What is the controversy with the “He Gets Us” commercial?
Exploring the criticism, conflicts, and questions surrounding one of the most-watched faith-based ad campaigns
(By Carmichael Phillip)
Background: What is “He Gets Us”?
The “He Gets Us” campaign is a high-visibility religious advertising campaign launched in the United States in 2022 by Servant Foundation, later managed by the nonprofit Come Near.
Its stated goal: to “re-introduce people to the Jesus of the Bible” i.e., to promote the message of Jesus in a way accessible to culture-weary or skeptical audiences.
The ads featured still-image montages of people from diverse backgrounds (including refugees, protestors, everyday people) with taglines like “Jesus was a refugee” or “Jesus didn’t teach hate. He washed feet. He gets us. All of us.”
Despite its broad reach, the campaign quickly generated significant controversy from various angles. Below we’ll unpack the major sources of criticism, the points of conflict, and what it means for both religious advertising and culture at large.
Spending and scale: Is it appropriate?
One of the earliest critiques relates to the sheer scale of money poured into the campaign. By some reports, the initial spend was at least US $100 million, with projections of up to a billion dollars over several years.
For instance, the advertisement during the Super Bowl was estimated at around US $20 million for airtime alone.
Critics ask: if the core message is about Jesus’ humility, compassion and service, is it contradictory to spend tens of millions of dollars to broadcast that message? Some say the funds might have been better directed to social services, direct humanitarian work, or grassroots ministry rather than big-budget TV spots.
The tension here is: the campaign aims to reach a mass audience via premium media channels (e.g., Super Bowl commercials), but the advertising model invites scrutiny when tied to religious messaging. The question of means vs. ends becomes central.
Funding & donor transparency concerns
Another major area of controversy: Who is funding the campaign, and what are their wider ideological commitments?
While many donors remain anonymous, it is documented that major funding came via the Servant Foundation (also known as The Signatry) and donors such as David Green (founder of Hobby Lobby).
The Servant Foundation itself has donated tens of millions to organisations associated with anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-abortion causes (e.g., the Alliance Defending Freedom).
The controversy arises because the campaign presents a message of radical inclusion (“Jesus loves gay people and Jesus loves trans people … YOU are invited”).
Critics say: how does that align with funders whose record includes support of organisations opposing LGBTQ+ rights or reproductive rights? Is there a credibility gap between message and money?
Thus the paradox: a widely publicised “inclusive” message paired with donors whose public record is the opposite, which for many raises issues of authenticity, motives and transparency.
Theological & evangelistic critiques
From a theological perspective, the campaign has been criticized by some Christian commentators for watering down the gospel. For instance:
The campaign emphasises Jesus’ humanity and relatability (“He gets us”), but some argue it fails to emphasise his divinity, his role as Savior, and the call to repentance.
Some assert that the message shifts from “Jesus saves” to “Jesus sympathises,” thereby reducing Christian faith to moral inspiration rather than transformation.
The campaign frames Jesus as apolitical or above politics, yet uses imagery of refugees, protestors, cancel culture, and social justice—raising critique that either it is inadvertently political or misrepresenting the gospel’s radical challenge to power.
In short, for some Christians the controversy is not just about marketing or money, but about the content of the message: What kind of Jesus is being portrayed? Is this faithful to historic Christianity or is it a repackaged, culturally palatable version?
Audience, marketing strategy & contextualisation issues
The campaign is aimed at what it calls “spiritually open skeptics” — people who are not committed to religion, or feel alienated by traditional church culture.
But this targeting brings its own issues:
Some critics say the adverts are so generic and culture-shaped that they might be appealing but shallow — prompting awareness but not deep engagement or doctrinal clarity.
The use of imagery such as foot-washing, cancel culture, or refugees is emotionally powerful, but some argue the context (e.g., biblical foot-washing being symbolic of service within church community) is removed or diluted, generating misinterpretation.
On social media, the campaign has been criticized both from the right (for being too “woke” or socially-progressive) and from the left (for being manipulative or masking conservative funding). For instance:
“Right wingers think it’s too woke. Left wingers think the ad company’s former work with right wing organizations is problematic.”
Reddit
And from reddit:
“These commercials could be seen as propaganda from Christian right-wingers … The ads are about the Grace without the truth to go along with it.”
Reddit
Thus the marketing strategy has raised questions about authenticity, clarity of purpose, and whether the campaign is overcoming scepticism or reinforcing it.
Foot-washing ad and media backlash
A specific flashpoint in the controversy was the “Foot Washing” commercial (aired in 2024) which depicted people of different ideological backgrounds washing each other’s feet—with the tagline: “Jesus didn’t teach hate. He washed feet. He gets us.”
