I think I will be blogging on this post topic again. This one was sort of tense to write, and maybe it came out sounding a bit harsh, but for so long, I’ve witnessed the fall-out of market models and how they played out in seeker-sensitive churches, church plants, churches in transition, evangelism programs, etc. etc. I just felt it was time to say something about the results from years of reflecting on why these models consistently seem to lead to a lack of discipleship and thus to spiritual immaturity. So, for what it’s worth, there it is …

In mulling over both comments, and your questions, Robert, I think there’s a dynamic tension involved here about internal realities and external publicity. I think some keys are authenticity and integrity – who we actually are and what we actually do matches what we say we are and what we say we do. That shows up even in how you phrased some of your second question, Robert: “communicating the CHARACTER of a local church …” It’s about our corporate character instead of “selling our services.”

How often do we get drawn in – “attracted” – to something that’s been advertised, but then feel afterward that we got hooked by a bait-and-switch tactic? So, we have to wrestle with finding where the line is between communicating clearly and come-on marketing. Both producer and consumer approaches rely on communication, but maybe a key difference is transparency: WYSISYG – what you see is what you get. Could it be that branding is fine when it’s about communicating who we are (values, purpose, perspectives, theology, etc.) and what we do, but not pimping what the advertisee will get out of joining us? If branding is about inviting people to participate, it’s good – and by “participate,” I mean genuinely participate, not just show up, sit down, shut up, give bucks, and get out of the parking lot to let the next guy in.

Also, I think in this complex era when everyone faces change, we need to show as much grace as possible toward ourselves and others, especially those who lead. It may cause way too much culture shock to suddenly shift everything about the ways we do church and try to become what we know we could/should. Anyway, we can’t change our public message with authenticity until we have the systems in place to back up the new message. Unless, of course, we simply say that we’re moving in a new direction and do not imply that we’re already there.

Seems to me this is why there’s a battle over the term “missional.” Churches that are into traditional evangelism and missions have taken to promoting themselves as “missional.” But they aren’t. Their paradigms don’t support being missional, their systems don’t, their services don’t. So their claims are hype. To put it very very bluntly, I have to conclude that, even if they want to become missional, stating that they already are is magical thinking – it’s a sophisticated form of self-deception that bleeds over into untruthful communications (i.e., others-deception in the form of sincere lies, but untruths none the less). For similar reasons, wanting to be “contextual” (culturally relevant) but without being countercultural (resisting destructive aspects of local culture) doesn’t work in the long run, even if we’re sincere.

Which is why the flow of the last few posts has proven interesting to me, because I’ve been saying that solidifying our systems is essential preparation for major cultural transitions and paradigm shifts. Maybe a good opoerational systems evaluation lets us be accurate and authentic in our branding/self-presentation and positioning among the choices we can make for where and how to participate in Kingdom stuff with a congregation of like-paradigmed people.

Okay, so I suppose that’s talking all around the issue you raised, Robert, but then, I feel like a human MRI sometimes, trying to get a 3-D picture from swirling around all the possible angles. Best I can do at the mo, and now, gotta lunch meeting and I gotta go!

Thanks again for checking in, and hope these further thoughts are of help … If I come up with more on the issue of marketing vs. branding I’ll comment later.