Something Sam said over on his blog reminded me of something McLaren said in an interview with Church Marketing Sucks:
Can you market God?
I think that’s a complicated question. I’m sure you have some good opinions on that. To some degree all that marketing means is communication. If we’re communicating in public, I suppose that could be called marketing. Is it being done intentionally, or accidentally, wisely or foolishly? The fact that when a non-Christian in America hears ‘Christian’ their first thought is anti-homosexual, that’s not a mistake. A very successful conservative Christian effort helped create that brand identity.
One of the things I’m interested in doing is saying those people don’t represent what I understand to be a follower of Jesus. Whatever you think about homosexuality, that shouldn’t be the first thing people think of when they think of Christians. Sadly, when the brand identity suggests Christians are judgmental, too often that’s accurate. That’s a consequence of our communication. We taught people to be judgmental.
In the book I talk about radio orthodoxy. Religious radio is really what creates that brand, and what I think informs the general Christian community in America an awful lot. Somebody might go to Willow Creek and listen to Bill Hybels on Sunday, but Monday through Friday they’re listening to James Dobson and Jerry Falwell, etc. and so their effect is very pervasive.
I don?t want to sound too negative, I think when James Dobson talks about being good parents and all the rest, raising children, he has a lot of expertise, it helps people. It helped us when we had little babies. But I don?t think a lot of these folks realize-radio preachers can give good leadership on parenting and misguided leadership in engaging in culture wars. So they’re willing to sacrifice our brand identity, to use marketing language, in the short run in order to win a culture war in the long run, or at least that’s how I perceive it.
A maxim from communication theory is that you cannot not communicate. Everything we do communicates something, whether we intend for it to or not. If I say that I’m planting a church that refuses to market the gospel, then that is our marketing slogan. We’re marketing ourselves to those who don’t like churches who market the gospel.
So as Sam and McLaren both point out: all Christians/churches are marketing/communicating something about the gospel. Maybe we’re marketing that the gospel is the solution to our biggest problems. Maybe we’re marketing that the gospel will satisfy our deepest needs. Maybe we’re marketing that the gospel is a boon for consumers. Maybe we’re marketing that the gospel is an invitation to a revolutionary way to life. Maybe we’re marketing that the gospel is the only way we can keep from being burned to a crisp in hell by a vengeful, wrathful God. We’re all marketing/communicating something about God and His gospel. Fair enough?
Again comes the question: do our marketing choices alter the meaning of what we are hoping to communicate? I believe they do. If that’s true, then we have to be critically aware of how our marketing strategy is shaping the message of the gospel and portraying the God who is its source. Is a marketing strategy that reinforces my identity as a consumer of goods and services, religious or otherwise, an appropriate way to communicate the gospel. I do not believe that it is. Nor do I endorse a marketing strategy that communicates to “sinners” that they have to become “Christians” (in the cultural sense of the word) in order to become Christ-followers.
There is something missing in most all of our approaches. I think I know what it is. I think we’re all talking about the gospel from a human point of view. This is what “I” get out of it. This is how “we” do it.
What if we changed the focus of our questions a bit?
What is the gospel from God’s point of view? What does God get out of the gospel? How does God do the gospel? How would God define or describe the gospel if he were given the chance? What was God’s purpose for kicking off his gospel project in the first place?
Telling Stories, Asking Questions, Learning Lessons
I don’t like the entire marketing paradigm, because when we start thinking in those terms, we start acting in those ways. I may sound like grandpa in this, but what the church has to offer the world is the power of salvation through Jesus Christ. We don’t need to be naive about the ancilliary messages we’re sending the world with our approach, but then again, we don’t need to let them drive our methods of evangelism, either. If we simply proclaim Christ and him crucified, we’ll be answering our calling. “Simply” — that’s the challenge, though, isn’t it? Still, God does the converting, not us. We must be faithful and obedient to our calling.
