This is a difficult post for me to write. Mainly because I’m a huge fan of branding and identity within businesses. I love the task and craft of developing an image for someone that is easily memorable, and so this post shouldn’t be received as an issue with branding as a practice, but rather as branding in the context of church, the Gospel, and Christianity in western culture.
Correct Understanding
Entrepreneur defines branding as: “The marketing practice of creating a name, symbol or design that identifies and differentiates a product from other products.”
The very definition is entirely incongruent with the primary purpose and definition of the Church, or the Body of Christ.
One definition of the church is written as:
The word church comes from the Greek word ekklesia which is defined as “an assembly” or “called-out ones.” The root meaning of “church” is not that of a building, but of people.
If It’s People, Why Are We Making them a Business?
In much of today’s culture, church has become a business. A group of people with a common vision, who preach the Gospel of a united family and one Savior, that being Jesus, and yet we are in the business of differentiating our “congregations” from others.
The sad part, is that in doing this, we create barriers, walls, and create an illusion that we all stand for different principles.
While this may be true to some extent, the very definition of the church was always about the people who called God by the name of Father, and who were all preaching the same thing: that Christ came to save sinners and bring them life that they couldn’t acheive themselves.
Is it possible that we’ve lost the meaning of Christianity in this digital age of branding and production?
Are churches just another non-profit trying to do good works and look cool and memorable at the same time?
I don’t know, but it’s a discussion worth having, and probably one that ChurchMag readers would have opinions on.
So, please, discuss…
Jim says
I struggle with this as well. We have branded the church to make it easier for people to to understand our culture. True, we are all Christians in assembly but every “assembly” has a unique culture and emphasis on the Gospel. It can, at best, be an avenue for those who have no church home to be more comfortable and familiar with a church even before being invited or attending. Thank you.
Calvin Koepke says
Thanks for your input, Jim!
Andrew Fallows says
As with lots of things, I think this is a case of “there’s a good way to do it, and there’s a different approach which looks similar but is missing the mark.”
The Church (with a capital C) is all believers, all sons and daughters, all saints — branding the Church is a tricky proposition, and one I think I’d avoid.
However, within a town, city, or other region, individual churches need to make themselves known, understood, and available. Between differences in theology and doctrine, membership demographics, and mission, different churches can be a better or worse fit for various individuals. For example, a church where 90% of the congregation is above the age of 40 might be a daunting place for a newlywed couple of 20-somethings, and a church which emphasizes liturgy and prayer in the service might have fewer opportunities for a music-minded member.
This is not to say that a church needs to have one core identity and that every person who attends the church has to buy into that identity whole-heartedly, but there’s definitely real value calling out what makes a church tick. When I move to a new town, I want to find a church that wants a computer geek, bassist, Bible nerd with a slightly liberal theology, and I’ll have trouble doing that if every church tells me “the thing that makes our church special is that we love Jesus!”
Calvin Koepke says
I think that differentiating between other church’s is a valid reason for branding, but maybe I’m looking at the root of differentiating church’s, even in the same city. The fact that we have to solidify our differences in a coherent brand for the convenience of a typically “consumer Christian” is sad to say the least.
I think that the benefits (which are valid) are outweighed by the damage of disunity.
All your points are valid, but there should be a better way than having 23 churches in just one city, all trying their best to look the “best”.
Chuck Scoggins says
If the church (people) are “called out ones” and part of the definition of branding is to “differentiate,” doesn’t branding and the church go hand-in-hand?
I wholeheartedly agree with where I think your heart is with this post (that churches shouldn’t use poor marketing to compete with like-churches for attenders just for the sake of having larger numbers). However, I believe that some of the nuances of your article are problematic.
While you are correct that the people of God (the Church) are not a business, they do tend to form organizations where they pool together money to accomplish a greater ministry purpose. When this happens, there needs to be somewhat of a business approach (budgeting of the money, accounting, transparency, etc.). However, you are correct in stating that just because this happens doesn’t necessitate branding. It especially doesn’t necessitate competition with the church down the street.
