Of course such gross street level advertising campaigns reduce "Jesus" to another consumer product, which is exactly what "jesus" is in our now TV created fantasy world.

The adds feature the slogan "Jesus:All About Life".

Is this what they have in mind.

http://wordsfromjesusbook.excerptsofinri.com/images/christ_passion_movie_cross.jpg

Remembering that at the time (2004) this film was hyped as an excellent missionary tool for spreading the "faith".

I am sure that the people promoting the new campaign were of the same opinion at the time--and probably still are in 2009.

Rubbish.
The American televangelists have had great success with their tv shows which are nothing but glorified adverts.
It all depends on how much you have to spend. If this campaign was designed by the top ad men and presented across all media for a sustained period there would be a measurable increase in godbotherers. Whether it would be sustainable or even desirable to "sell" religion in that way is another debate.
If advertising doesnt work then why is so much money spent to surround us with it?

The churches are losing members because people are bored or are thinking for themselves. Most of what the church services are about are pld hat and lack credibility/.The lives of the clergy arent exemplary.

Make no mistake,readers, the churches stand for ONLY one thing and that is CONTROL and Power over ypur thinking.

Do they want you to think about Jesus?
NO.Thinking about Jesus has them in a quandry anyway. No one really knows who Jesus was.Advanced liberal scholarship is establishing the view he may be the archetypical cult hero patched together in the 3rd and 4th centuries mainly and added to after that.

Do they want you to think about God?
NO.Then they will turn to other religions...principally ,Hinduism or Buddhism.

socratease

I agree with mikk,advertising is effective, the smoking habit is evidence of this,zillions have been spent successfully encouraging people to either take up smoking, or, to give it up.
I'm not sure that the expensively advertised "Jesus" of the US evangelicals is the same one most traditional Christians follow.

Hey lets start that argument again about how the atheists aren't allowed to advertise on buses because it's 'offensive'....

' they will turn to other religions...principally ,Hinduism or Buddhism.'

Yeah you know why? Because Buddhism is close to Jedi. People can relate to stuff like that.

I mean who is cooler, Jesus or Yoda.

I know who my money's on!

But the conspirators at the ABS just put 'other' if you put Jedi for religion down on your census form.

Interesting stat: more Australians identified themselves as Jedi than voted for Steve Fielding.

And which of the religious kooks gets taken seriously? Well, neither, but I don't see any Jedi in the Senate.

Tony Abbott looks a bit like Yoda. It's the ears.

The only thing the Ads might achieve is bringing more people back to Church but I can't see them persuading the atheists and agnostics to Christianity.

It is all getting a bit Americanised, the commercialization of spirituality. Pity.

This is why the Atheists Ads are a waste of time as well, they only speak to the unconverted.

Essentially the same campaign was run in South Australia a few years ago, and in Tasmania a year or two ago (possibly in Victoria as well). Presumably they must have seen some positive results from it, otherwise the New South Welsh wouldn't be going with it as well.

The problem with the analysis in the article is that it expects the same aims as any advertising campaign for MacDonalds or Kentuky Fried etc.

But that is not the point.

What the churches want to do is spread the message, as that is their duty. If people accept it then that is great, if they don't, well, the targets of the advertising cannot argue on the day of judgement that someone didn't tell them.

Even if there is not a single extra bum on a seat in a church the campaign will have achieved its results, that is of spreading of the word. If people don't accept it, then that is up to them, the important thing is that they are given the chance to hear it.

And anyway - it is the 'the churches' money to spend on the campaign, so why criticise them for spending the money of their willing congregations on this advertising?

Dougthebear < ".. it is the 'the churches' money to spend on the campaign, so why criticise them for spending the money of their willing congregations on this advertising?"

I imagine many people would rather see any spare money used to assist the poorer members of the congregation than for advertising?

Surely there is already way too much info out there on the internet, in the religious books and indeed talked about at our own doors some days, for there to be a need for advertising.

