Openness or exclusiveness?

Overtly or discretely, worship centers often compete with one another

for membership. They adopt strategies to attract potential

congregants and develop messages that will demonstrate the

superiority of their philosophy, programs, services, physical beauty,

qualities of their religious leaders, atmosphere, friendliness, as

well as other benefits of joining their respective religious center.

In this marketplace of reaching out to a potential “consumer,”

churches and synagogues seek to create a niche, a unique feature that

sets their house apart from others. Adopting the most sophisticated

techniques of advertising, they “sell” themselves and expand their

reach.

I see nothing wrong with a church differentiating itself in a

general way from other centers of Christian worship. If it is true

that gays and lesbians are genuinely made to feel less than welcome,

or if they perceive that a less than inviting environment obtains at

other churches, they should be able to choose a church that affirms

their identity. I imagine there are churches whose pastors inveigh

against homosexuality from the pulpit and that it would be extremely

uncomfortable and distasteful, if not offensive and outrageous, for a

gay or lesbian to worship in such a setting. A church has the moral

right, if it so chooses to reach out to any constituency and offer an

alternative within a larger culture that may be hostile to that

population’s way of life.

Running an advertisement geared to arouse controversy and be

noticed is an effective tool. An effort that generates a strong

response simply magnifies its attention-getting potential.

There is no greater publicity for a book than to receive calls for

its being censored, a sure fire way to ensure the book’s rise on the

best-seller charts. So it is that the creators of this particular

media effort were, no doubt, aware that it would ignite a firestorm

of denunciation and thereby enlarge its reach.

More people may be aware of the ad because of the controversy

surrounding it than would have even seen it had it been aired on the

networks.

The religious marketplace is highly segmented. Each religious

group adopts recruitment strategies. It is understandable that this

denomination would emphasize its inclusive stance and, in a vivid,

attention-grabbing way, contrast itself with others that it views as

exclusionary. The goal of marketing is to convince the seeker that a

more positive future awaits him as a potential customer as a result

of his interaction with the product being promoted. This

advertisement attains that goal, as Madison Avenue intersects with

the Via Dolorosa.

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yam

Newport Beach

What a great ad! It is an excellent example of what churches

belonging to a large national organization can do to offer effective

spiritual leadership about social concerns.

Legislation to limit the definition of marriage to the union

between a man and a woman and other efforts to block gay and lesbian

people from obtaining their rights in society is a disturbing

political issue. The public should be better educated about the

diverse and evolving views of faith traditions and denominations, and

I admire the creative leadership taken by the United Church of

Christ.

I think it will help congregations to be more reflective and

forthright about their doctrine and practice. Are gay people

genuinely welcomed and accepted in our congregation? Do we view them

as afflicted, ill, defective or substandard in some way? Do we judge

their sexual expression as sinful? Are we taking appropriate action

in society to end discrimination based on sexual preference?

The ad also speaks to ethnic diversity. Again congregations must

examine themselves. Have we created an environment that excludes

people from backgrounds different from the majority of our

congregants, perhaps unintentionally? Is the inclusion of all -- and

learning about our personal barriers -- a priority in our faith

community?

This ad expresses the values and priorities of a particular

Christian denomination. I don’t feel it makes any comment about other

Christian denominations and I don’t interpret it as saying that my

tradition, Zen Buddhism, is not inclusive.

There is nothing in Zen that is negative about gay unions, and the

Zen Center of Orange County welcomes gay practitioners. We have some

practitioners from Latino, African American and Asian backgrounds,

and we hope we will have many more.

It is common knowledge that some faith traditions view homosexual

activity as sinful and encourage gay people to convert to

heterosexuality or abstain from sex.

They can promote their view of “loving the sinner but hating the

sin” and try to claim they are also inclusive if they wish. Many

individuals, groups (including the Boy Scouts) and faith communities

in our society do not welcome gay people, and I think the UCC is

highlighting that they offer an alternative.

A glance at prime time programming should cause us to question

whether the networks have the public good at heart. Murders, crime

labs, plastic surgery, movie star tidbits, and mind-numbing situation

comedies, as well as endless advertisements stimulating consumerism,

are obviously acceptable, while thought-provoking advertisements from

a not for profit organization are not.

The FCC regulations are inane, but they allow the networks to pass

the buck for not wanting to upset vocal fundamentalist viewers.

I have not had television for most of my adult life, and not at

all the past 20 years. (I do have a TV set for watching

videocassettes.) In theory, selective viewing is fine, but few people

seem able to limit the hours they spend in front of the TV. The

negative affect of so many hours drugged in front of the TV is

staggering.

Reading, taking a walk, talking together, or getting involved in

religious, political, artistic, athletic and educational activities

will contribute much more to the quality of our lives and society.

I am glad that many other stations will carry the UCC

advertisement, since it offers a spiritual message of benefit to the

public.

REV. DR. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

Faith communities and commercial enterprises do not have the same

values. People with religious commitments work to discern and do

God’s will; we struggle to live what is true. Enterprises like

television networks’ concern for truth is subservient to their most

effective presentation of an issue so as to increase audience and,

thus, profits. People of faith, and others, should understand that

although network news is very effective in portraying itself as

functioning for the public interest, television networks exist to

make profits for their investors. Of course, acquiring viewers and

profits is not necessarily incompatible with uncovering truth and the

responsibilities of the “Fourth Estate.”

With our collective memory, religious communities could easily

come up with a while array of advertisements that successfully passed

through network worriers and yet we find them offensive. (Which ones

jump to your mind? Do you really need to think past our recent

“issue-oriented” political campaigns or a great number of “better

living through chemistry” ads?)

In our blessedly free country, commercial enterprises are entitled

to accept and reject as they choose. While the networks through their

affiliates hold their access to the airways as a public trust, they

are not government agencies and so, are subject differently to the

First Amendment. Does anyone want state controlled television? Yes,

networks regularly “accept advocacy advertising:” “My car is better

than yours!” and “My beer tastes better (and/or has fewer carbs) than

your beer!” leap to mind.

Faith communities do not do well at advertising publicly. I’ve

seen the ad in question online at https://www.stillspeaking.com, and

although I am perplexed as to what the networks found “too

controversial,” it is a case in point: The ad implies that there are

religious institutions that prohibit the disabled and disliked from

attending worship services.

I understand how it can be construed as implying that churches

where a traditional interpretation of Christian sexual morality

(either faithfulness in heterosexual marriage or abstinence in

singleness) is upheld are comprised of narrow-minded racist

homophobes; this is most definitely not true! I am glad for appeals

to persons who have not felt welcomed by religious communities, but

isn’t it possible to advocate our good points without pointing

fingers at others and saying they are “bad?” I hope and trust that

the networks’ responses would be similar to equally inappropriate “we

support ‘traditional family values’” ads produced by other religious

groups.

This ad’s message has received more notoriety from this

controversy than it would have from its showings on television

networks. “Banned on CBS, NBC and ABC” seems to make concerns more

visible now than “Banned in Boston” used to. I rejoice because “No

matter who you are or where you are on life’s journey, you’re welcome

here,” should be the invitation of all faith communities.

VERY REV. CANON PETER D. HAYNES

St. Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar