What does it take to change someone’s heart?
I wrote back in November about the extravagant spending of a church in Dallas to renovate their buildings in an attempt to communicate the transformative power of God to their community. My contention was not primarily the spending, but the fact that they think a building can communicate something as deeply personal and human as the transformative power of God.
I had a hard time finding people who disagreed with me.
But I suspect more people will disagree with what I’m about to say and I’d like to venture a guess as to why. I think that for the most part we hold principles loosely, pulling them out when it benefits us or validates our actions and letting them go when they stand in opposition to our actions. So that’s my guess, now on to the reason for this post.
I don’t think the Focus on the Family Tebow commercial worked.
Barna recently surveyed Americans about the commercial. The numbers are interesting, but I don’t want to place my focus there in this blog post despite the fact that it seems some folks may have “reconsidered” their position. Rather, I want to ask why we are continually being fooled into believing that there are shortcuts to transformation and why we’re willing to give Focus a free pass.
When was the last time you saw a commercial that changed your life?
If you can answer that question with a description of the commercial and how it changed your life (rather than just cause you to laugh, or even think about an issue) I would absolutely love for you to share that in the comments below. Otherwise, my guess is that .001% of people will be able to answer with anything other than, “Never.”
So what made us think that this commercial would be the one? Because it is something that we care about? Because we want it be the one?
I’m not even talking about whether the commercial was made well, that’s not the issue. Just like FBC Dallas won’t be able to communicate the transformative power of God to their community by having a sweet building, so Focus wouldn’t be able to change anyone’s life through a commercial…no matter how sweet, funny, or endearing it is.
A commercial cannot change hearts. Not even a commercial with Tim Tebow, aired during the Super Bowl and about abortion.
But that doesn’t mean there is not still hope for babies. There is. But – and read this next part slowly – that hope won’t be found in commercials, pamphlets, billboards, videos, songs, buildings, or books…that hope will be found in you because Jesus Christ has redeemed you and you are now a witness for him.
Changing hearts doesn’t require a $3 million Super Bowl commercial spot.
Changing hearts, even about abortion, only requires the kind of love that is found in Christ Jesus being spread to others because you are willing to love them with the same love that has been shown to you.
It doesn’t cost $3 million to change someone’s heart. It only costs your time, energy, and love.
What do you think? Did the commercial cause you or someone you know to have a change of heart? What could Focus have done differently with the $3 million?
I appreciate this post. It’s sad that so many resources are used for things that are only actually effected through CHRIST IN US. These things cannot change lives because they are impersonal, and God is VERY personal.
I am very against abortion, but God has shown me a better way than trying to convince people to believe the same stance on an issue as me, and that is Christ. He is the only one that can change hearts. Christians have a tendency (out of good intentions sometimes even) to try to change society and “take back america for God” (when this isn’t even a Christian nation, there’s no such thing) through issues, rather than expressing Christ with love, kindness, and patience, and an authentic relationship. On a positive note, it’s awesome to see all the good things God is doing in His kingdom.
By: quincyzikmund on February 23, 2010
at 9:58 AM
The remedy is a deeper revelation of the cross and the death it puts to us and our ways.
By: quincyzikmund on February 23, 2010
at 10:02 AM
It is a short-sighted aspiration to anticipate a change of hearts due to the airing of a Superbowl commercial. One cannot begin to judge the results of the ad in such a short period of time.
To attempt such an evaluation only reveals the short-sighted of thought.
I don’t think Focus on the Family would expect overnight conversions of heart from pro-abortion to pro-life.
They are more long-sighted than that. They seek to engage the culture & cause a dialogue to occur at the water cooler & at the office hallways. It is a gradual process of shifting cultural attitudes.
On the other hand, there is a misconception that merely preaching the Gospel will cause non-believers who become “Christians” to suddently have pro-life views.
The reality is that many “Christians” hold an unbiblical view of the sanctity of human life.
Many sincerely dedicated Christian don’t have a biblical worldview since that have mistakenly adopted the world’s values.
One final point is that the tv ad drew many new unique visitors to their website. Here they can be introduced to the many aspects of the Focus ministry and hopefully lead them to be open to the Gospel message.
Again, that is a brilliant long-term strategy considering that the funds were donated by a generous private donor & were not part of the Focus general funds.
By: AZ on February 23, 2010
at 10:15 AM
The fact that the ad was aired is a victory for freedom of speech in the United States of America. Considering the opposition, the ad was an unequivocal political victory.
Nevertheless, a political victory is not what we are supposed to seek. I think that Focus on the Family and much of the American church has been fighting the wrong war for a very long time (Ephesians 6:12).
Several years ago, a dear friend of mine asked me, “Wouldn’t it be great if abortion was the issue that finally unified the Christian church?” I replied to him then, and I still believe, that only Jesus Christ can unify His church.
If we’re seeking His unity and His victory, then we’ll be focusing on His Gospel.
By: John Ramsey on February 23, 2010
at 1:43 PM
Why won’t it work??
What was it you expected it to do??
What is the purpose of a commercial??
Influence our thoughts, desire(s), behavior…
That will be as varied as the number of persons watching. So if the plan is for it to work, how will you know if it does or doesn’t…what is the criteria for making that determination?
