Church Branding
Other — By Rachel Motte on January 15, 2009 at 11:40 pmIt sounds like a joke, but believe it or not, it’s true: a large number of Christians are no more loyal to their own denomination than they are to their favorite brand of toothpaste.
Results from the latest Ellison Research survey, released Monday, show that 16 percent of Protestants are exclusively loyal to their denomination and will only consider attending a church within their current denomination if they were placed in a situation where they had to leave their current church.
The rest are open to considering other denominations. Fifty-one percent said they prefer one denomination but are open to others and 33 percent said they do not have any preference for one specific denomination.
Ellison Research found similar levels of loyalty among churchgoers to other products and services. Twenty-two percent said they are exclusively loyal to one brand of toothpaste and 64 percent expressed a brand preference (while also considering other brands); 19 percent will only consider one brand of bathroom tissue and 59 percent said they prefer one brand but are open to others; and 16 percent said they are loyal to one brand of pain relievers with 57 percent expressing preference for one brand but also considering other kinds.
While I believe that Christ’s church is bigger than any one denomination, and anyway denominations are a relatively recent phenomenon, historically speaking, I can’t help thinking that this is awfully bad news. I like the way this guy puts it:
Is that what the Faith has come down to, a commodity less substantial than a fluoride deliverer?
Either most Protestant denominations/congregations have reduced traditional doctrine to a mere short-listed Statement of Faith — the most fundamental of fundamentals that can be summed up neatly on the inside back page of the weekly bulletin — and folded those beliefs where there was traditional conflict under the rubric “adiaphora” …
Or most Protestant Christians don’t care much about doctrine to begin with and go to whatever church meets their personal/social needs.
…
Some would say the new maleability is a good thing, that it’s all about Jesus anyway, and that institutions are secondary.
But do all institutions teach the same thing about Jesus? Or about discipleship? Or about what the sacraments do or don’t do to strengthen faith and invigorate our union with Christ?
It should be noted that this new phenomenon is not the victory of ecumenism, which maintains doctrinal distinctives but pursues dialogue and a commitment to work together on common social goals. Rather it’s the victory of indifference. We can’t all be right about baptism, about the Real Presence, about the extent of the atonement, about church polity. But that doesn’t mean these things are of no consequence. It means we have to continue to dig deeper into Scripture, into church history, into the creeds, and see where we may have erred — and where we must stand firm.
Think about that next time you visit a new church.
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble itLeave a Reply
Trackbacks
Leave a TrackbackAdditional comments powered by BackType
14 Comments
I agree and disagree that it’s a problem. First, there are so many “brands” to choose from and for those people trying to find out where they belong they may have to shop around. I agree that people should think long and hard before jumping ship – the grass always seems greener. But then, we wouldn’t have all these “brands” if the churches themselves had not decided to jump from some ship in the first place. Somehow, I can’t help but think that if we as a Christian or even religious community are so splintered, we’re doing something wrong!
In my experience, one reason why this occurs is because of the pastors themselves. Many times, and justly so, ministers will say “It’s all about Jesus.” Yes, it is in terms of salvation; however, that is really only a starting point. Our lives here on earth should not just be about the one time commitment to Christ, but rather what we do after that to strenghthen out beliefs and bring others to Christ. Without real discipleship, we will be stuck with this problem until Christ’s return.
This part says it all:
“We can’t all be right about baptism, about the Real Presence, about the extent of the atonement, about church polity. But that doesn’t mean these things are of no consequence. It means we have to continue to dig deeper into Scripture, into church history, into the creeds, and see where we may have erred — and where we must stand firm.”
Beware, though, as you dig into Church history as you will find out how Catholic the Church has been from the beginning. The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” spells out clearly in over 2500 numbered, indexed, and footnoted paragraphs what the Church believes. It’s certainly NOT left up to the whims of a current pastor, (though I will admit that some Catholic priests do NOT teach what the Church teaches.) But one who reads the CCC cannot be unaware of the clear teaching of the Church. Take it or leave it, it’s not going anywhere and hasn’t changed in 2000 years.
Cardinal John Henry Newman, a 19th C Anglican convert to Catholicism, wrote:
“And this one thing is certain…the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If there ever were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism has ever felt it so… This is shown in the determination…of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put [historical Christianity] aside, unless they had despaired of it…
To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
I think there are two issues here. The first is that, yes, there are a lot of people who do not learn or understand enough doctrine to know the difference. The second is that some people DO know doctrine well enough to pick and choose more than one denomination to be content with.