How many times has the world been told that the judgement day is to happen on such and such a day, only to find it passes without incident?

I'll take my chances of there ever being such a thing as judgement day, and just try to be a good person without religious advertising to sway my views.

Dougthebear

Further to Suzeonline's point about the money being better spent on the poor, remember that religions receive tax-breaks that add greatly to their coffers.

I can live without the advertising, but would rather my taxes be spent on addressing real issues than propping up the faith industry.

It sounds like we have at least two dyed in the wool socialists here, who want to tell the churches what to do with the money contributed by the congregations of those churches. Of course the churches already do an enormous amount of work with the poor, the infirm and the marginalised of society, probably a lot more than many more organisations.

I can just imagine what would happen if fractelle and suzionline started telling football and other sporting organisations that they should spend money on the poor rather than on paying their players and maintaining infrastructure. I mean, how many homeless people could be provided shelter with the amount of money paid to just one so-called sporting super-star?

The churches, whilst working to ease poverty and suffering also remember John 12:8 "You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

The churches' duty statement is the spreading of the gospel. Charitable works are an offshoot of that, the idea of loving others. Meanwhile Christianity takes the point of view that peoples' salvation is just as important as feeding them.

No-one is making you give money for this work, but how many organisations that you belong to have charitable arms such as Anglicare, St Vincent De Paul, Sydney City Mission etc

Dougthebear, the football teams never put it out there that they are charitable organisations and thus are not considered as such.

I never said the churches didn't give plenty to the poor, just that they would be better doing more for the charitable side of their business than futile advertising and building huge, expensive monuments for their Gods such as churches and cathedrals.

The Catholic church is known for it's great personal wealth and properties, although it has been depleted somewhat lately trying to financially appease all those people physically and sexually abused in church run institutions by priests and others in the past.

It is amazing that the god deniers want to tell the churches how to spend their money. No doubt they are happy for the pagans to spend millions on keeping the gw fantasy afloat.

Suzionline boasts about her previous exploits on another post and now writes:

'I'll take my chances of there ever being such a thing as judgement day, and just try to be a good person without religious advertising to sway my views.'

I suggest your chance god is not a very reliable god to turn to. I also suggest that you are not nearly as good as you think you are. Somehow I suspect you are measuring yourself by the wrong standards. No wonder you don't think you need mercy. Hopefully you will wake up to the truth before its to late.

What a lot of vitriol runner.

Suzeonline did not boast about her exploits on another post - she very clearly explained in a later post what she meant and you are choosing to be rude and insulting completely ignoring her meaning and intent.

If your behaviour is the product of religion I will stick to the fairies at the bottom of the garden as being just as reliable.

With hateful Christian idiots like runner around, it's quite understandable that the churches want to embark on a campaign of positive propaganda. Good luck to them - they have every right to do so.

The only thing about this issue that I object to is that they are likely to be able to claim such advertising expenses as a tax offset against their commercial enterprises, since the advancement of religion is apparently classed as charity by the ATO - which means that all taxpayers are effectively subsidising their superstititous twaddle, like it or not.

CJ Morgan and others:

A factual clarification. Money spent by the churches on evangelism, specifically religious purposes, is not tax-deductible. Money spent on community aid is.

For example, the Salvation Army has an annual Red Shield Appeal, which is aimed at community service and to which contributions by the public are tax-deductible.

The Salvation Army is not just a charity but also a denomination (a church). Its own members every year are invited to contribute to what is called the Self-Denial Appeal, which is aimed at overseas work. They are asked to nominate whether their contribution (all or a specified part) is to be for relief work (construction of schools, hospitals, water infrastructure and so on) or for evangelism. Evangelism contributions are clearly identified as non-tax-deductible while purely aid contributions are.

Actually I do agree with Suzeonline in one regard: churches do not need great and glorious buildings, as 'the church' consists of people, not of buildings. It does however need places to meet and worship. Buildings that currently exist can be utilised however, as not using them would be wastage.

