 In 1964, the movie "Sex and the Single Girl" was released. It took a
light-hearted view on the then nascent sexual revolution. Based on
Helen Gurley Brown's book of the same title, the movie proved less
controversial than the written work published two years previously.
Both the book and the movie explore the tensions women experienced as
they broke away from the traditional societal expectations upon them.
Should a liberated woman feel compelled to get married? What about
that desire for children? Independence versus dependence? Difficult
questions to answer in the midst of a paradigm shift.
The
emerging church has to wrestle with similar tensions in our paradigm
shift. A key one I am thinking about is in the area of marketing.
Somehow during the late 70's through to the 90's, the business model
of running the church become predominant. Five year plans, eighteen
month progress updates, numerical goals, budget predictions, vision
and mission statements , and marketing techniques all become the normal conversations around church boards all over North America. Most were
attractional churches, where faith was their product, and the number of
bums in the seats was the measure of success or failure. Oh, that and
the number $$$ in the offering plate too.
I
have seen attractional churches produce some incredible material as
they promoted themseleves. Slick videos, out-of-this-world brochures,
glossy faux-magazines, radio and TV ads, funky church architecture, and
church signs with pithy and thought provoking quotes were all part of
the marketing assault on the their local communities. Specialized
programs were developed to connect with different parts of the
population. Just divorced? We have a program for you! Have young
children? Our Sunday School will blow you away! Troubled teenagers?
Wait til you get a load of the youth group here! Looking to volunteer?
Have we got places for you! Sunday mornings run like late night
talk shows in reverse. First the musical guests (worship), then an
interview or a few special features, wrapped up by the monologue
(message). All within 60 minutes, child care provided! Were the
programs about ministry or about marketing?
Soon, the attractional church took up the surveying techniques of big ad agencies. What is our key demographic? What do they like?
This led to a "seeker-centric" orientation (note I did not say
"seeker-sensitive"), where the focus was on enticing as many people as
possible to stay and be part of the club.
"How should the emerging, post-modern church market itself?" That
was the question posted in an online emergent leadership discussion
group I belong to. Many of the responses sounded just like the
business oriented, attractional church model answers. No one even
questioned whether marketing belonged in the emergent discussion in the
first place (well, except me). There was general agreement in the group
that being emergent meant the freedom to engage in increasingly zany
marketing campaigns. I must admit, I felt pretty lonely there. When I
posted my thought that marketing might not be valid in the emerging
church, no one argued with me, I was just dismissed. Marketing is such
an essential part of doing church, that to suggest not doing it would
be like suggesting music is not essential for worship (oops, me again)!
Not even worth taking time to discuss.
I
don't have a strong answer for this one. Being part of the emerging
church means asking questions. I need to rethink (deconstruct) and
rebuild the modes of my faith practice. It is a journey. I take on this
journey my map, my authority, the Bible. Somehow I can't help but
think that the attractional church has two authorities for its faith
practices- the Bible, and what non-believers want.
My
questions and my principles better come to some resolution in the near
future. As a church, the River is resource poor in volunteers and
money. It is difficult to maintain the ministry we are doing through
our free-use laundry facilities, our free-store, and the local food
bank. We are challenged in the area of discipleship (time), worship
(resources), and community.
Do we start an
aggressive marketing campaign to address these needs, or do we continue
to let our missional living speak for us? In other words, when the
rubber meets the road, how will we define success? Faithfulness or
numbers? And no, all you attractional church types, the two do not go
automatically together. When Jesus sent out the 12 for a limited run
ministry trip on their own, the test of success was obedience to the
instructions (Mark 6:6-13). The same is true with the Great Commission
(Matthew 28:16-20). The only time that numbers seemed to be mentioned
in the context we are discussing is Paul's comment in 1 Corinthians 3;
6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.
This
is not a formula that "if we water and plant faithfully, God will
(must!) give the increase". That kind of religious mathematics leads to
neo-paganism. "If I just chant the right verse, then god (spelled this way on purpose) will let my field grow." leads pretty quickly to "If I just make the right sacrifice (my firstborn? a virgin? a criminal?) then the gods will make me successful."
There
is a lot to think about here. These are questions I have that I am
working through. What role does marketing have in the emerging church?
Does it have a role? I'm going to keep working on it.
Peace.
|