Churches And Branding
The secular press has noted the move of churches toward
branding. This article on The Tennessean website notes the search. We're going to
continue this conversation, because I think it could be the defining issue
of our time.
Branding is a buzz word that the church has taken a liking to. Prosperity was another one of those buzz words. Other buzz words became denominations: Baptism, Pentecost, Apostle, etc.
The only brand disciples need to be concerned about promoting is the brand of Christ. It is established, well-respected, fulfilling, and consistent. If you attempt to 'brand' a church or ministry, you are ultimately taking value away from the Kingdom of God.
Paul, as John L noted, discouraged promoting a brand of anyone other than Christ. At the same time, Paul lived the brand of Christ. Phil brought up the importance of living your brand, using his experience with Starbucks, last year. I think that's where we've got it wrong. The only thing that will attract more disciples is our sincerity to being the body of Christ, with Jesus as the head. We fail at doing that because we fail at realizing where we fit in the body.
One thing I've noticed among churches and ministries is the lack of identity. Our overall Brand is Christ but how, in my neck of the woods, am I communicating that? What uniqueness do I bring to the body of Christ? Am I a toe? Eye? Fingernail? That's where our focus needs to be: identifying the uniqueness of a ministry. It doesn't need to be on creating a new personality to follow.
I don't think the analogy of today's branding to Paul's admonition to identify in Christ alone versus the primary leaders of the time that he wrote that passage is apt.
I do think it is a good warning against tying branding into ministry personality and there are several threads here dealing with the challanges of generational succession in leadership that arise from the strong identification of a particular ministry with the gifts and strengths of it's founder.
Branding in context of today's media communications has to do with breaking out of the media noise to where there is some quick identification and recognition of a ministry that opens the way for or reinforces their identification and message.
It sounds spiritual to speak about it in tems of the Church universal, but the Church Universal doesn't operate collectively in this sphere in an organized or coordinated fashion. Individual Churches and organizations have to get their message out and if they are going to operate in the public square of today's media, then branding is a legitimate strategy and issue.
I think it ties back to ministry model. It doesn't have to include branding, but there's nothing implicitly wrong with it. Where it used, it behooves us to do it with excellence and effectiveness.
I concur with Bart. I designed a “new media” / branding approach for my mega church and wasn’t comfortable with the direction of continuing to form the identity around the main personalities. Or shall I say this is a tired approach – the “attractional model” is not all that attractive – and as I found out by inviting my Yale student friend to church – can be extremely repelling. Nor was I comfortable with the hierarchical, pre packaged service based options offered in menu and program format. The whole ethos was so stifling. I realized this was not future – that everything had already changed, and that it was not the best use of my creative energy.
As I pointed out on my previous post under Marketing Saavy / Branding Faith, – branding is a neutral tool – the corporate world will show up way ahead – as usual, by creating non static, communicative, story telling brands that will be intrinsically involved with social and eco communities and causes. The church can lead by making their brands viral, non static and revolving around community and action or they can realize the usefulness of this trend in 5-10 years. The problem is - change is accelerating and we no longer have the luxury to be followers.
Branding is a vehicle – how we use it and that we use it, along with every creative tool at hand is critical. If love, compassion and the proof of love through action is behind the brand –cool - if personality – then your brand will also create a certain type of church culture – people showing up for personality or a certain “Jesus” brand. Non churched are looking for action and productive ways to help the planet and those in need. They are looking for and creating ways to express their care, concern and spirituality because there are issues at hand they consider paramount. For many, the brands being presented by the church are trivial - they see a Jesus that is not boxed in by a church brand. This may sound anti church branding – but it’s not – it’s looking at branding in a whole new light.
"Maurilio Amorim, who runs a church-branding firm in Brentwood, says that branding is a biblical activity. He points to parable told in Luke 14:16-23, about a man who threw a banquet. When none of the guests showed up, the man sent his servant to invite outsiders in."
Sorry, Maurilio - that's not branding. Luke 14 describes hospitality, kindness, generosity - a missional lifestyle.
If anything, NT attempts at "branding" were dismissed as divisive. Recall 1Cor1, 1Cor3, etc.. Like different brands of automobiles or designer jeans, certain groups had formed preferences around the personae (brands) of Paul, Apollos, and Cephas.
Paul understood the human tendency to differentiate. It's the story of Gen2 - the fall. Savvy marketers understand this tendency as well. I spent years developing brands and differentiating products. It's why we renamed Multitech to Acer Computer. It's why one company I look after today has more than forty brands.
The Spirit is Different. It is not made with hands. It is essential unity and non-differentiation. It is "all things to all people" while remaining undivided.
Brother Maynard shares a story which seems appropriate to this conversation...
There were three priests living in a small town. One wanted to preserve the old simple Celtic styles of religion: "I abide by the traditions of Patrick and Brigit, the founders of our church," he said. The second wanted to adopt the new sophistocated styles and doctrines of the Roman church: "I want to be part of the universal church under the pope in Rome — and that is what Patrick and Brigit wanted," he said. The third said, "Let people worship and believe as they think best; if religion is just going to cause divisions, I want none of it."
These three priests remained friends, and often met for dinner; but their meetings always ended in argument. Sometimes they argued about how certain rituals should be performed. Sometimes they argued about heaven, and who would get there. "I believe that only those who remain loyal to the old Celtic traditions will get to heaven," the first said. "I believe that only those who accept the authority of the pope in Rome will be saved," the second said. "Let each person try to lead a good and honest life," the third said, "and then God will be the judge."
Some years later the three priests died, and arrived at the gate of heaven. Peter took the hand of the first priest. "Welcome, friend," Peter said, "you go and sit over there among the others who preserved the Celtic traditions." Then Peter took the hand of the second priest. "Welcome friend," Peter said, "you go and sit over there among the others who have obeyed the pope in Rome." Finally Peter took the hand of the third priest. "Welcome friend," he said, "you are free to wander wherever you want."
So the third priest wandered freely amongst all the different groups in heaven. And amongst the other people he saw wandering amongst the different groups were Patrick and Brigit — and Jesus Christ himself.