Phil Cooke

Good points.

I wrestle too with the thought that the medium to a certain extent is the message. 

The things that secular advertising do includes, altering perception and creating a felt need or relating that felt need toward a particular solution that is being offered. 

Our culture has become so conditioned to advertising of this nature that we recognize that and carry a high level of skepticism as to how accurate these messages are.

By adopting the pure methods in the same context, we may be tying our message in a way that diminishes it in the mind of many receiving it to the level of laundry detergent and Stock Broker Services.

I think we have to elevate the means to match the message.

The kicker is how you do that in a way which will allow you to be heard in the midst of all the noise that surrounds the message.

I don't profess to have that figured out, but I know there are times when I hear and see religious ads and messages and they hit me as somehow not worthy of what they're attempting to promote and I think some of your comments, Elizabeth, are as good an explanation as to why that is as any I've seen or come up on my own.

I didn't say Mara and I always agree, but she does make me think.  :-) 

I've sent her the thread and I hope she weighs in…   

Very thing that we are and were to become we stopped becoming (people birthed by relationship in Jesus into the family of God) and the very thing we should not become we became (the world we left behind only to return and adopt it’s ways into our relationship with the Lord) and we still don’t get it. Following Jesus (disciples of Jesus) changed to Christianity in Antioch. Christianity moved to Greece it became a Philosophy. Christianity went to Rome it became Organized Religion. Christianity went to England it became a Theological Institution. Christianity went to Spain it became the Inquisition. Christianity went to Africa it became Christian Idolatry/Voodoo. Christianity went to the USA and it became Christianity Incorporated. What next? Maybe we need to ask the Father how does He want His family to grow and stop second guessing Him. I think that is why He sent His Holy Spirit – to help us.

I can only echo what Peter, John L., and Breaklight have said.

Slaughter, "The church in the new millenium will be defined through experience and relationship."  This is the message of the book of The Acts of the Apostles.  The commercialization of modern day Christianity has been to its decline.  People are looking for an experience and relationship…perhaps why the success of house churches and cell groups worldwide.  Third world countries do not have the luxury of mass media or the aura of glitz and glamour.  Hence, "Simple Christainity with love of God and His Word and love for our neighbor will do…and with that we will win our world."  Man's basic spiritual desire and need is no different globally…translate that to America and I see the same…young people who only want an experience and relationship.  If we do not step up to the plate…gangs and everything else will. 

John, you clench it for me…is it pseudochurch, a semblance of, or The Acts church that we are striving for?

I've long wrestled with a great deal of the issues that this brings together.

I think the problem, as best I can understand it, is that some major sea changes have taken place in human history to bring us to where we are in our culture today and like it or not, while people are essentially the same, the context as to how you reach people and how they can be reached has changed radically.

We have a tendency, as Christians, to look back on the "good old days" and imagine that because things were a particular way back then (or at least our perception of how they were) that there is a spiritual or Christian value to it that should be preserved so that we don't threaten the spiritual status quo.

Things have changed a great deal however, even if man's basic needs and nature have remained the same.

In the US and western world, we are no longer agrarian in focus.  People are literate and written materials are available.  We've passed the Industrial Revolution and in the technologically based information revoltion of today, we're doubling information exponentially at a rate of every 7 years or less.

People have more information, and less intimacy than ever before.

We're bombarded with information at such a high rate that we've raised filters and defenses to cope with it all and that makes messages that stick harder to get through.

The whole branding question to me has to be looked at in that context.  Branding has an underlying assumption that mass media is, if not the best means, at least a necessary means of reaching people with the message of Christ and the Gospel.

I think I'm at a point where, I'm willing to concede that and recognize that that is the case.  It's not my preferred means nor should a false dichotomy be established to where we establish that it is either/or as there is no reason it must be looked at as the only means of reaching people for Christ.  In terms of reach and cost/time effectiveness, however, it's one of the more important options out there and there are people, people Christ died for, who will not hear or respond to the message in any other way.

Some of the problem though is that in our highly sophisticated age of marketing knowlege and statistical analysis of results, is that we can tweak and use the methods in such a manner that the message will be effective because of those means and how we can structure it to hit people psychologically garnering a predictable result.  That's where I raise the old saw that the medium is the message and in some ways there is going to be impact to the message in its conveyence.  That was true in Tyndale's time of expanding literacy, and it is a true and even more rapid development today.

I think the problem we're hitting here may be one of scope.  How important and how strong an element is the use of Branding and Media in terms of the overall context of ministry?  I'm hearing some approach it like it is a "necessary evil" (probably overstating that, but for the sake of being provocative, I'll use it here) in an effort to make initial contact to get "butts in seats" and then to move on from there according to some overarching model.

I don't mind that to be honest, because that suggests to me a local church which has the structure and seeks to build people into a community and I think that is a Biblical Model.

I think that is probably part of the conflict we see in terms of media ministries today.  Apart from whatever concerns I may have with someone like Joel Osteen, for example (and I have a few) I like the fact that he is a pastor in a local Church, accountible to internal structure in his church and the media is an extension of the local Church ministry and further, the media element is not viewed as a direct fund-raising mechanism, although in practice I know that their low-key approach generates funds sufficient to meet the needs.  Contrast that with para-church or pure media ministries and you have a different dynamic.

