8 Responses to “God bouncers”

1. 1 Richard Hall  on Dec 3rd, 2004 at 1:04 pm

   It’s an interesting controversy BD. I find it hard to see how a message of generl welcome should cause such a fuss, but then I’m just a horrid liberal!
   But I thought it was a US church behind the ad?

2. 2 BD  on Dec 3rd, 2004 at 1:22 pm

   You are correct Richard, I goofed, being rather denominationally challenged.
   It is a US denomination and commercial.
   Fixed. Thanks.

3. 3 Joel Thomas  on Dec 3rd, 2004 at 3:23 pm

   While gays may no longer be barred from attending church, the larger question is whether or not merely allowing attendance but prohibiting gays from leadership positions within the church is a truly welcoming stance. The UCC welcomes gay and lesbian leaders, including at the level of being ordained clergy.

4. 4 Steve N  on Dec 3rd, 2004 at 4:05 pm

   I guess what I have yet to hear expressed is that the controversy to me is not in welcoming persons of all stripes to a church, but the insinuation that some (perhaps most?) “other” churches would impede some at the door. It seems to me at least, that some would like to equate heterosexism (a belief that homosexual behavior, however natural, is sinful or disordered) to homophobia (an irrational “fear”, hatred, and intentional dissociation, possibly expressed in violence).

   I seems to me the vast majority of evangelical churches who teach that homosexuality is a sin (just like they do, or at least should, about premarital sex, adultery, lust, lying, sloth, gluttony, drunkeness, cheating on taxes, etc.) would undoubtedly welcome homosexuals and would, in fact, hate the sin but love the sinner. Or, at least, they should.

   In fact, I don’t see how anyone would know in the first place. That is to say that polite people do not ask about sexual proclivities, and polite people do not tell. That is to say that I don’t go around flaunting (wearing on my shirt sleeve) my predilection for nubile, cleanly shaven, Asian teens, or the “69″ sexual position. And neither should anyone else.

5. 5 Joel Thomas  on Dec 3rd, 2004 at 4:30 pm

   Steve,

   I get your point. However, if African-Americans were allowed to attend a church but not to be part of the church leadership, it could be said that they too aren’t barred at the door. However, would that be a true welcome?

   While it is fair enough for evangelical churches to take the position that homosexuality is wrong, history bears a long record of the majority of churches emphasizing homosexuality as a sin over and above other sins.

   Obviously we’re not going to have exactly the same perspective because I no longer accept the view that all committed homosexual relationships are sinful.

6. 6 Steve N  on Dec 3rd, 2004 at 4:53 pm

   However, if African-Americans were allowed to attend a church but not to be part of the church leadership, it could be said that they too aren’t barred at the door. However, would that be a true welcome?

   No, I don’t suppose it could be considered a welcome. But then “being African-American” is not considered a sin (by any sane person at least), nor is it even arguably a life-style choice. But then we don’t often (perhaps even ought not) offer leadership roles to just anyone who walks in the door.

   Ought a church offer a leadership role (priest, elder, pastor, deacon) to anyone who regularly or habitually yields to a besetting temptation of any kind? I’d hope not. Again, we’re agreed to disagree on whether homosexual behavior is necessarily a sin, but assuming that it is…

   … history bears a long record of the majority of churches emphasizing homosexuality as a sin over and above other sins.

   Yes, this is a rather embarrassing fact. But I’d like to work (within my rather conservative evangelical congregation) to change that. And it seems like a helpful step would be to (as I’ve read over at “The Anti-Manicheist”, I think) declare “detente in the culture war” and get reasonable people calmed down enough to apply their reasoning skills. The ad in question doesn’t seem to do that. It seems rather to point a big, fat (middle) digit back at those of us who (hopefully) politely and (hopefully) lovingly disagree.

   Cheers!

7. 7 Doug  on Dec 3rd, 2004 at 10:30 pm

   Thanx for posting this, BD. I confess to knowing about the ad, but I had not seen it until now.

   And - I am appalled. Recently some local network franchises refused to run “Saving Private Ryan” because they feared retribution from the FCC. It was one thing when they censored Howard Stern, but now the slippery slope is getting slicker. The network’s fear is understandable.

   In a larger sense it appears that anything that combines religion and controversy is too much for the FCC and therefore the networks.

   Too bad - I like the message of the ad very much.

8. 8 Bene Diction  on Dec 3rd, 2004 at 11:29 pm

   Interesting some people who have seen the players in the ad as homosexual. Some see racism.
   And Christianity Today is critical of the 30 million dollar ad campaign, of the networks, and of the message in some ways.

   As a non American I didn’t see it that way at all.
   The political or ‘value’ issues were something I had to think through. I’ve never heard of the Uniting Church of Christ so the political sailed right over my head. I didn’t believe the tag line, but I did believe the ‘bouncers.’ How it is and how is should be is too disconnected for me to ‘buy into.’
   I think the discussion above about sexuality and racism is who (churched) the ad agency wanted to target.