Rolling Stone Bristles at Spiritual Truth
Claims
Sometimes people in popular media see things more clearly than
they realize. I was reminded of this after reading an article about
Rolling Stone magazine and their refusal to grant ad space to a
well-known book publisher. The publisher wanted to promote their
newest offering to the teen and young adult audience that frequently
read the popular pop-culture magazine, but the editors of Rolling
Stone felt that this particular ad was unacceptable for publication.
Rolling Stone, as some of you may know, writes on a variety of
popular entertainment. It will sometimes feature provocative
photographs of a famous celebrity on its cover. It also deals with a
lot of cultural and political issues of the day - taking a decidedly
left-leaning bent. So, why would such a magazine reject a
publisher's request to advertise its book within Rolling Stone's
pages? What kind of advertisement could be so scandalous that even
Rolling Stone would refuse to publish it? The publisher in question
was Zondervan and the book: The Bible.
Last July, Zondervan Publishing secured ad space for their new
TNIV translation of the Bible. The ads were to run in March, so the
publisher was purchasing the ad space a full eight months in
advance. Zondervan told Rolling Stone at the time they reserved the
space that these ads were going to promote the release of a new
Bible. Rolling Stone agreed to run the ads. No one at the magazine's
advertising department said there would be any problem with this
type of ad or that there were any guidelines Zondervan needed to
follow in advertising a Bible.
However, once the advertisement itself was submitted to Rolling
Stone, the general editor rejected the ad, saying that it violated
Rolling Stone's policy of allowing spiritual messages in its pages.
The ad consists of a young adult sitting against a wall with the
Bible in his hands. A slogan at the bottom of the ad reads
"Timeless truths in today's language."
Rolling Stone claimed that it's the slogan, not the product that
is causing the problem. The general editor stated that "the
message 'timeless truths in today's language' is more than just an
advertising slogan; it's a spiritual message. And it's against
Rolling Stone's policy to publish advertisements that advance
spiritual messages." However, after a week of controversy
surrounding their decision, Rolling Stone relented and the
advertisement is included in the March issue.
Truth Claims Force an Objective Standard
When I first read about this, I couldn't help but realize that
Rolling Stone actually got some things right in their summation of
the ad's content. The concern over the slogan "timeless truths
in today's language" does make a claim to truth. If truth is an
objective thing, which Christians believe, then the ad really is
making a spiritual claim. It holds the Bible as true - which makes
it authoritative. If the Bible is authoritative, then it's teachings
on spiritual issues should be followed. Therefore, the Bible
promotes a spiritual message and claiming that it's true is
indirectly promoting a spiritual message, too.
In this day and age of postmodernism, I'm amazed that someone
would make such a connection. Think about it - Rolling Stone is
affirming that the idea of truth is an absolute standard. They
objected to the idea that the truth can be found in the Bible
because the Bible also stands against certain values, such as
seeking pleasure regardless of consequences - which runs contrary to
many of their other advertisers' concepts that to find self-pleasure
is the greatest goal.
Of course, Rolling Stone trying to make a distinction in their
advertising standards between a "spiritual message" and
other messages is, I believe, a false dichotomy. Any advertising
that speaks about man and his condition will be in some way
spiritual, and all advertising promotes some type of worldview.
Rolling Stone had no trouble at all running an ad for t-shirts that
satirize religious views, so their claims of wishing to stay out of
spiritual promotion ring a bit hollow.
The question the Rolling Stone editors should be asking isn't
"is this ad spiritual?" but "Since this ad makes
truth claims, are they really true?" It strikes me that many
today hide behind their supposed neutrality by claiming they support
no spiritual viewpoint. By labeling an idea as "spiritual"
they feel they've effectively taken de-fanged the idea of any
objectivity and have relegated it to the area of personal opinion.
They feel that asking questions like "which religious viewpoint
is true" is about as absurd as asking "which flavor of ice
cream is the best" - it's all subjective.
Now, I do think that some of that motivation is what caused the
editors to balk at running the Zondervan ad in the first place.
However, in their attempt to justify their decision, they stubbed
their toe on this whole idea of truth claims and how they are
objective things. Rolling Stone ultimately relented and the ad is
ruining this month. And the fortunate outcome is this situation
caused some discussion to develop about what truth is and how we
should approach it. Let's hope that other people begin to
reexamine their stances and we'll all think a little harder and more
clearly on such issues.
What are your thoughts? Did Rolling Stone stumble over
themselves? Let me know what you think at
newsletters@comereason.org. Until next time, God bless.
. |
