Friday, 04 February 2011
-
Christian Superbowl Ad Rejected: Too Much Jesus?
It's been announced that an ad from the Fixed Point Foundation, a Christian organization, was rejected by Fox for airing in this Sunday's Packers/Steelers showdown in Superbowl XLV. I'd never heard of the organization so I checked them out a little. According to their website, Fixed Point cites their organization's primary mission as "promot[ing] a confident Christianity in the public square by fortifying the minds of Christians and challenging the faith of skeptics." The site's tag-line is: bridging the sacred and the secular.The ad promotes a website called lookup316.com, operated by Fixed Point, which displays the famed Bible verse on its front page and provides a detailed explanation of salvation with several clicks of the mouse. But have a look at the pulled ad itself and you be the judge:
The ad looks harmless enough, as I honestly can't imagine much of America being starkly "offended" by a guy looking up John 3:16 on his phone. Still, Fox cites the religious undertones as reason enough for the pull. As I saw the "John 3:16" painted on the eye-black of the ad's football player, I was instantly reminded of one of my favorite athletes, Tim Tebow, well-known for his own Scriptural eye-blacks on the field. And then I was reminded of another controversial Superbowl commercial. This one from last year's game; one that actually aired before millions, much to the dismay of many pro-choice groups at the time:
With Tebow's thunderous hit to his mother's midsection, the ad is a little corny, yes, but undeniably endearing. Certainly not harmful, certainly not casting a heinous pro-life spell or injecting Jesus into me. An ad similar in tone to the ad that was pulled for this year's contest. So what's the difference then? Why was Fixed Point's ad pulled but Focus on the Family's wasn't? I suppose the main difference is that no blatant reference to Christianity is present in the 2010 Tim Tebow ad. Just the organization's name at the end. It's interesting to me though: two commercials from two Christian organizations, different airing results.
I don't pretend to understand how ads are accepted/denied when it comes to various networks, from a major network like Fox all the way down to a lesser one like MTV. Maybe if this year's game aired on CBS like last year's, the John 3:16 ad would air. I don't know. I feel like even if the verse on the player's eye-black was from the Koran, I wouldn't be offended by a dude looking it up on his phone. But maybe that's just me.
Do you think the pulled 2011 ad is appropriate for a Superbowl audience? Is it appropriate for any audience? Where's "the line" when it comes to ads involving hot-button subjects like abortion and religion?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: twoBex
- Name: TMZ
- Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
- About Me: I'm a 25-year-old tutor, writer, and restless wanderer. Check out my blog at http://thomasmarkzuniga.com. There may or may not be confetti and coffee involved.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 1 121 Views: 374 143455 Comments: 1 1047 View all posts by twoBex
Comments (14)
I think the line is drawn whenever Fox feels the need to put a line. It isn't necessarily discriminatory. Fox can choose what they want to run ads for, and what they don't want to, so long as they don't violate FCC guidelines. I don't want to force secular TV networks or radio stations to play Christian advertisements, nor do I want the government to force Christian radio stations to play things that would go against their conscience either.
As far as the ad goes, I see nothing wrong with it. But, it is up to Fox if they want to air it or not.
Nice to know that a Christian organization wants to waste several million dollars for a thirty-second TV ad..
the odd thing is, i've heard that there are many christian nfl players...
I think the line is financial; airing anything "Christian" tends to potentially draw more lawsuits in the States. So that is probably why they cut it from the commercials.
I don't think it matters too much that the ad won't air since the kingdom of God is subversive. I suppose it is appropriate in the sense that it doesn't directly go against any censorship rules. If it is not appropriate then so be it. Not a big deal.
Too bad it was rejected.
just pondering.........thinking.... Fox has the right to show whatever ads they want......thinking.... I wonder if these ads reach anyone.......perhaps they give believers a false sense of spiritual comfort.....as in...all is well, the Message is getting out there......and our complacency grows stronger. How many believers that see those ads and feel good about freedom of religion.....are actually sharing the Gospel with anyone in their lives? Does seeing those ads tend to absolve us of a personal responsibility to proclaim the Gospel.........just wondering........
@MagisterTom@xanga - Some good points regarding airing what goes against a network's conscience. I'm just curious as to whether the other major networks would've turned down this John 3:16 ad as well, or if it would have been okay by them. Particularly CBS which allowed the Tebow ad last year.
@snarkius@xanga - Money is temporal. I wouldn't consider such an ad a "waste" of money at all.
@JimBob - Some excellent points. Sobering. But quite possibly very true. May we all reach out to others in our day-to-day lives. Christ is too important to save for TV only!
I am offended that the Superbowl is strategically scheduled to keep people out of Sunday night service.
i kind of find it disgusting that a Christian organization wants to spend money on a commercial, rather than spend it on actually helping others. please, show me some testimony where a new Christian says that a commercial is what converted them.
@interstellarmachine@xanga - What about churches that don't have sunday night services,are you offended by that too?
@Kreyvic - You mean like mine? No. To say everyone has to go to church on Sunday night is legalistic. To cancel regular Sunday night service because football is more important, that is offensive. The denial of this advertisement is blatant acknowledgment that the NFL or broadcasting entity is competing against church attendance.
@interstellarmachine@xanga - Understand..I do agree with you with the timing of the broadcast of the super-bowl.and the idol like attention it receives from believers, and non-believers. Of course I am not football fan and that to some is blasphemous LOL....thanks to your reply!