Dangers of Church Marketing - Rebuked

Note to reader: This post ended up being much longer than intended. I think those opposed to church marketing are dead wrong and I feel passionate about that position. However, in taking my stand, I don't wish to attack anyone personally, just the misguided point of view against church self-promotion. Please join this spirited debate with comments below or your own blog post (provide link or email, tweet, or facebook me so I can read it).

The division is growing wider and wider between the two camps in the church marketing debate. It seems you must be "FOR" or "AGAINST" with no in between. But when I read arguments on the side "AGAINST" church marketing, I can't help but get the impression that:

1. They are trying to take a controversial stand just to be heard, and,
2. Their motives are not in the best interest of the church.

What's the big deal?

Most recently, I read Part 1 and Part 2 of a disturbing blog post titled The Dangers of Church Marketing (written by www.evancurry.com). He reviewed the 1997 book, Selling Out the Church: the Dangers of Church Marketing. Being such an old book, I would normally just ignore it. But I have come across it a couple times on Twitter the past two weeks. I don't want to pick a fight with Evan Curry, he was just reviewing the book albeit in his Part 2, he was agrees with the position. He says, "There is little to contend with and much to praise in the work of Kenneson and Street."

Praise? Are you kidding me? I don't even cuss anymore and I just want to say BS to the last statement. Here are some others I disagree with:

"The American church has emphasized the need to be heard by the culture around it…"

First of all, trying to lump "the Church" into one nice neat package and then categorize it's actions is akin to the herding cats metaphor. You just can't do it. Secondly, I'm not so sure the church has emphasized the need to be heard ENOUGH. Even within its own little communities, too many churches are sitting idle and trying to "pray" people through the door. They need to make some noise and let people know what God is doing in their midst. Thirdly, suppose the surrounding culture DID hear what the church had to say. Author Kenneson and James are saying that would be BAD because …why?

"The trend in American churches shows many yielding to marketing strategies…"

So what? For the life of me, I can't see why seemingly very smart people opposed to church marketing are getting upset if:

• A church has a trendy website with the latest social media links and video
• A church pastor regularly updates a personal blog with what's REALLY on his mind
• The sermon or message includes media such as PowerPoint or video
• The church body is updated with a email newsletter
• Someone twitters in church (God forbid)
• The church or leadership has Facebook pages
• Postcards and fliers are mailed to the surrounding community every month inviting them to visit
• Etc, etc, …

Yes, these are modern marketing tools of corporate America, but is it forbidden fruit? Personally, I think Jesus would have had a Facebook page.

"Churches have become obsessed with marketing techniques…"

Obsessed is a strong word and hard to prove and justify. Should a church feel guilty for looking for creative ways to bring in new people? Certain "techniques" are better suited to reach the neighborhoods surrounding the church and other "techniques" to reach Generation X, Y, or Z. A ministry of the church may focus on business leaders or professionals during a recessionary period and change to those broken by divorce, drugs or alcohol during other times. All require different approaches. Instead of saying "obsessed" why not try "focused."

"Have neglected their call to be a peculiar people, diluting the gospel in the process…"

Here is where you just can't lump all churches together. Where I do agree that we are called to be "in this world, but not of this world," I don't see how marketing to the unchurched is neglecting that call. I also agree that there are churches, doctrines, and "gospels" (that aren't the gospel at all), that might customize themselves for the sake of growth. But those "bad apples" shouldn't preclude others from marketing.

"Fear that the church is offering a product….and, if one does not enjoy one church's product, he will not return"

Come on! People are doing that anyway. But here's the good news, if the unsatisfied person leaves one church, perhaps he goes to find another he feels more at home. The point is that maybe it was the marketing efforts that brought this unchurched person to church in the first place!

"The church is embedded in the consumer mentality"

How can you say A church, much less THE church, is embedded in a consumer mentality just because it sends out a few postcards? Has a nice website? Give me a break.

"If the church is trying to meet the needs of the culture (it's congregation), it is not following the leading of the Spirit"

Yes, you read that right. The blog post says that's on page 115 of the book. I just bet there are some pastors that would love to take on authors Kenneson and Street in that debate.

"Frankly, church attendance and contributions are not great indicators of faithfulness"

I agree. A head count is not a good measuring stick of a successful church. But the statement was made in light of Kenneson's and Street's fear that the church will lapse into unfaithfulness. I just don't buy that.

As I went through this process, and re-read the book excerpts, the "light bulb went off." I got the sense that those opposed to church marketing are most fearful because they are afraid IT JUST MIGHT WORK! And just like these church marketing naysayers can't interpret the motives behind every church marketing campaign, I'm not so sure about the motives of the naysayers. Are they believers or not?

I've tried to understand why a smart guy like Evan Curry reads this book and says, "It is difficult to argue with much of what the authors are stating."

No it's not! I find it very easy to argue because they are WRONG about the church. At least I know they are wrong about my church. Are they wrong about your church? If so, speak up and tell me about it. Make a comment, a blog post, a tweet. Church marketing done with the proper motive is biblical. Many point to the words of Jesus in the Great Commission and Paul when he said, "I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some" (1 Cor 9:19-23).

Funny thing, even Curry backs off a bit at the end of his post saying, "The fact of the matter is that some will not come to church unless they receive a flier in their mailbox about the church." My point exactly! What about those people? Some might never be reached without the "evil" church marketing? But is that "marketing" or is it "outreach"? Is this whole argument just about semantics?

And he follows with, "Thus, all the techniques are not dangerous if done in the correct way."

No kidding! As Christians, how many times have we had to correct, "Money is the root of all evil?" It's the "LOVE of money is the root of all evil" and it's misuse and improper motives. Of course, church marketing done incorrectly or with the motive of church growth at all costs is very dangerous.

I've written a chapter, not a blog post. I've run out of steam for now. I'd love to hear your comments.

What's your position on church marketing?

 

Advantage Printing is a commercial print and marketing service provider serving churches, nonprofits and small to mid-sized businesses. Contact us about The Church Advantage and stay tuned for www.churchprinter.tv coming soon.

Follow me on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidamoore or www.twitter.com/churchprinter

David A. Moore

 

 

Comments

[Jesse]

I've been on both sides of this debate. I used to be the Church Marketing guy. Now I'm the church marketing is lame guy. Because having worked for the huge church & now working in an organization that catters to huge churches, what I see over and over is the attitude of trying to bring lots of people in & put on a fun show. I don't think it's working to produce good disciples. Yes, there are tons of people, but most of the ones I know are not getting victory over sin. Nor are their unsaved friends interested in coming (despite the awesome rock show & cool marketing). Those who do "get saved" easily slip away or back into old habits.

Not to mention, in my experience, actual church marketing was smarmy. And, from my experience, many leaders who want to market and grow their thing really big, aren't good at making disciples, aren't even worthy of being an example to the people they're leading.

So what I've seen is we end-up with a big crowd, that really doesn't look much like Christ, and really doesn't want to give their lives wholly over to God, but we have a huge staff & mortgage so we have to "get 'em in" so we can pay for it all.

At least that's what I've seen. I'm sure many people have had different experiences.

[David Moore]

Jesse, thanks for the very insightful comments from your unique perspective. I have heard one very well-known mega-church leader admit that he felt like his church had done it wrong. He said something like, "They were a mile wide, but not an inch deep." Hitting the nail on what you said about lots of people but few disciples.