But, let’s not assume that because churches (the organizations) do marketing and branding that they are doing so to compete with fellow churches. It could be an honest attempt to help people know what the individual church stands for. It could be an effort to let people have some realistic expectations of what they’ll experience if they choose to join up with this group of people with a common vision, who preach the Gospel of a united family and one Savior.
I don’t think that branding, in itself, creates barriers, walls, nor creates an illusion that we all stand for different principles. Solid branding could be a method to unite local congregations.
Marketing and branding is only a tool. It seems that what you are advocating against is poor branding. Or, even more than poor marketing…bad ecumenical practices by some churches.
I would ask, what is wrong with churches being a non-profit trying to do good works and use trends in design and branding to be remarkable and create memorable experiences whereby people experience the Gospel? Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Churches have the best message ever told. A message of hope and promise and redemption and life! This gospel message deserves the best branding and storytelling methods that we can find.
Calvin Koepke says
Well said, Chuck! It’s true that to say all branding is a detriment to the Church as a whole. It’s a viable method for communication, especially in the 21st Century.
As I told Andrew above, and as you probably defined better, I have a problem with the separation that branding a local church can have in relation to the other church’s in town. You said it well when you defined this as “poor branding”, and that’s a distinction that should have some merit.
All in all, I’m still thinking about the whole concept, and that’s why I’m glad you commented.
Jeffrey Wiggs says
I would say that there is positive and negative to branding. Some of the negatives I see are clear: brand loyalty that makes us feel like we should disparage other brands; over-identification of the Church Universal with one brand; competitive behavior between brands, we are not advertising ourselves as much as belittling others at this point. We may all have church in our names, but none of us is the true Church, by itself.
Our local baptist body “brand” makes a habit of praying for the other churches “brands” in the area that are confessing churches whether they are baptist, non-denominational, lutheran, presbyterian, church of God, etc. This is not just for show. We believe that in the minor areas of doctrine, diversity of beliefs can lead to the Church growing. So, when we brand ourselves, we recognize our distinctives and share them with the world. By praying for other “brands”, we recognize our sameness and allow an opportunity to protect the unity that should be among all confessing Christians.
Calvin Koepke says
I suppose this may be my biggest issue with branding. It concerns me that we pray for other “brands” as you put it, and we don’t call them our brothers and sisters.
Brothers and sisters has no place in a business world, but differing brands does. That’s where I think I have the biggest issue with the whole branding thing…it treats the church more like a business than it does like an intimate family of believers, all a part of the same head which is Christ.
This isn’t to dog on your church’s use of branding, by the way. I’m heartily encouraged that you pray for the other churches in your city, and I think this is something that needs to happen more regularly.
Enzo S. says
Very good post. I love it when we voice what God has put on our hearts. This topic is something that I have been reading about and writing on for the past couple of years. I understand OUR desire to showcase what we feel is the vision or purpose of why we gather as an individual Faith Family.
However the danger of doing so places an undo strain on our ability to actually see the vision to fruition. In studying Scripture on this matter we see that the early church did not especially have a public identity. They were mainly known as Those in The Way, or as Christians, which by the way was a derogatory term meaning Little Christs.
I have a feeling that the Church as a whole would be more effective, both locally and globally, if we would stop trying to create an identity that represents us and instead live in the identity that is Jesus. We as believers, from the youngest to the oldest, have all been called to make disciples of all men. This making of disciples is to help each other look like Jesus. That is where the danger of creating our own identity comes in, because rather than having people that look, talk and act like Jesus we create them to look, talk and act like us. I know for myself that I don’t look, talk and act like Jesus nearly enough to want to have people imitate me.
Calvin Koepke says
Thanks for your input, Enzo.
I agree with your statement that the early church was largely a “group of believers” than it was a branded institution. I think there is a balance, however.
Back then, the idea of branding wasn’t exactly developed (however, I could be wrong. I’m no historian).
I think that there are benefits to branding, but I agree that the tendency is to lean too much on our “brand” than our “identity in Christ”. In all reality, it’s an individual issue, as branding is not evil in itself (as Chuck said so well above).