Ok, enough with the questions already…
I liked the FOF piece and I went to the website to check out the other video pieces, too. And I liked what I saw and heard about the Tebow family. What great, sincerely loving people…
Listened to the FOF discussion about the making of it and the website follow up, just like me, checking a little further. Well they said (FOF) had a major response (as for how they track the site hits & use). Since we know the primary audience was anyone tuned in to the game (that didn’t walk away from the screen), we also know it triggered a lot of attention.
Sometimes you just have to give the ‘message’ time to filter through the thought processes all the way to the heart. I trust FOF had more than a few staff, friends, prayer partners interceding for the impact of this message. Only our Lord knows who will respond both now and in the future, due to the nature of the delicate issue which was dealt with in a tender yet humorous way.
I ‘vote’ that it worked…and I’ll be praying for the hearts that will yet respond to both the message of Life and the Giver of Life.
By: Suze Kane on February 23, 2010
at 9:44 PM
It’s totally unrealistic to expect an ad to change your life. That’s not the purpose of ads.
There are three general categories of purposes for an ad:
1. product recognition — I don’t think this was the goal, but even if it was, Barna results show this didn’t happen for Focus.
2. product consideration — This is what the ad should have focused on, but there wasn’t enough clear communication in my opinion to accomplish that, either. There should have been the clear message of: I was having a difficult pregnancy; doctors advised abortion; I chose not to go that way; Tim Tebow is the result of that decision. Therefore, abortion is a bad choice. (this last one could be inferred rather than expressed)
3. action — choose to buy the product; decide abortion is bad, etc. But this isn’t going to happen after one exposure.
The major accomplishment of ads generally is to change attitudes over time. One ad, one shot won’t do that. Sometimes that attitude never changes. But, as we’ve seen in the homosexual agenda, sufficient exposure over an extended time does tend to change attitudes. That’s all we could hope for in an ad attempting to show that abortion is bad.
I don’t think it worked, but I hope I’m wrong about that.
By: Anita Bowden on February 24, 2010
at 10:24 AM
What I found intriguing was the amount of energy Planning Parenthood spent on opposing the ad. They knew nothing of the content just that it was a “pro-life” ad being paid for by a “Christian” organization. That alone was enough to send them into a foaming frenzy.
However, when the ad aired it wasn’t controversial or offensive. Actually, it was a bit cheesy but it sole function was to bring people to a website.
No, the ad didn’t change lives but it should’ve changed opinions. For one, it showed how foolish Planned Parenthood and its agenda is. Even if one respects the right to choice over life, here’s a textbook example of how to communicate the hate and disdain in one’s heart by how they reacted.
Otherwise, it proved that an ad can approach a subject without being offensive. If the end goal was to promote a website and get people to consider prof-life information…it was successful if they went to the website.
Otherwise, life-changing is only going to happen if there’s a change in heart…on both sides. It’s great to be passionate about a stance…but don’t do it by spreading hate or rushing to action.
By: Rick Garner on February 24, 2010
at 12:44 PM
If Christianity were a matter of salesmanship the ad would have been need and necessary. This issue seems to have been missed by most and that is did that ad warrant $3,000,000 in people’s hard earned donations. the Church is sliding not because of lack of salesmanship but because the majority of people espousing Christianity it don’t even come close to living it and they squeal every time they are exposed to this fact.
By: Billy Rueben on February 28, 2010
at 7:12 PM
I was actually shocked by the level of pre-game opposition the ad received. I monitor consumer response for a company who also advertised that evening, and I was amused that we received more pre-game email about the Tim Tebow ad than we did our ad itself.
We are called to be salt and light – and salt actually has more than one purpose. At times, it adds flavor, but it also stings when used to cleanse gaping wounds.
The ads roused the curiousity of the nation, and also served to raise the ire of others who didn’t stop to consider that a “choice” can lead to the non-existence of a person, and that is by all accounts, disturbing.
My first reaction? Admittedly, it was a bit unorthodox – I hope that Mr. Tebow knows what he’s done by putting himself out there, and I hope he has the chops to back it up. My first thought was, Lord, please guard this young man’s testimony!
By: Carmen on March 2, 2010
at 8:11 PM
I have never, ever had an advertisement change my life.
The ad, however doesn’t treat the problem – only the symptoms of the real problem. FOTF (heck – the church in general) has made zero progress in stemming the tide of unwed sexual activity, and refuses to participate in any of the birth control campaigns. Consequently, they have had no effect in stemming the NEED for abortions – unwed pregnancies.
I believe the ad had very little to do with stopping abortion, and very much to do with breaking down the barrier on “advocacy ads.” And I find it really annoying that CBS refused the UCC’s open-and-affirming ads, but took on the Tebow ad. Money and a really big pressure group (and not morality or propriety), it seems, is what talked.
The question of “what could have been done with the $3 million” is less of interest to me in FOTF’s case than in the Dallas First Baptist case. On the one hand, creating a “campus” could be seen as the church’s transformational powers active in the community – or it could just be seen as the church as real-estate developer, creating a buffer-zone protecting themselves from the world around it. And I’d bet the opinions are split pretty evenly in that case.
Neither case would have been how I would have spent the money – but then, it’s neither my organization or my contributions.
FOTF would probably say that if one abortion was prevented by such high-access publicity, the money was worth it. I hope they’re right.
By: Steve Flower on March 24, 2010
at 7:38 AM