Advertising God

Recently, on a drive to a friend's house, I passed a church with a large sign at its front entrance. This particular sign grabbed my attention more than most church signs do. I'm not sure if I'm more attentive to church signs because of my Christian faith or if non-churchgoers also scrutinize them like I do. Whatever the reason, this sign grabbed my attention and it said, "Hey, look at me. I'm up here in large capital letters and I have something to say."

Oh, it had something to say alright.

Short but surely not sweet, this church's sign read: "THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY."

Let me choose my words carefully and say that I wasn't supportive of this sign and its message for me and others passing by. If that church's goal is to welcome outsiders, their sign was a pretty poor invitation. I'll readily admit that our modern-day society seems to have a disparaging view of marriage. The divorce rate is higher now than it has ever been before. Many people have committed adultery with little guilt following afterward. With that said, are these people not welcome in church? Maybe what incited this church's signage was the recent news of now-former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer and his connection to a prostitution ring. Still, is Eliot Spitzer not welcome at the table of God's grace? If I had committed adultery, or was divorced, this church's sign would look like a big finger directing me to leave the premises. What I hope this church comes to realize is that there is a difference between accepting sinners into the house of God and condoning their sin.

I've written before about the importance of considering how we, as Christians, present ourselves to the world. My wife and I have discussed this topic at length, and we both are very passionate about representing Christ to the world in effective ways. Our words matter and the world doesn't need to know everything that we feel strongly about. When we share every opinion that we have, we begin to tread on the dangerous ground of negativity and intolerance. We must use much diligence as we choose our words and our actions. Others are watching.

Though it seems trivial, even a church sign needs to be handled with care. We are all sinners who need God's grace. Presenting yourself as a holy, faultless person really separates you into a different category from those you should be attempting to connect with. Christians are no better than those who aren't believers. In our attempts to share our faith with others, we must give considerable thought to ways that we can effectively show others who God is and how much he loves them. In a sense, we're advertising God to the world. Our society is jaded and very skeptical. If they think for a second that God is a heavy-handed judge just waiting to condemn them to death row, I suspect they'll turn away from him forever. I tend to believe that most people accept God because of his promises of forgiveness and grace, and that's the message we most need to convey.

I suppose it's God's will that I'm in advertising, because I'm naturally passionate about new methods of communicating a message to the public. I'm always thinking of more effective ways to 'advertise' faith. My wife said that if she were to decide what message was to go on a church sign, it would read, "ONLY SINNERS WELCOME HERE." Now that's a message that feels unexpectedly refreshing to me.

Greater Love Has No One Than This...

As Easter approaches early this year, my wife and I have been practicing to perform “Carry My Cross” by rock band Third Day on Palm Sunday. As we were practicing with the church band, we all discussed showing some video clips on the altar screen as we perform the song. This brought me to a site called GodTube.com. It’s a Christian version of YouTube. I found several video montages of “Carry My Cross” overlayed with scenes from Mel Gibson’s “The Passion Of The Christ.” It’s been around three years since I’ve seen “The Passion” and I had forgotten how gut-wrenching a film it is. I was abruptly reminded of Christ’s sacrifice for mankind and what a horrific amount of pain he endured.

We call the Friday that marks his crucifixion ‘Good Friday.’ In light of the resurrection, I understand why we call it this. Although, after watching this video, I couldn’t help but think what a horrible Friday it was. Very few men have ever suffered in this way. His torture went on for twelve hours. He wasn’t guilty of any crime.

If you believe what the Bible says, that Jesus is the son of God and that he died for man’s sin, then this video will be very emotionally-draining for you. This video brought tears to my eyes. I guess that’s appropriate at Easter. Would anyone but God’s son willingly endure such punishment? Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13).

Let's Call A Duck A Duck (Free Speech)

An offensive comment was recently posted on a local newspaper's blog by an employee of that paper. The comment, a racial slur, was posted by a man of color, interestingly enough. The newspaper made a public apology and dismissed the employee immediately. While I commend the newspaper for the apology, it caused me to question other areas of a newspaper. A racial slur is unacceptable because it is offensive and shows intolerance. I believe, then, that editorial cartoons also need to be examined because they display these same qualities. At the heart of my blog is this: why is it acceptable to mock our government leaders in an editorial cartoon, but unacceptable to use certain words against them in a column or online blog? Both forms of free speech can be offensive, especially to the person at which the cartoon or column is aimed. While I agree with the local newspaper's position, I do question the ethics behind their position.

Why Is One Form Of Criticism Acceptable In A Newspaper And Another Not?
While I'm not sure that I agree with what I'm about to say, I'd like to say it anyway. Some forms of criticism in a newspaper are acceptable while others are not because there are "no-no" words that should not be used in society. These words are off-limits because of how offensive they are. The employee that was dismissed by this local newspaper used a "no-no" word. He was dismissed, yet the newspaper still prints editorial cartoons that can also be viewed as offensive.

Let’s Call A Duck A Duck
Slander is slander. Mockery is mockery. Criticism is criticism. I don't agree with punishing one man for his form of criticism and allowing another's form of criticism to continue unscathed. It should be balanced and fair.

Do We Really Have ‘Freedom Of Speech’?
Free speech is a funny concept. In America, we have freedom of speech, but within the confines of the law. That in itself is an oxymoron: freedom, confinement. We are allowed to state our opinion publicly, but there can be consequences in doing so. I agree with this fact. If someone is threatening someone else publicly, that person should be held accountable and punished. Again, though, let's call a duck a duck. Maybe an asterisk is needed beside the phrase 'freedom of speech' in The Bill of Rights, noting that freedom of speech is not immune to the confines of the law.

Final Thoughts
In the instance of the local newspaper mentioned above, it seems to be a case of a person using a societal "no-no" word, thus putting pressure on the newspaper to apologize and dismiss the person guilty of using the word. This is unbalanced and unfair. Newspapers need to play a role in defining what words are healthy and acceptable forms of criticism and what words are not. If all public criticism can be offensive, then should it not all be under the same accountability?

Hard Questions

In this blog, I'd like to take you on a quick journey. It's a journey that goes from the wide, open fields of doubt and skepticism to the narrow path of belief and acceptance. To start this journey, I'd like to share a thought that occurred to me yesterday. Why do Christians tend to acknowledge God's presence when something good occurs, but blame outside circumstances when something bad occurs? An example might be helpful here. Let's say that we pray for God to keep us safe as we drive during the upcoming holiday. If we were then to hear about an accident that occurred over the holidays on the news, we might tend to not blame God, but the conditions that surround the accident. "The driver must have been driving too fast." Do we believe that God protects some and doesn't protect others? Don't accidents occur even to those who pray for safe travels? We all make driving mistakes; what role does God's grace play? Another example might be cancer. When someone is diagnosed with cancer, most Christians wouldn't blame God for that person's cancer. However, when that same person survives their bout with the disease, most Christians would praise God for his hand of healing in the person's life. Does God cause cancer, or does he only heal it?

So why throw out a prayer for protection? Why believe that God is really looking out for us? These are the type of hard questions that people often ask. I don't have the answers to these questions. In thinking about these queries, I quietly ask myself why I believe in God when things aren't fair or logical in the world. Then I remember the story of the widow who gave a couple copper coins, almost worthless, to the temple treasury. Jesus was impressed with her giving, not because of the amount that she gave, but because she gave everything she had to live on. Do you hear truth in that? What about the verse that tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves? The golden rule? Loving those who hate you? Because of the truth I hear in these verses, I want to believe in God. The hard questions are always going to be there. Sometimes they trip me and I fall in the open field of doubt. Then I'm reminded of the truth I've read in the Bible, and I stand up again to continue my journey on the narrow path.

It's easy to choose disbelief. There's plenty of messed-up crap in the world to make us question the presence of God. Do you ask hard questions? Do you want to find some truth in this life? Do you care? I serve a God who can handle all the questions I could ever throw at him. I may not find all of my answers, but that's not surprising. In the shadow of God, I'm about as large and intelligent as a grain of sand.

Money To Burn On Evangelism (revisited)

I-65 between Indianapolis and Nashville, Tennessee, is a rather boring stretch of highway. Don't get me wrong. The drive across the bridge into Louisville is very pretty and the scenery becomes more interesting the further south you go. For the most part, though, it's just highway. So when I drive south of Indy on I-65, I tend to give an eye to the billboards that line the road. It helps that I'm a graphic designer and love to look at advertising. On a recent trip to Nashville, I noticed one billboard in particular that grabbed my attention.

