The "God Is Still Speaking" Ad Campaign
Last year, a United Church of Christ TV ad was rejected by CBS and NBC for being too controversial. It depicts bouncers of the sort that stand guard over the doors of popular nightclubs. But these are granting and withholding admission to a non-Church-of-Christ church service. The commercial then says that Jesus never turned anyone away. It's a good commercial, and it's true that people should accept all the groups the commercial identifies. I only bring it up because the campaign slogan is "God is still speaking." That sentence is either confused or scary. It's bad enough for the United Church of Christ to have a set of doctrines that you and I are not allowed to deny. It's worse if they get to change what we are not allowed to contradict, from year to year. People ignore progressive churches for the same reason they ignore the latest findings about cholesterol as the conclusions flip flop. If God's not even better than science, that's not very godlike.
Religions up until recently have emphasized faith in what one is told to believe, but they don't ignore personal observation and reason. That is, they don't ignore rationality with new recruits, but only with the most advanced followers. They employ personal observation and reason only far enough to discredit personal observation and reason in favor of believing whatever one is told. That's the way they maintain power over their congregations. Their God or holy book has already done all their important thinking for them, and yet they manage to convince their congregations that they have only given up thinking for themselves because this was the logical outcome of thinking. This is a nod to the value of somebody somewhere doing some thinking, but it remains only for them to learn it by rote. One can't have a message from Perfection Personified and simultaneously have room for improvement. That wouldn't be Perfection Personified. That's why dropping the "G" bomb is so final and absolutist. The concept of "god" can only be used as a sanction that asserts perfection and puts ideas outside of the realm of discourse.
Since "god" has no meaning without absolutism, "God is still speaking" is a nerve-wracking pronouncement because it means "absolutist from minute to minute." "Sources of infallible censorship can flip flop without any notice." An image comes to mind of one of the pigs from George Orwell's Animal Farm up on a ladder with a bucket of paint, editing the farm's constitution in the middle of the night. The nice thing is that the gods of progressive churches flop their followers around in the breeze so much that they undermine their confidence and they won't bother the rest of us with knocking on our doors on weekend mornings! I'm appreciative of that.
Comments
zifferent on Aug. 21, 2005 11:27 PM
I believe that you mistake the concept of God with God him/herself, e.g. "I think God is this," versus (in God's own words) "I am." The inability of the human mind to completely conceptualize God is the major reason for religious tomes like the Bible and religion. Put another way, it is impossible to contain the infinite within the limited processing capabilities of the brain.
Since religion seeks to describe the indescribable, there is always going to be revisions along the way, and history has shown for better or worse even the most stable religions have changed when needs dictated it.
The problem occurs, from a believer's point of view, when change happens too quickly. One of the most important components of religion is stability. Without enough, a religion can easily fall apart. For a large scale example look at what's happening in the Anglican Church at the moment. To much change, too quickly is causing some deep rifts within the fabric of the church which will most likely lead to a schism in the near future.
That having been said it is very scary that in many of these smaller churches the parishioners have indeed been brainwashed to an extent and the church doctrine usually twist upon the whims of a single person. The Jamestown incident bears out the dangers of such systems.
matt-arnold on Aug. 22, 2005 2:41 AM
I believe that you mistake the concept of God with God him/herself, e.g. "I think God is this," versus (in God's own words) "I am."
Correct. Since I'm an atheist, when I say "gods", I only mean the concept. There are no real gods or goddesses. I only care about the concept of gods because they're powerful, useful and dangerous, and nonexistent gods are not powerful, useful or dangerous.
zifferent on Aug. 22, 2005 2:51 AM
I'm sorry, I was speaking from a believer's point of view.
Of course an athiest would not separate the concept from the being of God.
My bad. I should have changed my point of view.
matt-arnold on Aug. 22, 2005 3:11 AM
Totally understandable. By the way, a guy I know from the Pensacola Christian College messageboards posted this article about "Christapalooza." What's your take on this? It made me laugh.
paranthropus on Aug. 22, 2005 12:22 AM
I was immediately struck by how "non-religious" the UCC web site seems. They are employing some rather sophisticated marketing to get the word out about their denomination. The web site has a contemporary feel, with images of diverse, smiling parishioners. You'd expect a site like that from a health insurance company or from Wal-Mart counter-propaganda or something. I don't mean to be down on them. I was actually quite touched by the ad, and think that it is a positive, uplifting message.
They also have a clever slogan: "God is Still Speaking". Perhaps it is too clever. I believe that you are misreading the intent. They don't mean to say "God changes his mind continuously, tune in here each Sunday for an update.". Instead, I think that they mean to say "God is speaking to each and every person. All are welcome in our church." That's what I gather by inference after looking at the rest of the site. It's meant to be a message of inclusion, not of indecision.
matt-arnold on Aug. 22, 2005 2:37 AM
I was immediately struck by how "non-religious" the UCC web site seems.
It might be interesting and instructive to determine what it is about the site, or what's missing, that gives that feeling.
Instead, I think that they mean to say "God is speaking to each and every person. All are welcome in our church."
You mean, "god is still saying the exact same thing to each person"? It's difficult to reconcile that with their quote from Gracie Allen, "never place a period where God has placed a comma." How do you reconcile that? I thought it was "god used to seem to hate certain things that kept these people on the shit list, but now he's issuing another edict that clarifies that was all a misunderstanding on our part."
paranthropus on Aug. 22, 2005 3:19 AM
I see what you are getting at now. If the Southern Baptists' God condemns homosexuals and the UCC-er's God welcomes them, where is the consistency? It would indeed seem that God has changed his tune. The "God is still speaking" slogan could legitimately be interpreted as if God had changed his mind on the important issue of who is welcome in the church.
Doctrine changes all the time, but it comes from a reinterpretation of the intent of the Bible, rather than any divine hypocrisy. If that document weren't so fluid it would have had a much harder time surviving as long as it did. I have to sympathize for people who feel a need for religion in their lives, yet are rejected from their church. Rather than pick on the UCC, I'd prefer to take the opportunity to point out the evils of Biblical literalism. The literal words of the Bible, selectively applied, can motivate people to fear and tribalism. People of good will, however, can use the pretense of religion to act with kindness and understanding and say to hell with doctrine. This is the point that the UCC seems to be stressing. Good for them.
dawnwolf on Aug. 22, 2005 3:37 AM
Matt, you astound me. For those of us who feel was have a relationship with Deity, Deity is still speaking in our hearts and consciences. The point of that quote is that a 2.000 year old book isn't the final word - or Word, so to speak.
You also speak over broadly of religion. The point in some faiths may be to give up individual thought, but not all - not mine, for example, and by extension I'll bet not in many others as well.
matt-arnold on Aug. 22, 2005 4:39 AM
This is a vocabulary problem. If you don't claim to be receiving perfect answers, but sometimes receive misleading or mistaken answers that need to be improved, I simply don't know what you refer to when you use the word deity. You may as well be saying vd02^jf03mjv3jn24qj23. When you're among English speakers, using the word god for... whatever you are talking about... is not appropriate. You have the right to speak in whatever secret code you wish, but you need to prepare to not be understood, and accept that as only fair. It's really unfair to claim your... whatever it is... is what I have been referring to in my writings as deity. The subject was gods as I understand them, not your whatchamacallit.
Leave a Comment