Monday, May 16, 2005
Christianity As A Brand
On Saturday, I started looking at the concept of branding and it's uses and effects in Christianity. Yesterday, I looked at the idea in light of denomination and the megachurch and emerging church phenomena. Today,I want to look at the idea of Christianity itself being a brand, particularly a political brand.
Much is being made in politics of faith, values and religion these days. It is generally accepted that the last election in the US swung on so-called "values voters." Most people derive their values from their faith and/or religion so the role of Christianity in politics is increasing.
Politics is all about grouping people into consituency groups to which a candidate can then appeal. Once you define a group, you can then give that group a story, or a brand. Right now, there is a huge fight or what precisely is the story or brand for those that are in the group "Christian." Evangelical Outpost looked at that fight some this morning. SmartChristian posted over the weekend on a rather unusual attempt to use the brand "Christian."
John Mark Reynolds has taken a shot at defining a brand for that group here. (HT: Mere Orthodoxy) Dr. Reynolds defines 6 basic beliefs that would define a member of the "religious right."
The political left is; however, trying to co-op the brand. Consider this post from a blog called "tdaxp." (HT: Dawn's Early Light)
But then while the left is attempting to co-opt the brand they are also deriding it. Certainly this derision lies at the heart of the contest Hugh Hewitt is running for essays to define what the left means by the term "religous right." I'd enter, but I far too old to be Hugh's research assistant, particularly without credit.
This debate, to assign a brand story to Christianity in the politcal arena,is in my opinion a good thing, but as with most good things, it comes with a danger built in.
The good part of it is that is is causing people to evaluate their faith. For many, faith was a belief/emotion without application and this debate forces them to consider application. For others, Christianity was just do-goodism, and this debate forces them to consider the spiritual aspects of their faith.
The problems; however are manifold. For one thing the effort to define the brand can overcome basic Christian doctrine. Consider this article from yesterday's NYTimes. In it Kristoff is using arguements from and Episcopal bishop that require an extra-scriptural hermenuetic to complete. In a little different language that means that they are not interpreting scripture, but instead laying it alongside other sources of information and giving those other sources "equal weight" - they are challenging the authority of scripture. (Cheat Seeking Missles had some interesting comments on this piece too.)
This is a classic example of the someone wanting the political brand identity to override the actual product. Sola Scriptura, "scripture alone"is foundational to the Reformation and the protestant church and while that doctrine arose to countermand some abuses in the Roman Catholic church, it is a doctrine to which they adhere rather closely in modern times.
The Kristoff piece is rather obvious in its attempts to bend scripture to meet an objective -- and in it's accusation that conservatives do the same. He also sets up a straw man on the women thing. Women have a huge role in church leadership anymore, about the only thing they cannot do is be Roman Catholic priests. But this issue is, again, a question of scriptural interpreation -- to then transfer the arguments to homosexuality in misleading, disingenuous, and bad hermeneutics.
The hardest part about this is that Kristoff's source is from within Christianity. And that fact belies the largest problem with attempts to give Christianity a politcal brand. Because, as I have demonstrated in the other posts on this, you always end up managing the brand, not the product, arguments like this cause the church to lose focus. Not that this discussion would not have arisen without the political aspects, the debate over the role of homosexuality in the church actually predates heavy politcal activism by gays, but the political aspects adds a power and authority to the debate that the church should not have to struggle with.
This underlies why I think it is vitally important that churches, as opposed to individual Christians, cannot become politically active. That very political activity co-opts the brand the church has, which should be about GOD. The brand we have should be like the brands of old -- a label that describes a distinction, not a label that distinguishes the otherwise indistinguishable.
Much is being made in politics of faith, values and religion these days. It is generally accepted that the last election in the US swung on so-called "values voters." Most people derive their values from their faith and/or religion so the role of Christianity in politics is increasing.
Politics is all about grouping people into consituency groups to which a candidate can then appeal. Once you define a group, you can then give that group a story, or a brand. Right now, there is a huge fight or what precisely is the story or brand for those that are in the group "Christian." Evangelical Outpost looked at that fight some this morning. SmartChristian posted over the weekend on a rather unusual attempt to use the brand "Christian."