I grew up (and consider myself) Baptist. I currently go to a ‘non-denominational’ church that has a doctrinal statement that I agree with. There are a couple of churches of other denominations that I could attend by deciding if my disagreements were small enough. There are some denominations that I have grave disagreements with. Even so, if there were a reason to, I could attend them (tho not join) if they existed to love Jesus.
My biggest problem would be with a Catholic church. I read through the New Testament and can find no Pope. Peter did not have Cornelius kiss his ring, but commanded him to “Stand up, I am only a man myself.” We have no King, Pope, or High Priest but Jesus.
It is interesting though. I pick my toothpaste by how it tastes, and my toilet paper by how it feels. I pick my church, however, based on Whose it is. Should my church or denomination discard Jesus, I will leave it no matter how good it tastes or how comfortable it feels. I will seek out another that lifts up the name of Jesus regardless of how it tastes or feels.
It seems to me that it is more a reflection of our culture than anything. People are less loyal to “brands”, it is more about what have you done for me lately. I think the question we need to answer as the church is. “how do we best respond to this issue?”
Joi,
I’d like to submit this thought to you. There are Primary principles and secondary issues.
The Primary principles are the fundamentals of Christianity and are not debatable. A church must follow those principles or cannot be considered a Christian (Christ following) church.
Then there are secondary issues that are closely associated with Denominations. These issues can be debated, (even vigorously), but we cannot divide over them. There is no rule that says a church MUST follow a certain protocol to be considered pleasing to the Father.
When I visit a new church, (which I have done recently), there are three things that I look for:
1. I am looking for the evidence of the Holy Spirit in the behavior of the people who attend.
Love, Joy and Peace is the Fruit if the Spirit that is expressed through behavior and evidenced by friendliness and sincerity-
2. I am also listening for the Gospel (good news) in the teaching or preaching.
This one is pretty important to me right now because I feel every message given from the pulpit should contain the good news and provide the opportunity to meet the Savior. If not, then I think the priorities coming from the pulpit are messed up.
3. Lastly, I am looking at the style of worship.
I fully believe that God is present in a raucous Black Southern Baptist church, but that style does not fit who I am. I believe the Holy Spirit is working in a quiet Lutheran body, but again, that style is not what I am accustomed to. I grew up in a Pentecostal Church that to this day haunts me, (lol), and I don’t like the distractions; but I don’t enjoy battling against drowsiness during a long winded sermon either.
The point to my excessive rambling is that we must always remember to ‘keep the main thing the main thing’ and not get tangled up in denominations because as you said, they are young, and frankly are nothing more than man’s effort to categorize worship. We can debate all day about doctrines, but in the end, there really is only One who matters, right?
Gary,
I agree with 1 and 2, and to some extent I would agree with 3, but not in the way you have phrased it. I think what Tom said above fits perfectly: “I will seek out [a church] that lifts up the name of Jesus regardless of how it tastes or feels.” You seem to be operating under the belief that we can do/sing/say absolutely anything we want or feel like doing in worship and that the Bible has nothing to say about it. But I think that the Bible has a lot to say, both implicitly and explicitly, about how we worship God. We should have good theological reasons for picking the style of worship that we do, rather than only thinking about how it makes us feel.
JillD,
“This is shown in the determination…of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone…”
This statement only represents radical Anabaptist (and later similar) theology, not the mainline Reformation. As I said to you in the other discussion, Traditional Evangelicals have never abandoned history or tradition. On the contrary, they went to great lengths to show that Rome was the innovator, not the Reformers.
“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
Only if you’re an Anabaptist, or the history you’re steeped in is already interpreted by Rome.
“You seem to be operating under the belief that we can do/sing/say absolutely anything we want or feel like doing in worship and that the Bible has nothing to say about it.”
On the contrary, David. In my closing statement, I stated the most important thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. When our worship overpowers the Holy Spirit, God is no longer the Main thing. When our sermons are so long that half the congregation slumbers, God is not the Main thing.
The whole point of assembling together is for worship, Fellowship and the renewing of our minds, not some ecumenical ritual that leaves us more empty (oxymoron?) than when we came.
Oswald Chambers wrote that we must be as broken bread and poured out wine; we must be fully abased before our God. It is when we come to the end of our meager life that we begin to live in the life God has for us.
I have been to those types of churches I mentioned, and have indeed observed my first two points. But I understand that God has made me who I am and is continuing to grow me into the man He wants me to be. I also understand that I cannot expect my neighbor to hear God the same way as I do.
Perhaps you’ve noticed after church while discussing the sermon with friends or family, that everybody got something a little different out of the sermon? That is because the Holy Spirit is meeting people where they are. You see, they are the variable. The Holy Spirit is the constant.
