Subscribe to Posts
evangelicals, we have a branding problem
Jesus Brand Spirituality: He Wants His Religion Back is a book I wrote as an evangelical, by which I mean, as someone who cares about communicating the good news (gk. evangel) among those who have not heard good news. Right here, for example, where I live. It is based on a certain reading of the culture in which I live. We who have received and therfore have a responsibility to be and share good news, also have a responsibility to face up to the cultural context we operate in. Here’s the challenge: we have a branding problem. We who love, admire and seek to follow Jesus of Nazareth, must acknowledge that the Christian brand in America has sufferred something very like trademark infringement.
Have you noticed that when you’re out to eat and order a Coke, the wait staff will often says, “Is Pepsi OK?” That’s because they’ve been trained to make it clear that Coke and Pepsi are separate brands. In trademark law, the owner of a brand has a responsibility to enforce the brand’s identity. If someone is selling a different product under the name of your brand, you can lose the trademark to that product if you don’t take legal action to enforce the trademark.
Yes this branding metaphor has roots in a consumer culture. In such a culture trademarks are important. Samsung can’t make and sell something called an iPhone.
Is this a legitimate metaphor to use when talking about communicating the gospel? I think so. We are called to communicate the gospel in the language of the culture in which we find ourselves. We may pretend that we don’t like being in a consumer culture–even as we consume more than any other people in the world or the history of the planet. But here we are, all of us profoundly affected by this consumer culture.
Brand = Name = Reputation
And there is a concern in Scripture that corresponds to the consumer culture concern for trademark. A person’s most precious possession is his or her name. God goes to great lengths to protect the integrity of his Name. Using his name in vain is, in the language of our culture “trademark infringement.”
A name is something that often precedes a person. You live you life and gain a reputation, and people who don’t know you personally have heard of you. They know your reputation. Your name precedes you. They are inclined to receive you or not, based on your name.
Like it or not, Christianity has a name in our culture–a reputation that precedes it before people engage it personally. And this reputation powerfully affects whether people are inclined or disinclined to receive it.
Why shouldn’t it be so? Jesus himself said, “Ye shall judge them by their fruits.” Isn’t it fair to judge a religion by the reputation that those who carry the name Christian have? We certainly judge other religions by that standard.
Who Establishes the Brand Identity in the Public Sphere?
So what is the most powerful force in American Christianity over the last thirty years? Evangelical Christianity, hands down. All the sociological surveys indicate that it is so. Politicians cater to it and it pays when they do. This means the evangelical Christians have a powerful impact on the reputation of Christianity in this place.
As insiders, we can believe all the good things about this movement that we want to. We would be justified in doing so. The warmth of the people, the concern for missions, the good deeds that go unnoticed all over the world, the money given to good causes, the volunteer hours for good deeds. It’s all there and it’s real. But alongside all that is another public face that powerfully affects our reputation in this place. His reputation too.
For decades evangelicals were known for avoiding involvement in the public square. They didn’t vote as much as other groups. It wasn’t cool to be involved in politics. Then something shifted in the 1970’s. A number of very high profile evangelical and fundamentalist leaders decided to get involved in the public square.
What was the name of the first multi-denominational organization devoted to this? The Moral Majority, named by a political operative named Paul Weyrich.
Is this how Christians are to be known in the public square? As the Moral Majority? Wouldn’t it be great if we were known as moral people? But is it wise or biblical or representative of the Spirit of Jesus that we should call ourselves, “The Moral Majority”? Especially when President Nixon used the term “The Silent Majority” to refer to all those who supported his policies, while he was busy breaking the law. That was the cultural precursor to the term, “Moral Majority.”
What if instead of calling ourselves, The Moral Majority, we called ourselves, The Friends of Sinners, or The Broken Majority?
The Moral Majority waxed and waned and was replaced by another organizition: the Christian Coalition. But the Christian Coalition was a politically conservative organization made up of Christians. Is that the reputation of Jesus we want to promote? Jesus the Conservative? Jesus the Liberal? Jesus the Libertarian? Jesus the Socialist? Jesus the Facist? Jesus the Republican? Jesus the Democrat?
This organization waxed and waned and was replaced by Focus on the Family–founded by Dr. James Dobson as a resource for marriage relationships and parent-child relationships, etc. But over time it became increasingly political, and when the Christian Coalition tanked, it formed a political arm called The Family Research Council, another politically conservative organization made up of Christians. Against abortion, gay marriage, gun control, the science behind global warming–the usual hodgepodge, some good, some bad, some debatable, depending on your point of view.