Churches have never put themselves out there as charitable organisations. Their primary purpose to is spread the gospel. As a by-product of this charity occurs.

When it comes to members of various churches that have committed sins and crimes against those in their care I would say that I am part of a vast majority that condemns these people and want to see them punished, and systems set up so that these sins and crimes may not happen again.

Getting back to the central topic, evangelism: The AFL and NRL have, amongst their mission statements, the spread of the particular football code that they manage. Funds received from gate takings, sponsorship and TV rights go towards this 'evangelistic' work. Do people criticise this in terms of how they can spend monies received?

Instead the churches are criticised for the spending of the funds available to them on their form of evangelism. Critics would prefer to see all income of the church spent on charitable works - fair enough. But what happend to those works when all the current members have died and have not been replaced? Will the humanists take up the slack?

In support of the end comment in last posting by Dougthebear:

“The alleged ‘humanist morality’ never happened – to this day, 80% of all unpaid and unself-interested voluntary and charity work is faith-driven.” – Julie Burchill, article ‘For the love of Christ’ in The Guardian, 14 August 2008

Glorfindel and Doug
I may have agreed with you some years ago about faith driven charity work although much of non-Christian charity work went on without the same amount of fanfare.

Also Christian groups were able to access large amounts of money via parishioners and governments to create charities as part of their evangelical missions. I would not credit some of the charity work by missions or Churches as being humanistically motivated given the ill-treatment in many religious run children's homes in previous years.

In recent years there has been an enormous growth in non-religious based charities started by highly altruistic people who sought that all funds raised went directly to the cause rather than a conversion agenda.

Smith Family, Care Australia, bushfire volunteers, Landcare, various conservation and animal welfare groups, various Aids organisations, World Youth, just to name a few.

I note that in later years even organisations like Lifeline and Red Cross who had Christian origins, no longer push a religious agenda. It does not form the basis of their work. The Red Cross has even adopted the Red Crescent emblem to be able to work in non-Christian areas who may see the symbol of the cross as overtly Christian and disrespectful to other cultures and belief systems. I have volunteered with the Red Cross a number of times and one would not know it's founder was a Christian nor is any religious agenda ever raised.

Over time, in a modern world I believe charity work will move away from an overtly relgious agenda and seek only to assist those in need.

As far as the topic goes, advertise by all means just don't be hypocritical should the atheists, or other religious groups wish to mount a similar large scale commercial activity.

Spot on Pelican.

Glorfindel "and unself-interested " does not necessarily apply to a percentage of faith charity work. Much is done with the ulterior motive of promoting the faith, of following what the individual believers consider to be a command of their god. That does not make the work bad but it's not really any more selfless than many other things people do to promote or further something they believe in passionately.

R0bert

Thankyou Pelican for chastising Runner for the very nasty, unchristian vitriole against my post (and me) yesterday.

I hadn't planned on responding to such drivel, but then I read the posts from Pelican, RObert and CJMorgan.

I am certain that if there are actual Gods out there, they wouldn't want to be represented by such nasty people!

Sue.

Thankyou Pelican for chastising Runner for the very nasty, unchristian vitriole against my post (and me) yesterday.

I hadn't planned on responding to such drivel, but then I read the more pleasant posts from Pelican, RObert and CJMorgan.

I am certain that if there are actual Gods out there, they wouldn't want to be represented by such nasty people as Runner!

Sue.

Of course churches do charity work as part of their evangelism, in the same way that it was the churches who pushed so hard to end slavery in the British Empire: That is the Christian faith taught that all people are equal before God, that is Christ died for all will accept that, and this leads to a strong belief in the basic human dignity of the individual, not just the group or clan.

If feeding the hungry (as opposed to the indecent worshipping of wealth that attempts to pass for Christianity in those television and pseudo-charismatic 'churches') in order to reach people is wrong then perhaps the best way of countering the churches 'subterfuge' would be for a lot of people to get together and form secular soup kitchens.