That it grabbed my attention at all is effective advertising. I tend to give most billboards only a passing glance. The problem is that the billboard fired me up, and not in a positive way. It read:
JESUS
SAVES
In an effort not to be a negative Christian, I should explain why a billboard with this message bothered me. Why would a billboard with a Christian message offend a Christian? This whole billboard was dedicated to a phrase that's as vague as a billboard that says 'FREE TIRES.' This hypothetical billboard doesn't tell where you can get these free tires. Are they new tires? Used tires? Is there a catch? You shake your head in distrust and keep driving.

Would anyone come to faith by simply reading the phrase 'Jesus Saves'?

In my opinion, this type of evangelism reduces the gospel message to a vague cliché. I'm sure the person who paid for the ad didn't mean for it to be received that way, especially by a Christian. As part of a younger generation of Christians, I want to be aware of how I'm received by others. I'm very careful about how I present my faith in conversations and elsewhere. I don't want to misrepresent Christ. I'm not perfect and do not pretend to be, but I strive to be honest and authentic.

If a person chooses to use a billboard as an evangelistic method, that's cool with me. It seems, though, that if an organization has enough money to buy advertising space on a highway billboard, a lot of careful thought should be put into the message that will be advertised. What words or images would really engage a passerby? What could be said that would prompt them to seriously evaluate their faith, or lack of faith?

Faith in God is really too big for a billboard. This doesn't mean that billboards or other types of advertising can't be effective forms of evangelism. In the example of the billboard, I might try a phrase such as:
Don't like religious people?
Neither did Jesus.
Luke 11:37-54
I'd like for people to think of Jesus outside of the stereotypes that we've boxed him into. I'd like to give people something to think about – brain food to chew on. A billboard advertisement can be a tool for evangelism. It can also be a tool against evangelism. It doesn't matter if a Christian or an atheist designs the billboard ad, the way the message is received is what's important. It seems too often that I see books, billboards, or preachers on television that have not carefully considered how their message will be received. Of course, the gospel message is always going to be accepted with hostility by many. And while that doesn't give us license to water-down the gospel, believers are taught to "be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity." (Col. 4:5)

This blog isn't meant to harshly criticize. I certainly don't want to condemn anyone who tries to promote the message of Christ. That doesn't mean that I will always agree with their methods.

What Pro-choice Is Not

Until recently, I believed I was firmly pro-life. Don't worry, this blog won't get too political. Politics seem to have an agenda—I don't. My only goal is to engage readers' minds and share my point of view. In this blog, I'd like to expand on what I believe pro-choice is not.

Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. Pro-choice is not anti-life. Pro-choice is not unChristian. Pro-choice is not Democratic, nor is it anti-Republican. Pro-choice doesn't mean that you're evil. It doesn't mean you have a disregard for human life.

Right now some readers are agreeing with my writing and some are vehemently opposed. But remember, I began by saying that, until recently, I was firmly pro-life. To add a little more confusion, let me say that I still value life. I'm still anti-abortion. But let's take a quick look at what pro-choice means to me and why I believe America should take a pro-choice stance.

To put it metaphorically, Americans have opened Pandora's Box. Yes, we've opened the door to the act of abortion. It's too late to go back and try to 'uninvent' it or forget that it exists. With that said, I believe banning abortion in this country would have the same effect that prohibition had. If people want alcohol, they'll find ways to get alcohol. Certain drugs are illegal in America and yet their use is as rampant as ever. The difference with abortion is the potential effect it can have on two human lives—mother and child. The taking of one human life is horrible enough. If abortion is banned, many young, scared mothers-to-be will seek out abortion in unsafe and often very dangerous ways. I've heard this called "back-alley abortions." If abortion is banned, there is a greater potential for two human lives to be lost rather than just one.

So let's say pro-choice is the lesser of two evils.

I hope and pray that abortions will cease. But it's not likely when we live in a world such as ours. So with that, I believe that safe and legal procedures should be available for this choice, even if it's a choice I would never want a woman to make.