While this was happening over the course of ten, twenty, now thirty years, most pastors in evangelical churches–myself included for too long–didn’t notice how powerful the cultural impact was becoming. We were like the frog in the pan of water that rises slowly to a boil. We were convinced of the dangers of a secularity that wasn’t as tolerant as it claimed to be. We felt marginalized by a residual disdain for faith in some institutions–the secular university for example. We felt like a minority group within society, even as we were becoming something very close to a majority. And we were and still are concerned about abortion on demand through six months of pregnancy and with a broadly defined “health” exception well into the ninth month, right up to birth, as the law of the land–the most libertarian approach to abortion in the world, perhaps, the least legal protection for unborn life, less legal protection than many European nations.
And there were very shrewd politicians who took advantage of us. Richard Nixon being the first, but not the last. He even snookered Billy Graham, our chief spokesperson.
The Religious Right
And we became allied with that movement called “The Religious Right.” By we, in this context, I mean mainly white, suburban evangelicals. Talk about a branding problem! By an unfortunate coincidence when the brain hears “right” it doesn’t just think, the opposite of “left.” It thinks the opposite of “wrong.” Put this together with the first evangelical-fundamentalist political organization of note, The Moral Majority. Is it any wonder we gained a reputation as self-righteous, as people who proclaim themselves to be righteous?
And slowly but surely we began to lose effectiveness in the one thing we were commanded by our true founder to do: preach good news to every nook and cranny of creation, including the one we find ourselves in. People on the outside of our faith stayed away in droves. Yes, we gathered our own into larger and larger churches. Along with them came people who didn’t mind the reputation that we had gained in the wider culture, or were willing to ignore it. But many others bothered by the reputation that preceded us in their perceptions of us wouldn’t be caught dead in an evangelical church. And not because they are disinterested in Jesus of Nazareth, whose reputation, remarkably remains pretty good as soon you make the obvious point that the founder isn’t always well represented by the followers.
Colorado Springs, We Have a Problem!
Now we’ve got a problem and a big one: a branding problem. And we have a problem in our own communities, because perfectly devoted and wonderful believers also happen to be politically conservative, rather than politically liberal if forced to choose between those labels. They are conservative for many different reasons–a distrust of big government, a belief that we need to reemphasize personal responsibility, etc.
How do pastors say, “The Religious Right” doesn’t represent all Christians, without sounding like they want to replace the Religious Right with the Religious Left? Especially when many evangelical Christians have been socialized not to consider that there might be a difference between Christian and conservative or between Christian and liberal? That this might be a very complex combination of identities, sometimes overlapping and sometimes not. Pastors who object to the identification of Christianity with the Religious Right are branded by many conservative believers as liberal, outsiders, bad people, traitors. So we tend to keep our concerns to ourselves.
The fog is lifting, but it’s still a real mess, and pastors don’t like messes. But there’s a lot at stake: the name of Jesus for starters. And we will answer to him for how we face this problem, which we cannot do by minimizing it.
Tags: christian coalition, conservative, family research council, focus on the family, james dobson, Jerry Fallwell, liberal, moral majority, pauyl wyrich, politics, religious right
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Have you seen Ken Collin’s “The Evangelical Moment”? One of the great great recent books that identifies the four tenets of what it means to be an evangelical and begins the rebranding of the term post-fundamentalists. Check it out.
http://www.amazon.com/Evangelical-Moment-Promise-American-Religion/dp/0801027446/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246572332&sr=8-1
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Name branding. UUMM. So many choices. Where would one fit in as far as a name or brand. Patriot, American, Capatilist, Jesus Freak, Socialist, Red Neck, Yankie, Senior Citizen, Yuppie, Baby Boomer,X generation, athiest, Humanist, and Non Conformist as well as your list.
Why is it that we all must be branded or put in a category so that we can be judged by association?
In political circles one is asked are you a Democrat or a Republican. In religious circles one can be asked are you a Chriatian, Jew, or Muslim. Then the categorization or branding begins.
In actuality, it takes all kinds with different views to make a particular body of people. The tricky part is to get that body to agree to follow the same path or goal rather than go in different directions helter skelter.
That is the great thing about Christianity. It has the Scriptures clearly laid out as to the paths that should be followed. However, different groups with in that body will have different concepts as to what the Scriptures say and will go off in a different direction; you will have disunity with in the body.