It is interesting that the faith based charities do not reject people on the basis of their own beliefs.

Is the churches evangelical activities so threatening to people that they have to work against it? Well the news is, when you tell a church to stop doing something they are more likely to want to do it, because your criticism only shows how much the work is needed.

Regarding the Red Cross: the 'cross' has little to do with Christianity, it is the Swiss flag colour reversed in recognition of the nationality of the founder of that organisation.

Telling people about Jesus via "film" is uncontroversial and traditional. The Salvation Army pioneered the film business in Australia in the late 1800's and early 1900's, (well before Hollywood) which included features about Jesus.

Those who say it it will be ineffective misunderstand its rationale and purpose.

Those who criticize it because it is Christian unfortunately suggest that free speech in Western democracies appears not to extend to Christians. Interesting that free speech and free belief (or free unbelief) is a gift given to Western societies by a particular expression of Christianity - the Baptists - in the 1600's in England.

Those who don't like the ads will switch off or bag them out. Those who do will may inquire further or do nothing. That's the nature of advertising.

Let's wait and see

Goff

When choosing a charity to work for or donate to, I make sure they are not aligned with any religion, to ensure that my aid goes towards the people or cause intended without a religious agenda of proselytising.

Organisations such as Oxfam, Care Australia, Amnesty international, Médecins Sans Frontières are just a few of the well known global charities.

Also people who are altruistically inclined, who may not necessarily be very religious, but would be drawn to offer their services to religious based charities simply because they want to help.

It is insulting to people who are either not Christian or of any formal religion to claim that we are less empathetic, charitable or compassionate. The foundations of religion must be very shaky indeed, if believers cannot entertain the fact that non-religious people are just as caring and giving (if not more so). Therefore, to suggest that without religion there would be no compassion, is completely wrong and 'unChristian' - irony intended.

No problem suzeonline. Most on OLO cannot abide that sort of deep rooted resentment.

"Regarding the Red Cross: the 'cross' has little to do with Christianity, it is the Swiss flag colour reversed in recognition of the nationality of the founder of that organisation."

True Doug, and while understood by us here in the West,try and explain it to those in nations where Christianity is not a majority faith and where there is suspicion of Christian motives. The Cross is a strong Christian symbol regardless of its origins.

Wow Pelican and Suzionline to think I would be 'nasty' enough to point out that your good works will not get you to heaven. Your slandering or name calling won't change the truth. Like every other son of adam or daughter of Eve faith in Christ is your only hope. Your attempts of your good works outdoing your sinful natures might gain you a few pats on the back by fellow 'do gooders' but will count for nothing before a holy God. Again I hope you come to your senses before that day. If I was really that nasty I would wish to opposite. Christ certainly paid a high price for your self righteousness.

runner
I sometimes wonder whether you hear yourself sometimes. You are the one name calling and slandering - a bit of self-awareness would not go astray.

It is a bit rich when you of all people are calling others self righteous. Your dim view of your own species is more insulting to the idea of Jesus and what he died for - at least his actions and life implied his own faith and hope in his fellowmen.

As for heaven, I am not sure what your point is. Atheists do not believe there is a heaven or a hell. Even the Pope has said hell was more a metaphorical concept for evil.

Of late I am starting to wonder if OLO has some 'plants' to stimulate conversation on certain issues. There are a couple of quite extremist posters when it comes to religion or gender that can't possibly be real. No-one thinks like this in the real world surely.

Pelican

As someone who has been saved by grace alone you are totally wrong if you think that I think that I will gain access to heaven by my own merits. Nothing is further from the truth.

Jesus found that even his best mates deserted Him when He went to the cross as He foretold. This is how much confidence He had in humanity.

You write 'Atheists do not believe there is a heaven or a hell.' They make Jesus out to be a liar. Personally I think the Only One who never lied is to be believed. Silly little stories like evolution confirm man's bent on lying and especially when it is called science.

