, hedonism… Even thought the ad seems upbeat and light it is brilliantly powerfully in traveling deep into the brokenness and confusion of our society. The ads as such are a success in placing the issues and questions of faith on the agenda of our society.
While the older advertisements in the campaign were more personal and down-to-earth, perhaps promoting Christians to respond with their story for why Jesus is all about their Life, the new advertisement really packs a punch and launches into a need for Christians to be strong to respond with apologetics and explain how Jesus is the truth and answers.
The majority of evangelism training I have seen promoted by churches (mine included) in preparation for this campaign, were testimony workshops. Having not seen the advertisements or know the thrust of the ads it was hard to know what training would have been best. Preparing your own story is always beneficial anyway. as 1Pet. 3:15 clearly affirms:
“But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect”
However, are you prepared to give a reason for the hope you have when someone asks: Why did my sister get gang raped?
______________
I will write up additonal to help people to respond.
Helpful thoughts Hayley. I would agree with you about the benefits of the ad. I think that the TV ad will be more successful than some of the posters in creating this dialogue.
In response to how we are to explain the hope we have in cases such as “my sister got raped”, I think the second part of the quoted verse says it best – “..with gentleness and respect.” – we should weep with those who weep (Rom 12:15).
Thus, as with any personal interaction, you must relate to the person with an appreciation of who they are, what they’ve gone through and how they feel about that topic, all the while lovingly respecting them.
With the given case, a correct response is to be genuinely grieved as they are. The effects of sin in this world are often heart breaking. If they are seeking justice, then they need to hear that Jesus is the judge who will bring that judgement. If they were shocked at how people could do this, I would point them to the total depravity of man and the fact that Jesus needed to die to bring us back to God because of our rebellion. If they are unconvinced that there is a good God because of this, I would point them to the fact that God has a rescue plan and “will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away” (Rev 21:4).
Other thoughts?
I agree our attitude & tone should be that of gentleness and respect… but words do we actually speak?
Luke I like your answer…. but is that how you would say it in conversation? I worry we often blurt out the truth in ways which can make it hard for others to engage with.
We need to provoke and direct people to interact in dialogue. Not always give summary answers.
I think we need to do more diagnosis of the person asking the question before you give an answer.
Sometimes it is a smoke screen, sometimes it is reality for them, sometimes they just want to see Christians squirm.
I agree completely that we need to diagnose the person before giving an answer!
I think that is what I was trying to say in my 3rd paragraph.
Once we have worked out their intention with the question, then we can best work out how to reply to them.
I think its important to respond in a way that asks questions of them and their actual ‘question’ as well as geting them to ‘do the thinking’.
With careful questioning, we can learn what their thoughts/problems are of Jesus and also clarify their question. We can also help them engage with Jesus themselves in the area that are ‘interested’. The point I was making in the final para of my last comment was to say that dependant on their attitude, we would need to present a side of Jesus that interacts with that.
Does that make sense?
As to the actual word-by-word dialogue, I think that would depend entirely on the specific conversation being had!
I love this “we would need to present a side of Jesus that interacts with that” reminds me of Keller’s forms of the gospel stuff. So helpful – thanks Luke!
http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2008/spring/9.74.html
oh and totally agree re: word-for-word dialogue impossible to predict so many variables!!!
The campaign is benign, it doesn’t at all ‘challenge people in terms of their understanding of what Jesus actually said.’
It is just an exercise in branding jesus(tm).
I posted to your last post, questions that christians refuse to answer, indeed your last post is exactly what christians tend to do, and that’s side-step the answers.
You can word it up how you wish, you can claim it has such a great impact, but all it is doing is having people such as myself saying ‘enough is enough’, while you all pat yourselves on the back and try to keep uplifted over the massive fail. sigh.
Meanwhile, people like yourselves are pushing to have rights above and beyond others, your fighting the rights of secular parents to have their children allowed to be taught ethics and critical thinking, while your children are in scripture classes. Your pushing the legal right in victoria to be able to discriminate with gays and single mothers as an example.
You wonder why people are angry that you fight against basic human rights and claim a moral high ground?
Would you be happy if those not of your faith were allowed to discriminate against christians in the workplace, the same way as yourselves are now going to be allowed to in Victoria?
I disagree about the campaign and your thoughts that is benign and just a branding exercise. Gee Sus you have created a website and email in light of the campaign to rally forth your worldview. Even though we differ I think it is great that you have entered the dialogue. I disagree with your convictions yet I endorse that you are talking about what is important to you in the matters of life and death. You don’t want people to believe in god. I long to see people believe in God. It is healthy to be in conversation with people and as you are doing so I think you confirm the JAAL is a success. They wanted I guess in some way to upset the apple cart to get us talking about things that are important. Success!
I don’t think talk about Jesus will ever die down… the conversation has been going on for over 2000 years. Keep debating about it!
and briefly… I personally think Scripture in Schools is a privilege not a right. And am thankful that in NSW it is still allowed to happen. As for ethics/critical thinking… I am okay with that happening instead of free-time in the library for the non-Scripture kids… however I think it would be difficult for agnostics/atheists/spiritualists etc agree upon the curriculum. Maybe the atheists should develop a curriculum and raise up volunteers to run classes in schools like Christians, Jewish, Bahai do for RE and give parents the option???
No, I don’t want children abused by being taught false information as tho it were true but peers. I don’t want to see the continued higher level rights that people with faith claim over non-believers.
And your last comments, indeed secular groups HAVE provided curriculum .. have you even read about this? It’s the religious groups that are fighting to keep things the way they are.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/26/2697351.htm
“The Education Act prohibits non-scripture students being taught while others receive religious instruction.
It reflects a 19th Century deal between the New South Wales government and churches. ”
http://www.smh.com.au/national/almighty-row-over-ethics-class-in-schools-20090925-g6a0.html
The simple fact is religion tries to maintain the moral high ground just by claiming it, and actively restricting other groups from teaching critical thinking, as it is dangerous to the concepts you present.
Thanks for info