Sadly that is human nature. If only all would follow a path in unity as far as followers of the Lord and the Scriptures, what a powerful force that would be.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Ken, Although you make some interesting points, I think there is some confusion about your term “Evangelicals”. You make the comparison between past decades when evangelicals avoided involvement and the ones today. I think there is some confusion because Evangelical is a religious tradition, a movement, and an organization. Sociologist Woodberry and Smith (1998) would argue that the religious movement – Evangelical is responsible for the shift in the 1970’s. Thus, those forming The Religious Right and The Moral Majority.
Sociology and Political science researchers at Calvin College have done considerable amount of research in defining these different sects persay of Evangelical and essentially stating that it is impossible for Evangelicals to all identify with a particular political agenda- conservative or liberal because there is much overlap. As you mentioned we tend to see more of this gap when it comes to race. While White Evangelicals (from the movement) align with political stances such as abortion, gay marriage, gun control, death penalty, etc. There is a much broader perspective when looking at Evangelicals who are African American or other minority races because their focus is going to be the other Jesus agenda issues pertaining to poverty-poor, economical changes, against death penalty- most just criminal system, health care etc. This year’s past election is an excellent example of this.
You are right “Branded” Christianity is going to change the way churches are viewed both internally and externally. There are going to be great messes and it has only just begun. My theory of course is these different “sects” of Evangelical and how they all use the same name, but have different perspectives on what it truly means to be “Evangelical”. Great post!
July 7th, 2009 at 11:49 am
ken, what companies have fixed an image or branding problem by in-house navel gazing? it usually works better to focus on actually doing or making something better. how about trying to have better “evangelical” churches yourselves as a start, rather than pointing fingers at others? infighting is so ugly. it’s always the “other” christians that are making us look bad, huh?
July 10th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Having just come back from a Rob Bell conference, I’m pretty jazzed about where things are headed. My question is, do we need to redeem the “Evangelical” brand, or just leave it behind? It’s not a label I find particularly useful anyway. I say we just use “Christian” and refuse to be pigeon-holed.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:39 am
humpreys, quite so…being as faithful as we can be to Jesus in our particular local churches is the key.
However, it’s also important that we take realistic stock of the wider movement in which we are imbedded; this requires a bit of internal critique that is unpleasant for everyone, but necessary.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Don,
The big question! I wonder if it’s realistic to simply shed the “evangelical” identity. If only it were that easy. The reality is, we are part of wider historical movements within the church–since faith is transmitted particularly and historically and relationally. Rob Bell’s church was planted out of an Evangelical church and took the name, Mars Hill Bible Church, which identifies it as evangelical. Rob publishes with Zondervan, an evangelical publisher, has feature stories about his church and approach to ministry in Christianity Today, the evangelical magazine. Identity isn’t just something we choose; it’s also something we inherit.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Ken, agreed. But what percentage of the American populace knows the inside of the Christian publishing world, or church history? If they know Rob from his books and Nooma videos they just know that he’s this really cool Christian pastor.
The word “Evangelical” doesn’t even appear on our church website (except in your bio, title of book), and you’d have a hard time finding the word on the Vineyard USA site.
Look at what’s happened to the word “liberal” in American politics. (Which is totally disconnected from the historical meaning of the word.) Had too much baggage. It got dropped like a hot potato because of unpopular connotations, and now the label of choice is “progressive.” A brilliant move, in my mind.
We can fight to save that brand name, or let it go. I’m more interested in the Jesus brand than the Evangelical brand.
It’s just a label. I say we let it die.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Don, As a practical matter, agreed. Why use a term that isn’t helpful or miscommunicates what you want to communicate? I guess I’m more concerned about denying that the term applies–such denial seems to be dishonest to me somehow.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:40 am
“Look at what’s happened to the word “liberal” in American politics….It got dropped like a hot potato because of unpopular connotations, and now the label of choice is “progressive.” A brilliant move, in my mind”
I think you’re on to something, Don. Vineyard should not only drop the word evangelical, which it is not.
It should adopt the word…er…PROGRESSIVE…which it is!
haha
Big Dog
And I mean progressive in the MOST liberal sense!
July 18th, 2009 at 12:25 am
Although I do see this branding problem currently and also experience it, I think my generation (28 yr old) is getting over it and my 15 yr old brothers generation will drop it all. I see in my generation and younger ones that we just want jesus, something authentic, relatable, true, fulfilling. I think this branding problem is on it’s way out. In the mean time just live your life letting Gods glory shine thru you each day so that others may see and believe. This can be more influential than Dobson or Bob Dutko
How many people are coming to christ with us waving our finger at them for their sins? I have not seen any! I think Christians today are beginning to see this doesn’t work and will begin to change how they walk out their evangelicalness (if that’s a word?). I like the saying: Jesus’s idea is for us to catch the fish not clean them, that is His job.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:40 pm
“How many people are coming to christ with us waving our finger at them for their sins? …Christians today are beginning to see this doesn’t work.”
