A month ago I had suggested to the Brothers of John the Steadfast that their strategy for commercials needed some rework. Norm Fisher to his credit got back with me very quickly and said he’d passed it on. I’m a little disappointed to see one of these snarky commercials still playing at Issues, Etc. As much as I respect their goals, I think this method needs some work.
Radio transcription:
If you’re interested in hanging around with a bunch of powerful men that further one another’s careers, I guess you can meet Fred and Barney down at the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo.
If stress is your problem, and those 40-50 hours a week are killing you, and that cubicle’s driving you nuts, perhaps you should buy Joel Osteen’s book and read it.
If you’re interested in Lutheran doctrine and practice and how we can spread that to our community, check us out. The Brothers of John the Steadfast. www.steadfastlutherans.com.
There are a couple of other commercials, one I recall going something like, “So what’s the fad du jour at your church? Beth Moore, Rick Warren, …. come check us out, etc.”
What’s the message? Inferring a lot from the context of the commercial and the program that plays the commercial, one is to get the message that if you perceive the elders and pastor of your church, the district, or the LCMS as a Good Ol’ Boys club and you’re tired of that, you should check out the BJS. If your church is pitching Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Beth Moore, or some “gospel” that is really either life affirmations or “three steps to walking on water,” and you’re tired of that, you should check out the BJS.
But that’s only if you’ve been paying attention to synodical politics, which most Lutherans don’t. To the great middle the commercial comes off as pretentious. “Perhaps you should buy Joel Osteen’s book and read it,” isn’t something I’d say to someone I’d want to be my friend. It’s the morbid humor of suffering brethren.
People have been harmed by the LCMS bureaucracy. Pastors have been removed from their calls for reasons other than false doctrine or reprehensible behavior. A synodical vice-president was suddenly without a job at Lutheran Hour Ministries when he exercised discipline in accordance with the LCMS Constitution but not in accordance with the wishes of the Synodical President. A radio show was cancelled “for business and programmatic reasons,” and the further justifications for that cancellation continue to ring hollow. Congregations are in statu confessionis and seek ways they can extract themselves from the Synod.
It has been ugly. We are poor, miserable sinners, indeed.
I think it’s time — wait, someone else said that — it’s appropriate now to seek to bring in more than just the people who have been affected by things that have gone wrong in the Synod. It’s appropriate and necessary to make up for all the catechesis that has been lost among our laypeople. It’s appropriate to give people the discernment to reject false doctrine on their own. It’s appropriate now that elections are over to talk more about concepts and doctrine than individuals.
We also need to consider that while some people are absolutely set within church growth principles, there are those who are simply following along, who may be restored if gently. Someone using Purpose-Driven Life as a bible study isn’t going to come to your point of view if you call the bible study a fad du jour. Instead, have that person consider what happens when in that book Pastor Warren rests a reader’s trust in his or her conversion on the sincerity of that person’s prayer.
Please, BJS. It’s time, and it’s appropriate, to update. The goal is not to see who can split the synod and gain the majority, but to win errant brothers to your cause.
The second paragraph of the ad you transcribed is the one that bothers me most. It suggests that Lutheranism has absolutely nothing to offer people who are stressed out by their lives.
While it may be true that we aren’t in the business of “stress relief,” we do have something to offer that can help people cope with the stress of everyday life: the forgiveness of sins.
Good point.
Now that they’ve hired Suzanne Zobel maybe you can contact her.
The ads may be unpleasant, but I’ll say this for them: At least they accurately communicate what you will find if you visit the site. I gave up on BJS long ago because the attitudes displayed in the comments are so terrible that reading them makes me depressed and (I’m not exaggerating here) sometimes makes me take a good, hard look at the Tiber. The site is just terrible. It’s an embarrassment.
Dan and Kaleb,
I can’t agree more. I have friends who have a role in starting BJS, and I honestly can’t stand the tone that they have on their website or in their commercials.
Nicely said. It’s time to heal.
Dan,
I think you make some good points. I would just ask people to keep a few things in mind. (Of course, if you detest/have no interest in the organization or its future you can disregard this, but if you think the organization has something to offer and would like join in the conversation to make it better, then feel free to read on.)
BJS was birthed in the wake of the cancellation of Issues, Etc. It is barely 2 years old. It was initially conceived of as an organization that would develop congregational chapters with the goal of upholding confessional Lutheran doctrine and supporting media such as Issues, Etc. that do the same. The website was created as sort of clearing-house or go-to place as part of that effort. But the website was never intended to be all that BJS was about.