I love it when these types of questions are asked, and wrestled with. I think too long our churches have passively settled into one marketing strategy or another. I think the possbilities you gave are a very accurate reflection of some of the messages we have sent. As a person who wants to be involved in church planting, I’ve had to look around for new ways to “market” the Gospel. I am comfortable with that term because, like you said, it’s communicating. I think when we do crazy things like “spinning” the Gospel (in a political sense), or when we get into sensationalizing it (like beer and cigarette ads often do), then we get into some trouble. But anyway…
Like I said, I want to do church planting, but I do not want to make “subsitutionary atonement” my best move. Looking closely at that paradigm, unless a person comes to you, acknowledging that they are a vile, dirty sinner in need of atonement, you have to adopt a pretty antagonistic approach. If atonement theology is the only tool in your box, you have to play the role of prosecutor and convince people of their depravity and guilt, to create the perceived need for a savior, so that then Jesus can come in to take care of that particular program. And we wonder why our churches are so slow in growing in places like the Northeast and Western Europe.
The “marketing strategy” I think will have the most validity in the coming years and decades is the “Kingdom theology” one you mentioned in you examples. Offering people membership in the alternative lifestyle offered by life in the Kingdom is a lot more welcome message than, “Turn or Burn!”
But, as far as marketing is concerned, I think we need to be more intentional about the message we ARE sending. I think we can find plenty of people in Scripture who “got” what the Gospel was about, from God’s viewpoint, and crafted their presentation, marketed if you will, to a certain population. I think Paul and Peter had some pretty good Madison Avenue instincts…
Wade…
I noticed your permalinks are of the ugly ?p=649 variety. Are you familiar with the .htaccess file that allows the ultra-groovy re-write, so that ?p=649 becomes /2005/3/17/can-you-market-god.php ??? It’s a very cool thing, and might make linking to your posts a little easier.
Just a suggestion…
Greg–I’ve spent hours (hours I tell you!) trying to make that goofy little .htaccess thing work. My conclusion: my server doesn’t support such luxuries. My site is hosted by the folks at http://www.your-site.com. If anybody out there can tell me how to make this thing work I’m all ears! I want pretty links too!
Wide said: There is something missing in most all of our approaches. I think I know what it is. I think we?re all talking about the gospel from a human point of view. This is what “I” get out of it. This is how “we” do it.
What if we changed the focus of our questions a bit?
—
God wants to radically refocus our “marketing.” Presently we put so much attention on ourselves that we forget a promise that discloses what God is up to in this thing called the gospel.
He spoke to Israel–His chosen and wayward people. They had failed miserably to give others a true glimpse of God (poor marketing on their part). So God spoke to them through Ezekiel, the prophet. What he said shows God’s concern–God’s focus. Gospel in its essence isn’t about forgiving us, blessing us, or changing us.
Great blessings? Certainly. God’s primary concern? No. We need to dust off and read Ezekiel 36:19-27.
What is gospel from God’s point of view? It’s God’s chosen method to uphold His Holy Name. “I had concern for my holy name”.
What does God get out of the gospel? Respect and awe due His Name. “I will show the holiness of my great name….Then the nations will know that I am the LORD”.
How does God do the gospel? Give each of His people a new identity, hew heart, new desire, and new power to live in such a way that draws attention and honor to God. “I will show myself holy through you before their eyes”.
How would God define or describe the gospel if he were given the chance? “I will show the holiness of my great name”.
What was God?s purpose for kicking off his gospel project in the first place? It’s about a God-centered gospel, not a man-centered one. “It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name”.
Ouch, Wade….do you have a weight problem we should know about?
I’ve been called many things before, but Wide would probably make me cry!
If the “a” and “i” were next to each other on the keyboard, I’d feel better.
Seriously, Rusty–outstanding comment. Thanks for calling that passage to our attention.
Wide, I mean Wade:-),
I bet I don’t make that mistake again.
Ezekiel 36 does deserve more of our attention.
Thanks.
Rusty
hey everyone, almost finished my 1st month of my 2006 diet. Phendimetrazine does control my appetite and I’ve lost 8lbs. On on the treadmill 5 days and walking the dog briskly at night.