Are you suggesting that all those hippies that got saved in the 60’s/70’s converted because someone was ‘waving their finger at them for their sins’?
You sure seem to be by saying the Christians of ‘today’ will BEGIN to see this doesn’t work.
You are wrong of course. It was a little before my time, so Parson Wilson may have a better recollection, but as I understand it those hippies like Keith Green and Dan Peeks of America were looking for something more REAL than the drugs they were smoking. No finger-waving brought them in. They were so stoned, the back & forth motion would have probably tripped them out…
Benny D. Hinn
July 25th, 2009 at 8:59 am
I’m just catching up on recent posts. Re Don’s idea of dropping evangelical in favor of Christian, I grew up in a denomination that did exactly that, all the way back in the 19th century [Church of Christ]. And still we messed up, since we were so human and had such a talent for messing up. Still, I agree that Christian is the label of choice. One of our slogans was, Not the only Christians but Christians only. And you know what? We still figured out that we were the only Christians! So we need to get the label right – but also the content.
July 26th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
I have no idea what you are talking about B…D. I wasn’t born until 1980. I am speaking only of my own experience.
July 27th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Ken,
What do I do with the fact that probably a lot of people who started and ran the Moral Majority were honestly walking with Jesus when they did it? Or to ask it more broadly…what should be my response to people who really do walk with the Lord but go about spreading the gospel in a way that I think is ineffective, maybe inappropriate, and maybe even harmful?
I don’t want to have a bad attitude towards other followers of Christ. I don’t want to distrust Christian leaders whom God has placed in those positions. But I also can’t ignore what think, when I think it is what Jesus wants.
July 27th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Romans 14, I suppose! I think trust has to be earned. If someone is leading in a direction that isn’t where Jesus is going–don’t follow. One can acknowledge a leader who is going in a lousy direction as a brother, an focus on common ground while begging to differ. The point is, because of intense media exposure and the power of this ministries, many pastors have been somewhat intimidated and are reluctant to sound a different note. We shouldn’t be intimidated, though.
July 28th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Evangelical, charismatic, penticostal, baptist, protestant or what ever. They all preach the same thing. Salvation through Jesus Christ. It doesn’t matter as long as we follow the scripture of the bible to the letter.
Point and waving fingers. I haven’t seen that since I was a child in the sixites watching an evangelist on a street corner preaching damnation. Get a grip people. We are all charged to win souls to Christ in preparation of the future rapture as well as showing God’s grace and love.
One of the main reasons I prefer not to have association with any established Church or denomination. Seems they all spend all their energy back biting and bad mouthing other denominations all the while evolving into a social gathering of click groups self serving each other with in the church.
When was the last time any of you won any body to Christ? Do any of you participate in out reach programs that actually bring others to Christ? Have any of you poured out love to the disadvantaged and showed them God has a wonderful plan for their lives? Do any of you care?
It is great to sit around and discuss theology as scholars but the Lord says it is all up to us now. Go forth and preach the scriptures to win others to Christ is the message I am getting.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:13 am
“I have no idea what you are talking about” – SunflowerRae
True dat. Nor what YOU are talking about.
Thanks for clearing that up.
B.een there D.one that
August 13th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
It’s funny how lately, though I lean right politically, I have been arguing against the many of the typical christian right political arguments.
Maybe it’s obvious to everyone else, but I am really beginning to define in my own mind a line to separate 2 types of issue.
1- I have some political biases and preferences that would place me on the right, conservative side of the isle. I would classify these as just what they are: Political opinions.
2- I have opinions and convictions about what it means to be a follower of Jesus and I will can these: Religious convictions.
What I think I am encountering in a lot in people (including me), is a tendency to mix the 2 categories in just about every issue. And in this country , democracy and the US constitution especially, seem to be blurred with religious conviction.
So any political disagreement seems to place doubts on the person’s religious fervor also.
Case in point: Though I have some serious concerns about the ‘Obama medical coverage’ issue, I have been told by some that it is ‘ungodly’ for violating the US constitution.
My response to that is…so what if it violates the Constitution? I mean, since when is the US form of gov’t more Godly than say, a dictatorship?
I personally think the US gov’t system is the best on Earth and would hate to see us become like Europe (socialist), but that is a political issue, not a Religious one.