The thing is, the website took on sort of a life of its own, generating traffic that was never dreamed of and that now takes hours a day to simply manage. In the meantime, we had this little thing called a synodical convention that took priority for a while. So the original vision for BJS has not come about as quickly as the creators had hoped. But again, it’s only been two years.
Dan, you say that you contacted Norm about a month ago and were well-received and are disappointed that the ads have not changed. Again, please remember that the past few months have been a blur of preparing for a convention of historic significance. So I think it’s understandable that maybe the BJS ads were back burnered. There were some other things going on that were commanding the full attention of the BJS staff.
And speaking of that BJS staff, they are just a skeleton crew of volunteers who have full-time (and then some) day jobs. They are doing their best but their time is limited. Please be patient with them. There are only so many hours in the day.
I must say that while I can respect that there may sometimes be things on the site or in the comment threads that some people might not find constructive (that is hard to avoid on a site that at times has attracted 5000 visitors per day), I am taken aback to hear that there are those who have such virulently anti-BJS sentiments as some stated here. Glancing at the site just now I see some wonderfully thoughtful and in my opinion constructive articles by Pastor Martin Noland, some encouraging posts on several VBS’s using solidly Biblical and liturgical materials, and some news items about our new synodical president. These things are depressing and embarrassing?
I’m not trying to talk anyone into frequenting BJS who doesn’t wish to. But to those who are making generalizations about the attitudes expressed there, etc., I would ask how long it has been since you did visit the site. And was it an isolated visit or did you visit over a period of time? If it’s been a while since you spent any time there you might want to give some thought to dropping in periodically for the next several months to see where things go from here. Maybe your presence will have a positive impact.
BJS was the brainchild of a few people who saw a need and wanted to make a difference. They have done that–boy have they done that–and in my opinion that difference has been far and away a good one. As with all things human, the process hasn’t always been neat nor pretty. But as someone who has had a front row seat from the very beginning, I am convinced it was absolutely worth it. Where it will go from now remains to be seen. But I’m going to keep watching.
I was a regular visitor to the site during two different periods. The first time, I felt that I was basically run off the site. I came back later to give it another chance, but I just couldn’t stand it.
My main issues are definitely with the comments, rather than the official site content. Probably my biggest beef with the official site content is that it seems to encourage the bad comments.
But I think the real problem is that the whole format is defective. As someone else here observed, BJS is basically about airing our dirty laundry. An unmoderated public forum is *not* the place to do that–the subject matter is just too ugly. It is guaranteed to play itself out in an unchristian manner, due to the nature of the medium.
I was a bit disappointed when the original goal of BJS didn’t seem to materialize on the website. However, the website has served a useful purpose. It has been, for the most part, a good resource for taking a hard look at the state of the synod from a confessional Lutheran standpoint. I definitely think that such a website is needed.
However, while the site serves polemics well, I still think we desperately need a confessional Lutheran web resource that’s not so much about our dirty laundry as a synod, but more about the confessional Lutheran faith itself and how it applies to our life, society and world. Something that combines what you would get with an evening with Pastor Bill Cwirla, Pastor Matt Harrison, Sciptures, the Book of Concord, the What About? pamphlets, etc. As someone on the BJS website once stated, you need to get people to love what you love before you try to get them to share your disgust. We need a parallel to the BJS web site that’s all about getting people interested in and loving confessional Lutheran doctrine and practice with writers of the same high-calibur!
I frequent the BJS website as a good go-to place about what is going in Synod politics. I agree that the comments are often off-putting, but I don’t blame BJS for that.
The Issues spots, on the other hand, really are offensive. They manage to come off as geeky and nasty at the same time. Also, like many others, I have suffered from 40-50 hours a week in a cubicle in a shaky economy and this narrator seems to be mocking me. Frankly, I’m a bit surprised that Todd and Jeff allow this.
I’m sure the BJS volunteers are working very hard but it would take one phone call to end those offensive ads.
For what it’s worth, Norm is a VERY VERY BUSY guy. He has a job and family, but he also maintains about a dozen different Lutheran websites for no pay. He single-handedly reinvented the Book of Concord website, under the direction of Paul McCain. Norm is a website coder, not a radio spot producer. If anybody would like to write, produce and record a new spot, I’m sure that IE would be glad to play it.