John Mark Reynolds has taken a shot at defining a brand for that group here. (HT: Mere Orthodoxy) Dr. Reynolds defines 6 basic beliefs that would define a member of the "religious right."
a. believes basic human rights are given by the Creator God. These rights include:...That's probably fair, but religion is not definitionally associated with right wing politics. That is an alliance that has arisen recently, and with good cause.
b. believes that liberty is found in an absolute freedom to do what is right and not in the freedom to do what is wrong. There is no fundamental right to do harm or evil.
c. believes that "right and wrong" can be broadly known by reason and by divine revelation. Divine revelation is knowledge and can be used in the secular realm. However...
d. believes that given human nature and a pluralistic society that a small central government is the best means to obtain a good society.
e. believes that the Kingdom of God will not come in this life. There will be no utopia. Humans are so fallible that no one institution can be trusted with too much power. Church and state must always check each other in influence.
f. believes that of late the "secular" sphere has been hi-jacked by "secularists," those who think religion does not provide useful knowledge, and who would exclude religious knowledge from public debates.
The political left is; however, trying to co-op the brand. Consider this post from a blog called "tdaxp." (HT: Dawn's Early Light)
A billboard campaign was launched Monday by the Minneheha County?s Grassroots Democrats, letting people know what their party stands for, says chairwoman Lisa Engels.Cheat Seeking Missles looks at how this story reflects disingenuous branding on the part of liberals, which is one of the problems with branding, it tells a selective story, not the whole story.
Green, black and white signs at Seventh Street and Minnesota Avenue and at Russell Street and Westport Avenue say: ?"Jesus cares for the poor, so do we. Democrats make America stronger."
But then while the left is attempting to co-opt the brand they are also deriding it. Certainly this derision lies at the heart of the contest Hugh Hewitt is running for essays to define what the left means by the term "religous right." I'd enter, but I far too old to be Hugh's research assistant, particularly without credit.
This debate, to assign a brand story to Christianity in the politcal arena,is in my opinion a good thing, but as with most good things, it comes with a danger built in.
The good part of it is that is is causing people to evaluate their faith. For many, faith was a belief/emotion without application and this debate forces them to consider application. For others, Christianity was just do-goodism, and this debate forces them to consider the spiritual aspects of their faith.
The problems; however are manifold. For one thing the effort to define the brand can overcome basic Christian doctrine. Consider this article from yesterday's NYTimes. In it Kristoff is using arguements from and Episcopal bishop that require an extra-scriptural hermenuetic to complete. In a little different language that means that they are not interpreting scripture, but instead laying it alongside other sources of information and giving those other sources "equal weight" - they are challenging the authority of scripture. (Cheat Seeking Missles had some interesting comments on this piece too.)
This is a classic example of the someone wanting the political brand identity to override the actual product. Sola Scriptura, "scripture alone"is foundational to the Reformation and the protestant church and while that doctrine arose to countermand some abuses in the Roman Catholic church, it is a doctrine to which they adhere rather closely in modern times.
The Kristoff piece is rather obvious in its attempts to bend scripture to meet an objective -- and in it's accusation that conservatives do the same. He also sets up a straw man on the women thing. Women have a huge role in church leadership anymore, about the only thing they cannot do is be Roman Catholic priests. But this issue is, again, a question of scriptural interpreation -- to then transfer the arguments to homosexuality in misleading, disingenuous, and bad hermeneutics.
The hardest part about this is that Kristoff's source is from within Christianity. And that fact belies the largest problem with attempts to give Christianity a politcal brand. Because, as I have demonstrated in the other posts on this, you always end up managing the brand, not the product, arguments like this cause the church to lose focus. Not that this discussion would not have arisen without the political aspects, the debate over the role of homosexuality in the church actually predates heavy politcal activism by gays, but the political aspects adds a power and authority to the debate that the church should not have to struggle with.
This underlies why I think it is vitally important that churches, as opposed to individual Christians, cannot become politically active. That very political activity co-opts the brand the church has, which should be about GOD. The brand we have should be like the brands of old -- a label that describes a distinction, not a label that distinguishes the otherwise indistinguishable.
