He gets us?

[MyCrows]

If we are arguing about the message of the advert amongst ourselves, what is the unbelieving world getting out of the advert?

Just a thought.

 

[JvMill]

I haven’t seen this mentioned yet, but this group had ads at last year’s Super Bowl (and leading up to it). I researched the group last year and they are no bueno when it comes to a biblical view of Jesus.

Their website:

Home

From loneliness and anxiety, to anger, sorrow, temptation and more, Jesus gets what we go through because he went through it too. Now get to know him.

hegetsus.com

A cursory view of their articles reveals a shallow or even heterodox view of Jesus and the Christian faith.

 

[ZackF]

If we are arguing about the message of the advert amongst ourselves, what is the unbelieving world getting out of the advert?

Just a thought.

Confusion. By grace they will be driven to better materials.

 

[Jack K]

you also said earlier that you found the message of the ad to be "not too far off from the gospel." But what is the message of the ad? The only words in the whole thing are, "Jesus didn't teach hate. He washed feet. He gets us. All of us. Jesus." That's fine, so far as it goes, but the problem is that it doesn't go very far and thus permits a wide variety of interpretations--which problem is aggravated by the fact that the interpretation of the creators of the video is the wrong one. If you read their explanation of the video on the page to which the video directs you, it's all about loving and serving each other, even people very different from ourselves, without a single word about the actual content of the gospel. "Love your neighbor" is not the gospel, but it is the message of the ad.

I can agree with your concerns. I don't think the ad should be called a gospel presentation; it doesn't go that far, not even close. I suspect the advertisers would agree and would say they are merely softening the ground for the gospel, or something like that, though I too am guessing at their intent.

I do not think the advertisers are targeting conservative Christians to scold them for being unloving, but are aiming that ad at unbelievers with the message that Jesus' impulse toward people—even in their differences and trouble and sin—is not hate but love. If that impression is correct, I stand by my comment that it is not far off from the gospel; it is a start. Of course, the ad itself did not word things that way. We all know that in advertising, impressions often matter more than the words you use, and this is an ad not a sermon. At the same time, the differing impressions people have had mean the criticism from some believers that in this case the ad was too ambiguous surely has merit.

If I had $100 million to spend, I doubt I would put it into an ad campaign for Jesus. I don't believe ads are how his kingdom advances. And if I did run an ad, I would say some different things. And if those advertisers and I were to compare our approaches to society's evils and even our core beliefs, we might find we have disagreements. But I also do not wish to attribute wrong motives to others, even if I might disagree with them. And the "intentionally portraying those who protest abortion as hateful" that you mentioned just isn't something I saw in that ad. Especially if the speculation is correct that David Green is one of the chief spenders behind the ad, we're talking about someone who has taken many bullets for the pro-life cause. I'm not ready to accuse him of turning traitor based on what I saw.

 

[mpinckard]

I can agree with your concerns. I don't think the ad should be called a gospel presentation; it doesn't go that far, not even close. I suspect the advertisers would agree and would say they are merely softening the ground for the gospel, or something like that, though I too am guessing at their intent.

I do not think the advertisers are targeting conservative Christians to scold them for being unloving, but are aiming that ad at unbelievers with the message that Jesus' impulse toward people—even in their differences and trouble and sin—is not hate but love. If that impression is correct, I stand by my comment that it is not far off from the gospel; it is a start. Of course, the ad itself did not word things that way. We all know that in advertising, impressions often matter more than the words you use, and this is an ad not a sermon. At the same time, the differing impressions people have had mean the criticism from some believers that in this case the ad was too ambiguous surely has merit.

If I had $100 million to spend, I doubt I would put it into an ad campaign for Jesus. I don't believe ads are how his kingdom advances. And if I did run an ad, I would say some different things. And if those advertisers and I were to compare our approaches to society's evils and even our core beliefs, we might find we have disagreements. But I also do not wish to attribute wrong motives to others, even if I might disagree with them. And the "intentionally portraying those who protest abortion as hateful" that you mentioned just isn't something I saw in that ad. Especially if the speculation is correct that David Green is one of the chief spenders behind the ad, we're talking about someone who has taken many bullets for the pro-life cause. I'm not ready to accuse him of turning traitor based on what I saw.

Well, in the end I think we're going to come down just a bit differently on the merits and demerits of the ad, though not far apart. I'm willing to admit I probably jumped to a too-harsh judgment of motives regarding the image we've mostly been focusing on, and at this point it seems that we agree that it certainly doesn't communicate well. But coupling the ad with the explanatory article on the He Gets Us website, I think the ad is very much communicating the wrong message, and ultimately is doing more harm than good.

 

[DanSSwing]

I can agree with your concerns. I don't think the ad should be called a gospel presentation; it doesn't go that far, not even close. I suspect the advertisers would agree and would say they are merely softening the ground for the gospel, or something like that, though I too am guessing at their intent.

It's virtually certain that the people who actually designed the ad are either trying to drive unbelievers to the apostate/mainline denominations, which no longer even have the gospel, or harden them against real churches.