Branding then is just one element of what is bigger and in my mind more important, and that is the Ministry Model.

I can see Branding and media outreach in many instances in terms of its effectiveness as more dependent upon that bigger picture.

I understand in this blog that the focus is going to be upon the Branding itself as a point of intense scrutiny and evaluating the mechanics of it.  I appreciate that actually.  I'm less concerned about how it is being done than whether it ties into a larger plan which is ultimately Biblical in its source and has a value system that goes beyond what works, and is driven by what is right.

Bart, you make some good points. I disagree however that the dynamics of Xn faith have changed in 2,000 years. Whether agrarian or agri-tech, whether by verbal tradition or virtual community, the core ideals of NT ecclesia remain unchanging. Faith isn't dependent upon human progress, nor does any manner of man-made contrivance add or subtract from the inherited human condition.

Moreover, I think it's clear that religious institutionalization has, for nearly two millennia, hindered faith communities from understanding (and experiencing) the horizontal, lay-led, participatory, all-body ministry that was intentionally (not accidentally) created by the man we follow.

Religious branding is a big issue and it's great to see it discussed here. Looking forward to more.

I was just about to say that! It is a double-edged sword. Because we are Body, there is a need to be adaptable to every condition/environment but not lose sight of who we are in the process. The question is: are we allowing things to dictate to us or are we through God’s wisdom in control of them. What tends to happen is that we often glorify these new things, (if we think they are) focus on them as if they will save us and then get disappointed; either by another new edition or that it did not deliver what it was intended to do or that it was too complex for us to bother using it.

Everything is permissible for me,” but not everything is helpful. “Everything is permissible for me,” but I will not be brought under the control of anything. That is difference between the world and God and those who follow Him – what and who controls you.

If branding of faith where God’s mind for our lives, His brand for the church would be more unseen stuff that translates into tangible things. For example we don’t see wind (and this is a physical thing) but we feel it’s impact and see what it can do. The sun is far away but we feel it’s heat amongst a myriad of uses. So I think this is what God’s brand for the Church would be like that others will take note of:
- The love we have for God – faith & worship
- The love we have for one another – deeds amongst brethren
- The concerns we have for the oppressed (Matthew 25: 31- 46)and people in low conditions and our willingness to do something about it even if it cost us our lives -our cross
- Our personal willingness to live and die for Jesus without harming others
- Our ability to show compassion, justice, mercy and forgiveness
- Our dependence on God for everything and our independence of man

The Church of Today and Tomorrow
1. Firm and Flexible
2. In reaching and Outreaching
3. Dynamic and Established
4. Innovative and Barrier Breaking
5. Relational and Individual
6. Aware and Focused
7. Ancient and Contemporary/Historical, Relevant and on the Cutting Edge
8. Spiritual and fully practical
9. Everywhere

Phil:

What Would Jesus Advertise (WWJA)?

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight…" (use any worldly means possible, cheat, steal, lie…) John 18:36 (NKJV – additions mine)

Why do we in the Family of God constantly try to leverage the world's strategies to bring about the Kingdom's end? In my experience with the North American "brand" of Jesus, Messiah interestingly enough looks, tastes and smells so much like corporate America I can distinguish Him from the Enron goonies.

The question we need to ask is therefore: "What is the Jesus-way to proclaim and promote His Kingdom?" Note: not my Church programs, not my fancy meeting place and certainly not my pet messages…

I'm in love with the Christ… Jesus the Head, and His body – Just1Church!

Marc
–
http://twitter.com/MarcWright
http://just1church.wordpress.com

To add a little bit to John L.'s comment, the Gospel doesn't just consist of persuasive words or cute marketing jingles for some kind of self-actualization or aggrandizement.  It carries with it the absolute power of saving a man's soul from an eternal hell and rebirthing him into the kingdom of God Almighty.  Treating it with the same levity as a bottle of Drano consigns us to a hollow godliness without any power to speak of.

We cannot expect to do things man’s way and then expect God results. God is way higher than us human beings and therefore we must come up to a higher way of thinking if we are going to do things in a much better way. Who is God to us before He becomes God to those we want to reach out to?

Hi Phil, thanks for holding up our side of the conversation. Let's see if I can help.

One of the biggest caveats I make about marketing religion, faith, spirituality is not to confuse the marketing with the faith. Reading The Purpose-Driven Life is marketing, attending a seeker service is being exposed to marketing, watching Joel Osteen is marketing. Faith, as most of you have expressed, is something much deeper.

The issue, and I believe Phil agrees with me on this, is that you can't give people the faith if you can't "get their butts in the pews." This generation is the most media savvy, media-influenced generation. They grew up with TVs and computers and now video games and handheld devices. They have grown up being marketed to from the time Elmo appeared on their Pampers. I'm not saying this is good. I'm just saying it is so. They are used to being talked to in the language of marketing and so marketing seems to be the way for faiths to reach this group.