Thank you, Jen. Exactly right. As I mentioned, BJS is almost entirely a volunteer effort. The recent hiring of Suzanne Zobel has changed that, so perhaps she can help out here. But the fact remains that BJS has a tiny budget, and that means that most things will continue to operate according to the ability/willingness of volunteers to continue contributing. The commercials were just that–the result of BJS “staff” sitting around brainstorming until someone got the idea, “Hey, maybe we could run some commercials on Issues” and someone else piped up and said “I think I can come up with something” and he did so sitting at his own computer in his own house. One person wrote, recorded, and produced those commercials and I for one greatly appreciate the time and effort that went into them. The original goal of the commercials was to be funny and edgy and try to get some attention for this little startup organization. I think the idea was to embrace/champion our grandfathers’ church but do it in a decidedly “cool”, youthful way. I was surprised to hear that people were actually offended by the commercials, which were meant to be lighthearted. Just goes to show the subjectivity of comedy, I guess. But it is good to know that they are not being well-received and I will encourage those who are in a position to do so to consider how the ad campaign might need to evolve, especially now with the sweeping changes of the last few weeks. The ads are getting stale, I think, and that alone is reason enough to do something diffferent. But again, it’s a matter of finding someone who has the knowledge and ability and time and willingness to volunteer to help.
Someone said that one phone call could have put a stop to the ads. But it is going to take a lot more than one phone call to replace them with something else. That’s where it gets a little more complicated. If anyone wants to help out with that, I think Pastor Rossow and Mr. Fisher would be happy to hear from you.
Another point about the second paragraph of the spot. Even more troubling than what I noted above is that the paragraph explicitly says the following:
Lutheranism has nothing to offer you if you’re stressed out but Joel Osteen does.
Do we really want to be recommending Osteen to folks? Really?
I agree with this post and especially with Daniel Bergquist’s comment above. What’s needed — what has been needed in the past and especially so now — is a site that promotes confessional Lutheranism by presenting it as the authentic, historical, compelling framework of theology that it is. With all due respect to the efforts expended by the BJS people, this positive presentation of confessional Lutheranism is not what I find on the website. Instead, it appears to be a combination of politics and mockery. The political side of things I dislike but can accept as part of the BJS mission (which includes “defend[ing]…the orthodox Christian faith”). But the inside-joke tenor of the radio spots and the outright nastiness in some of the forums is simply not becoming to an organization committed to otherwise laudable goals. All that needs to change.
I would suggest that it costs nothing to edit radio spots through the lens of common courtesy and a positive outlook. When you have a radio spot that turns on denunciation, even if it denounces things that are truly wrong, that can easily be turned into a positive statement in favor of things that are good. Why take pot shots at Joel Osteen? Why not talk instead about what’s good about confessional Lutheranism? Do we not catch more flies with honey than we do with vinegar?
A defensive posture might have been allowable two years ago when it appeared that confessional Lutheranism was fighting for its life. But now I think we’re in a position to go beyond such things and start building in a positive way in the LCMS, and I think BJS could really take the lead on this. I’m hoping that they do.
This is a very disappointing thread. It’s so easy to point fingers and blame and so hard to actually help with making something better. I’m very sad to see what some of you have written.
If you don’t like the comment threads, there are two really good options. 1) Don’t read them. 2) Contribute and help keep other people in line.
And rather than tear down people who are contributing untold hours and money of their own — how about you step up and volunteer something? Again, very disappointing.
I blog on a few different sites and I don’t think people have any idea what it’s like to moderate comments. It’s an unbelievable amount of work. The sites that work best have commenting communities where the community helps keep people on track, focused, etc. Some of my favorite commenters at BJS are those who are courageous enough to keep people focused and to condemn inappropriate comments.
I’ll say it again — if you have a problem with particular posters or commenters, you should say it to them — not snipe on another site.
Disappointing.
What about the concern regarding the ads? Is that also disappointing?
I should add this to the question above.
When BJS was founded, I was really excited. Then, a few months later, I saw openly racist comments in a comment stream that were totally unaddressed by BJS staff. I e-mailed about it and heard nothing. When it came time for me to re-up my membership, I wrote an e-mail about why I was leaving BJS.
I was stridently opposed to BJS for nearly a year after that, and after posting about how I was still very disgusted by the site, a close friend with the initials TW encouraged me to take another look. He also shared my concerns with a BJS staff person. That staff person contacted me and we had a good conversation. I looked at the site again and was impressed at how much the tone had *improved*.
My concern about the ad that Dan posted about is really the only concern that I still have about the site. If that ad was changed, I could probably begin to throw my full support behind BJS again.
Mollie,
That is an ad hominem attack. Whether I am personally doing what I “should” to contribute, has no bearing on whether there is any truth in what I’ve said.