The Holy Spirit attracts and ministers people according to their need, not his. And Style of worship (NOT CONTENT) is a variable that he uses. As an example, last year at the Harvest Crusade in Anaheim, Greg Laurie had several different bands play and lead worship. Bands like Lincoln Brewster and Leland fit the ‘pop genre’ while Kutlass was quite a bit more edgy. But POD was like a chain saw to me. Each one of those bands’s content never wavered from the Truth and the Holy Spirit used those vessels to pour out and love the young people who came.
This is what I mean by style of worship. Church organs don’t cut it for me. Acapella doesn’t either. Talented musicians and tight vocals move me into a place where I can hear God.
Gary,
“On the contrary, David. In my closing statement, I stated the most important thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. When our worship overpowers the Holy Spirit, God is no longer the Main thing. When our sermons are so long that half the congregation slumbers, God is not the Main thing.”
Yes, but that doesn’t really run contrary to my point. By “keep the main thing the main thing” you seem to mean that HOW we worship is NOT the main thing, which I deny. And before you jump to any conclusions, I’m not talking about anything as trivial as whether we use an organ or drums in our music. I’m simply talking about the mentality which says, as you put it, God will meet us where we’re at, therefore we should find a church that makes us feel happy, comfortable, closer to God, etc.
I also deny that the medium has no effect on the message. Have you ever considered that certain practices can actually obscure the message?
In any event, if you are a Christian, then “where you are at” is IN CHRIST, and it seems a bit pretentious to demand that God let you do whatever you want when worshiping Him so that you feel the maximum benefits of it. Let’s remember that worship is for God, first and foremost, not us.
One reason for being open to changing denominations is when the denomination to which you belong has changed its beliefs and practices to the point where it seems more horrifying than glorifying. Example: The Episcopal Church where not only individuals, but parishes and dioceses are seeking other denominations which still reflect the original or earlier beliefs of the denomination which they are leaving.
There’s no loyalty because “what I get out of it” has become more important than “what I put into it”. Feelings have become more important than liturgy. I hear people make the claim “I want to worship like the Acts 2 church”. Well here are a couple things to consider: 1) The worship style of the early church was liturgical (just like the Jewish worship style) 2) The early church always celebrated the Eucharist when they gathered on Sundays (not month, quarterly, or when “led by the spirit”).
St. Justin Martyr (c. 150 a.d.) gives one of the earliest descriptions of how the early church worshipped when gathered in assembly. It describes the service in two parts the first focused on scripture and the second on the Lord’s Super. It is known also as the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist: A celebration of the Word in Scripture and the Word Made Flesh. The “Acts 2” worship service did not focus on a “worship band” and “preachers message”.
So if you’re not celebrating the Lord’s Supper every Sunday when you gather to worship, and if the “praise and worship” band takes up more time than the reading of scriptures, it’s probably best to keep searching for a different “brand of toothpaste”.
The post seems slated to assume that churchgoers “aren’t what they used to be” because they are no longer “loyal” to a particular church “brand.” Perhaps the real problems is just that–churches have for so long presented themselves as more of a “brand” competing for a “market share” among other brands, instead of identifying themselves on firmly theological grounds. At this point, so many evangelical churches have thrown out all allegiance to the doctrinal statements of their respective denominations to which they belong that they identify almost exclusively with a brief “mission statement” that is virtually indistinguishable from any other church’s. According to the denomination I was raised in, I should be going to my nearby Nazarene church. But that church does not seem to me to resemble, doctrinally, a “real” Nazarene church. So what can one do but go to the church that comes closest, regardless of denomination.
In short, it’s not parishoners who treat their denomination like a brand of toothpaste. It’s churches that do.
The post seems to assume that churchgoers “aren’t what they used to be” because they are no longer “loyal” to a particular church “brand.” Perhaps the real problems is just that–churches have for so long presented themselves as more of a “brand” competing for a “market share” among other brands, instead of identifying themselves on firmly theological grounds. At this point, so many evangelical churches have thrown out all allegiance to the doctrinal statements of their respective denominations to which they belong that they identify almost exclusively with a brief “mission statement” that is virtually indistinguishable from any other church’s. According to the denomination I was raised in, I should be going to my nearby Nazarene church. But that church does not seem to me to resemble, doctrinally, a “real” Nazarene church. So what can one do but go to the church that comes closest, regardless of denomination.
In short, it’s not parishoners who treat their denomination like a brand of toothpaste. It’s churches that do.
I found lots of interesting information on http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com. The post was professionally written and I feel like the author has extensive knowledge in the subject. http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com keep it that way.