I am really not sure why you find my views extreme. I actually function quite well in society and work across many people with many different faiths (including secularism).

Runner, I can find no commandment to 'insult thy neighbour in the name of Christ'.

There are times when a robust approach is required of Christians, but that is usually when there are people in a congregation who are openly offending against what God has told them to do and they need to be disciplined with love by others in the congregation.

By all means engage in robust debate and evangelism with thsoe outside of the faith, but getting some-one else's nose out of joint is the best way to turn them away from Christ. We are called to humility first, and let the Spirit do its work.

And it is humility that Christian charity should be performed: not to glorify any issue or to bring credit upon the person showing charity. Indeed I would call on Christians to be charitable by donating both to faith based causes and secular 'charities' - and then not to claim tax deductions for these.

Remembering the idea of faith, hope and charity: the 'charity' being another word for selfless love.

Pelican, I too have been wondering where some of these extreme views on religion and gender issues on these posts have come from.

I suppose that this little community of OLO is just a small sample of society mirroring the views of society at large.
Thus, there will always be a minority expressing these extremist views.

Dougthebear has restored my faith in Christian thinking a little with his last post. Fire and brimstone and eternal damnation threats are so old and tired now Runner.

Dougthebear

You make some good points. The gospel however is very offensive to those trying to justify themselves without Christ.

runner "The gospel however is very offensive to those trying to justify themselves without Christ." - agreed the central message is quite offensive but that's not the reason that you are held in such low regard by many on OLO.

It's about the very ugly side of your character which you seem to delight in showing on OLO. If faced with the opportunity to make your point firmly but without rudeness you will generally forgo that opportunity in favor of being as personally offensive as you can be.

runner generally it's not about the christian message, it's about you being someone who appears determined to paint his own faith in the worst possible light at every opportunity.

R0bert

Runner, if you are going to push the point you at least can try to understand what St Paul said: not that the gospel is offense but is:

1 Corinthians 1:23 (New International Version)

23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

Note that Paul is not calling gentiles foolish.

Christ, when confronting the rich young ruler was blunt, but that was because he had to confront someone who was arrogant about their own assumed godliness. But what did he say to the samaritan woman at the well or the woman caught in adultery who was about to be stoned? He spoke plainly but politely to them, He offerred them life, not offence.

If someone is offended by the message of the gospel then they are offended by the message, you don't have to add rudeness to their misunderstanding.

Yes, true love for others is well expressed by trying to show them the way of salvation, but it is the Spirit that does the work, using us as God's tool.

So now I will be blunt - preach Christ - but not in ways that are calculated to turn people away from him.

Dougthebear,

I think you are being quite selective in your quoting of Scripture. Look what Jesus had to say to those who trust in their own righteousness. We have many in this nation who who murder the unborn are permissive in lifestyle and then have the nerve to claim to be 'good'. In fact many of the olo posters support the murder of the unborn and permissive lifestyle.

It is true that people remain blind unless they are open to truth. The work of the Spirit is to convict of sin. It is true also that unless a person knows they are law breakers they will never come to salvation. Self righteousness (pride) is generally the thing that prevents most from God's mercy.

The fact that I point out peoples hypocrisy is what generally gets up their nose. Don't forget Jesus or the disciples were not afraid to call men to repentance. Without people will spend eternity in hell.

It might be good to be thought of as Mr nice guy but at the end of the day that wont help people to much. Jesus always spoke to the repentant sinner with grace. To those who tried to justify their sin he spoke harshly.

runner
I do think your comments are extreme much of the time. Generally when you are damming everyone to hell for not thinking the same as you might fairly be perceived as pretty extremist.

You speak about righteousness without God as though that is any different to righteousness with God. Many Christians have "killed their unborn" and by your view that is okay as long as they seek God/Jesus's mercy or forgiveness. So your condescension would appear to have nothing to do with the act of abortion at all.