But the fact of the matter is that I owe BJS nothing. Now, if I were to go on some kind of a personal campaign to criticize BJS, you could legitimately say that my energy would be better spent helping to solve the problem. But this is only the second time I have ever made public remarks about BJS. This time I have attempted to be as honest, clear, and charitable as I could be; I hope the same was true last time, though it was a very different time in my life, and I don’t really remember what I said.
On the other hand, BJS is in some respects claiming to speak for Confessional Lutherans generally, and so is obligated to show our best face. Is it really doing that?
I could turn your reasoning around, and suggest that it is easy to complain about other people not contributing, but hard to clean your own house. I do think that’s something you should consider; but let’s just go back to my contributions, for the time being, since my character is being attacked here.
Just what am I doing to contribute? Well, to BJS specifically, not anything; but like I said, I don’t owe that to BJS, do I? What am I contributing in other ways? Apart from volunteering my time and writing skills for Jim Pierce’s book, I am involved in three other projects that are specifically to promote Confessional Lutheranism in some way. And I’m not exactly overflowing with time, since I’m raising two girls by myself. But I’m *not* just some guy sitting around criticizing and not doing anything.
I’m with Kaleb.
There is a difference between “pointing fingers” and “sniping”, and making legitimate observations and criticisms. And those on the inside with BJS and the web site would do well simply to listen to these things with an open mind and acknowledge the concerns rather than to roll up into a defensive posture and demand that those making the observations fix the problem or simply get out.
The message from some in this thread is that if you don’t like BJS’ website, don’t go there. In fact, I haven’t been there in some time, and I have explained why. But when I explain why, it gets called out as “sniping”! Sigh. It seems the best course of action is to simply let BJS alone.
It’s sad to see the “snark” still invading Lutheran media in many areas. I originally thought it was a temporary reaction to a current event, but it appears it’s not.
I gave up following material like this. Hopefully someday, it will change. Still don’t fully understand the reasoning for it.
Lora, I think it’s great that you are willing to help. If you do try your hand at writing a commercial and would like me to deliver it for you, let me know. I would be happy to. I am also looking for more writers for the BJS Quarterly. Would you be interested in helping out there? There is plenty of work to be done.
Kaleb, I would like to take issue with a couple of things you said. One, you said that BJS claims to speak for confessional Lutheranism. I don’t think it has ever said any such thing. The organization is committed to upholding confessional Lutheranism in a number of different ways. The website is just ONE aspect of the organization, and its main goal is to provide news and commentary FOR confessional Lutherans, not provide a public face for them to the outside world. I think those are two different things.
I also don’t think it’s fair to say that BJS is about “airing dirty laundry.” The site is a mixture of all sorts of different things. Sometimes it is critical of things going on in Christianity at large. Sometimes it is critical of things going on within Lutheran churches. But it also often celebrates the upholding of confessional Lutheranism. Sometimes there is humor. Sometimes there is serious consideration of very complex issues. It’s an amazingly diverse bag of offerings. Yes, there is a liberal commenting policy. (It is not totally open, however.) Many people appreciate that. But it does make for a wild ride in the comment threads sometimes. If you don’t like that, I think the right idea is to avoid the comments.
Bottom line, if you don’t like the site, don’t go there. That’s fine. Not every site has to be everything to everybody. But realize that while there are things you may not like and that you have communicated that you don’t like, there are many, many other people who have sought out those behind BJS and have communicated just the opposite, saying how much they love the site and how it is their go-to place for news about confessional Lutheranism. So not getting what you want is not necessarily an indication that people are not listening. It may just be an indication that other voices are coming through louder.
Just a reminder: we’re talking about an advertisement that in additional to learning more about Lutheran doctrine and practice is supposed to get people to be interested in the web site. Telling people not to read it seems counterintuitive to me.
In a new post I’ve written what I think is a better ad. Whether or not BJS lives up to it is an easy question: no, it won’t. It’s chock full of sinners like the rest of us.
“Just a reminder: we’re talking about an advertisement that in additional to learning more about Lutheran doctrine and practice is supposed to get people to be interested in the web site. Telling people not to read it seems counterintuitive to me.”
The discussion started out being about the advertisements but quickly turned to being about the website itself and the posts and comment threads. My reference to not reading if you don’t find doing so to be edifying had to do with that, not with the ads.
I would just like to say I agree with Robert and Kaleb. Telling people they should be ‘doing more’, or else they should be quiet…no. Take this criticism constructively, folks.