I would add that because of all the noise in their lives, this group may need faith more than some generations of the more recent past. Think about it. Today's 16-year-olds have seen September 11th, the war in Iraq and Katrina and they're still not out of high school. Researchers are actually starting to see an increase in altruism in young people which is being attributed to a reaction to the world's devastation.

So too, traditional religious organizations are in competition with easier forms of religious practice. While 90% of Americans say they believe in a higher power, only 26% attend religious service on a weekly basis. That's an awful lot of prospects that are getting their faith from books, TV, the Internet, spiritual retreats and so on. The question (as a marketer) that I would ask is what are people getting from these things that they are not getting from me.

Don't want to re-write the book, but I'll be happy to stay in the conversation and I'm glad there's much interest in the topic

Luke said, "Do you live like they did back then over 2000 years ago? Why would you think something they did back then at the beginning of Christianity would still be relevant today?"

Luke, in 2,000 years, people haven't changed. There's a reason the NT church had no professionals, no paid clergy*, and no distinction between clergy and laity. Everyone participated with their gifts – the role of pastor was one of maturity and care, not an office nor a pulpit. It was truly a “priesthood of all believers.”

The NT church established by Jesus, Paul, Timothy, and so many others, was the first "lay-led" movement in history, and remained that way for almost 100 years. It was largely the fear of heresy that consolidated ecclesiastical powers into the hands of a few “experts” – bringing with it the beginning of the institutional church.

Yes, the Reformation changed our soteriology (the idea of “salvation”) but failed to reform our ecclesiology (the idea of “church”). Luther (et al) simply rearranged the ecclesial deck chairs, but left virtually unchanged the top-down, institutional, professional clergy system. The long-standing, post-biblical tradition of one-bishop-rule (now embodied in the pastor) prevails in the Protestant church today.

The institutionalization of NT faith and community may be one reason why young people (18-29) are leaving the Western church in far greater numbers today than at any other time in history. We have centralized, corporatized, formalized, stratified, academized, and mega-fied something that was intended to remain organic, holistic, egalitarian, participative, distributed, fluid, and deeply communal. The ways of capitalism, business, and politics seem to further the former at the expense the latter, which is why I’m deeply concerned.

*a few missionaries we're given "traveling money" at times, but nothing like the clergy system in place today which sharply divides the church into professionals and amateurs. The idea of a professional, paid clergy started with the first “bishop” (Ignatius, circa 100AD), and was solidified and perfected by Rome (Tertullian, Cyprian, etc.) including the use of Roman legal courts where a robed professional would stand on a raised platform in front of massed amateurs. By 350AD, the lay-led, all-body participatory ecclesia was totally replaced by a hierarchical system looking more like politics and business.

I highly recommend any number of recent well researched studies on healthy ecclesia, such as George Barna’s Pagan Christianity, Alan Hirsch’s Forgotten Ways, and perhaps Neil Cole’s Organic Church. I would especially recommend Barna – along with any number of great conversations about this book now happening around the blog-o-clesia. Nathan Gann is keeping an index HERE (http://nathangann.com/?p=90).

Hi Mara, thanks for chiming in.

The idea of “getting butts in pews” highlights my concern – the notion of church as an “institution” managed by “experts.” I wonder if we’re missing the bigger picture – that perhaps “church” was never meant to be fashioned after politics and commerce; that just because we live in a world saturated with marketing, branding, and other forms of mass capitalism, that we assume these values should be normative in the church.

Willow Creek’s recent Reveal study shows that the numbers of butts in the pew, even butts that have been sitting there for years, has little relation to spiritual depth and commitment to the ways of Christ.

You propose that because emerging generations have “grown up being marketed to” that this “seems to be the way for faiths to reach this group.” I would offer that we’ve gotten it backwards. That our attempts at “marketing faith” have backfired simply because these generations see our marketing as just another sales pitch.

I'm starting to doubt that the authenticity we know in Christ can be conveyed by the tools of mass commerce to a generation effectively jaded and glutted by that very medium. It’s McLuhan. It’s Postman. We know this is true, and such tools are becoming less effective – not because of the message, but because listeners increasingly distrust the medium.

David Kinneman, in his new book UnChristian, says of the Millennial generation, “they can smell B.S. from several miles away, they are easily offended by unwanted marketers. They identify more with an experience and relationship than a message.”

At the 2006 Reach Conference, which was chaired by Phil (!), panel after panel bemoaned the fact that they’re not reaching emerging generations, that Christian mass media comes off as “fake, artificial, simplistic, sales pitchy, preachy.” We're not going to change this with better copy. The bottleneck is commerce itself.

And this points directly back at the nature of “church." Is “church” a collective community of faith, or a group individual consumers of goods and services? The NT points to the former, which is why I think it’s profoundly important that we try to understand Christ’s vision of “church” and build on that foundation.

Says Michael Slaughter, “the church in the new millennium will be defined through experience and relationship. Postmodern culture is looking for an experience of God, not an explanation. The future church, like the ancient, will live the mystery and presence of the risen Christ and demonstrate authentic community in a culture of isolation.”