Issues raised included:
Some viewers misinterpreted the imagery (on social media, “foot washing” trended with tongue-in-cheek references).
Adweek
The depiction removed the biblical context of Jesus washing his disciples’ feet as a servant-lead model within a community of faith; critics argued the commercial reframed the act without its theological meaning.
Conservatives criticized it for implicitly aligning Jesus with modern protest movements and activist framing (thus seeing politics embedded in the ad).
Some marketing analysts described the ad’s buzz as “social viral” but questioned long-term impact: “After causing a stir on social media… the brand sidesteps the controversial foot-washing ad for the next year.”
Adweek
This example crystallises how the campaign’s use of strong imagery and cultural touchpoints may amplify the message but also multiplies misinterpretation and backlash.
Political & ideological contradictions
An important thread in the controversy is the perceived mismatch between message (inclusion, love, radical compassion) and organisational/financial roots (donors supporting conservative causes). Some key points:
The campaign claims to be non-political and inclusive.
At the same time, funding links to organisations like the Alliance Defending Freedom (which opposes same-sex marriage) and to donors like David Green whose company has engaged in anti-LGBTQ legal battles.
Some commentators argue that the campaign uses “cancel culture” vocabulary (e.g., “Jesus was cancelled”) thereby adopting progressive language while being funded by conservative interests.
Some on the left say: Was Jesus being used to legitimize conservative agendas or re-brand Christianity as socially palatable without substance? For example: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio‑Cortez quipped that “Jesus would not spend millions of dollars on Super Bowl ads to make fascism look benign.”
Wikipedia
The upshot: The campaign is pulled between branding-style inclusion messaging and ideological baggage, generating tension around what the true agenda is and how transparent the campaign’s affiliations are.
Effectiveness & measurement: Does it work?
Amid the controversy lies the question of whether the campaign is achieving its goals. Some metrics indicate success: for example, the campaign reported website traffic surges (AP News noted ~715,000 views in 24 hours after a Super Bowl spot).
AP News
However:
Critics say reaching large audiences is not the same as genuine conversion to faith or meaningful engagement with Jesus. The campaign itself calls its work “pre-evangelism” rather than full evangelism.
The Gospel Coalition
Some theologians argue the approach emphasises relatability over the call to repentance and faithful discipleship — raising downstream questions about lasting fruit.
From a marketing lens, the campaign is bold and well-executed, but the controversy may detract from message clarity or create distrust among certain Christian cohorts.
aaronrenn.com
Hence the controversy is not just ethical or theological — it also concerns strategic effectiveness. Critics ask: When you spend tens of millions, what’s the ROI — and how is “good” defined (awareness, sign-ups, church connection, lasting commitment)?
Why this matters: Implications for faith, culture and advertising
The “He Gets Us” debate underscores several broader themes:
Faith and brand: What happens when religious messaging adopts marketing-frameworks (branding, huge budgets, ad buys during Super Bowl)? Can that coexist authentically with gospel theology and the mission of the church?
Cultural translation: The campaign tries to render Jesus in culturally-relevant idioms for younger or sceptical audiences. But when you trade complexity for access, there’s a fine line between relevance and dilution.
Funding transparency: As with any large-scale evangelistic or religious campaign, questions about money, motives, and alignment matter—especially when donors’ agendas may conflict with message.
Public perception & credibility: The campaign’s visibility means that its controversies become public discourse; how the Christian community perceives its authenticity affects trust, credibility and witness.
Evangelistic strategy vs. depth: Reaching media audiences is one thing; nurturing faith, discipleship, and community is another. The campaign opens doors — but what happens after opening?
In short, “He Gets Us” becomes a case-study in how faith organisations engage culture, media and money — and the controversies expose the tensions involved.
Final summary: Controversy in a nutshell
To summarise:
The “He Gets Us” campaign is a large-scale, high-budget advertising effort to present Jesus to a modern audience, especially sceptics or non-church-goers.
It uses emotionally powerful imagery and taglines to convey inclusion, compassion and relevance.
But it has generated controversy due to several overlapping issues: its large spend on advertising despite a message of humility; its funding links to conservative organisations at odds with its inclusive messaging; its theological critics claiming a diluted presentation of Jesus; its marketing strategy raising questions about authenticity and depth; and its target audience strategy provoking backlash from both left and right.
The campaign is both lauded for ambition and reach, and critiqued for message coherence, funding transparency and theological fidelity.
In short: the controversy is not about simple disagreement; it’s about multiple fault-lines where theology, marketing, culture and money converge.
Acting Magazine Newsletters
Never miss out on the best from Acting Magazine.