Perhaps you should take a leaf from Christ's book and try a bit of compassion and forgiveness yourself. If you are unable to act in a moral way without your God that is your own choice and path to follow. To argue that anyone whose beliefs differ from yours are lesser because of it is highly arrogant.

That is the problem with religion, it preaches tolerance and other good things while from a premise of supreme authority. Surely all these Gods and religions can't be right. What are the odds?

Runner

I too am not in favour of abortion on demand as a means of contraception, especially at that time when the foetus is approaching viability.

But I am not going to shove that opinion down peoples' throats and expect them to listen to me when I express the idea that all humans are separate from God and need Christ.

But then again I don't expect to convert you to a point of view of loving the sinner and hating the sin. You seem to want to hate both.

To everyone else:

I think that I have expressed where I am coming from, and I don't expect that just because the churches have an advertising campaign that you will rush to church next Sunday. The campaign is, as far as I can tell, about having people think about Jesus.

After all I know that a local church minister was asked by a primary school kid why Christianity worshipped someone whose name was a swear word - as all they had ever heard was 'Jesus Christ' used as an expletive.

In the face of the world insulting the name of someone we value so much please don't insult us further by saying that Christians should not be seeking to change that perception by an advertising campaign.

Runner,
“Judge not, lest ye yourself be judged.”
“How can you say to your brother, “brother, let me take the speck out of your eye” when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye?”
“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.”
“But love your enemies, do good to them and lend to them without expecting anything back.
Then your reward will be great.”
Jesus was tested with the question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul and with all thy mind... and the second is like it.”
“Love your neighbour as thyself.”
I'll admit my reading of the Gospels is probably selective, as inevitably is everyone's. I really can't find the quote from Jesus' lips that runs:
“Go now, and spread the word of Me. Be though a pain in every man's ass, and his donkey also. If you find someone doing good works, chastise them, and tell them belief in me is more important”.
The Jesus I admire in the Gospels is more interested in helping people, and showing them a way to get along with each other, than in spreading the word of his own greatness; though he did admittedly start getting a bit full of himself near the end.
I take that as a timely reminder of human fallibility, without which the story would be incomplete.
On the question of advertising: “by their actions, so shall ye judge them”.

"I too am not in favour of abortion on demand as a means of contraception, especially at that time when the foetus is approaching viability."

Theists and non-theists alike would agree with those sentiments Doug.

Ironically, my parents who were both raised as Catholics bought their children up to think critically and question. We were raised as Athiests although it was never pushed or even discussed much - it just was. My parents were quite strict about using bad language, even the word shutup was barred from our house. We were taught also never to say "Jesus" or "God" in a negative way or as a swear word in respect of those who were Christian or otherwise.

I tend to think advertising only works if the audience can see the "What's in it for me" aspect in more of the consumer context or if it already confirms their own preconceptions.

I am not sure that advertising will work for the Christian faith but they have the right to express themselves as they see fit.

From media reports out of England, there is a bit of hyprocrisy in that those who see fit to deny the Atheists advertising campaign as offensive do not apply the same rule of thumb to a faith-based advertising campaign. Atheists might equally find the idea of having Christianity pushed down our throats offensive and demeaning.

Pelican, thank you for your comments, but my words regarding abortion were primarily for Runner, lest he / she would somehow think that because I am less rabid re the topic that I approve point blank of abortion on demand.

Regarding the banning of atheist posters and other material on buses: atheists should be able to display, within the bounds of good taste and withing the idea of the civil good, what they want, the same as 'theists'

In fact in Sydney, when this hit the press, it was the theists who argued in favour of atheists being able to display this material.

It is better to have the argument out in the open, with neither one side nor the other feeling that they don't have the right to express their own arguments.

Or maybe people could argue, such as they have here re the 'Christ' campaign, that any money that is to be spend of this material would be better off being donated to charity?