Church Advertising

Here’s an article about church advertising—an interesting topic. (This may be more stream-of-consciousness writing, so please excuse any meandering…)

In the past, ‘advertising’ when it comes to churches meant simply doing missionary work—door to door and/or street corner stuff--which a few churches still do today to any significant degree, but not the majority. With the rise of modern technology and with it the modern advertising agency, paradigms shifted, and with most modern churches not having much of a missionary program, a new form of ‘advertising’ had to take its place—since, as the article notes, a church that depends solely on the children of previous members to refill its ranks is not likely to survive.

How does modern advertising fit in with the purpose and mission of a church, though? Is the use of modern advertising techniques helpful or harmful to a church?

Certain denominations are ‘distinctive’ enough that they stand out from the hundreds upon hundreds of Christian churches around the world (Catholics and Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example—and, of course, the LDS church), but the majority of the Christian churches (primarily Protestant ones) have to work hard to create any individuality for themselves. (Quick: name five doctrinal and/or policy differences between Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists…)

Advertising can help alleviate that problem by giving the church a public image; something that can be remembered easily. Yet, as the article mentions, delving too far into “Christian consumerism”—relying on “glitz” and “glamour” can have negative side effects. Someone who’s attracted to your church because you’ve promised to put on the biggest, most entertaining show every week, will soon leave once he/she finds someone else who puts on a bigger show—whereas an ideal believer should be into a church for the content, not the package. Switching churches because the other pastor is ‘more interesting’ and ‘entertaining’ in essence shows that the foundation for church attendance in the first place is less than solid.

(Note: This is one of the main reason why LDS policy says you can’t attend a ward other than your local one. Can you imagine the chaos if you allowed people to switch wards as they please in search of more interesting sacrament talks, or a ‘better’ bishop?)

Most churches say (as the Methodist Rev. Steve Goodier says in the article) that the purpose of church advertising is not to ‘steal’ other churches’ members, but rather bring in the heretofore church-less people. This is a valuable distinction, as it plays down the emphasis on competition and more on raw growth. (Although, of course, it is also a tacit admission that there really is no difference between Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians and the like, and it doesn’t matter in the end which church you join…)

The traditional views of ‘Church-goers’ are that of backwards, uneducated, repressed people who “can’t” do a large number of things. Advertising, on the other hand, allows churches to reach out and promote a more positive view of church attendance, focusing on the personal and social benefits. Presenting religion as an attractive alternative to secular life will undoubtedly cause a number of traditionally agnostic people who know very little about what church attendance actually entails to consider spiritual matters more carefully and deeply.

[This is not a small issue: there are many who grow up in modern society who start in on casual sex and/or drug use because it just seems like ‘what everyone does’ without ever considering NOT doing it. Church influence, including advertising, can present the idea of ‘righteous’ behavior for consideration which among certain people will be all it takes for a positive change, whether or not they end up ‘active’ church members… Before I was baptized (at age 16) I knew instinctively what was right but didn't really know why. Religion provides the why--the reasons and benefits for obeying the commandments...which is all some people need.]

There are a number of pitfalls that come from ‘church marketing’, though, not the least of which is the relaxation and/or abandonment of commandments and standards—“opening the doors larger than doctrine will allow” as the article puts it. Like a salesman who makes so many concessions on the sale price to entice a reluctant buyer that he ends up losing money on the deal, liberalizing doctrines and loosening standards in order to attract more people may end up minimizing any gain from having them ‘find religion’ in the first place. There’s no question the LDS church conversion rates would increase if the Word of Wisdom or Law of Chastity were revoked, for example, but casually abandoning principles because a certain number of people find it a ‘stumbling block’ shows a lack of faith in the reason for those principles existing to begin with. Strict obedience to commandments are (or should be) based not on “Do it because I said so and you need to learn to be obedient” reasoning, but because strict obedience brings certain blessings and benefits that casual (or no) obedience does not. The desire to be ‘tolerant’ and ‘inclusive’ to the extent of overlooking problematic behavior implies that such behavior is not significant from an eternal perspective.

For example, check out this quote from the article, describing the Methodist Church campaign for ‘openness’ and ‘inclusivity’ with the tag line “Open minds, open hearts, open doors”:

"It says a lot about who we are theologically," Goodier explained. "That we're not so dogmatic that we'll tell you what to believe."

Um…okay. How nice to hear that this Methodist church doesn’t get hung up on issues like ‘doctrine’ and ‘beliefs’ in attracting new converts. Rephrasing: “Come to the Methodist Church…We don’t really have any strict beliefs or doctrines, so come and believe/do anything you want--we won’t object!”

Can you imagine a history teacher saying, “Come to my class! I won’t tell you what to believe about historical events…you can believe anything you want!” Passing exams would be a breeze—just explain what YOU think the answers are. I mean, who wouldn’t want to attend such a laid-back, pressure-free class? And yet, is the purpose of a church (or a history class) just to make you feel good about yourself, or is it to help you learn and progress--and achieve your full potential?

The issue of ‘tolerance’ is another key principle that often gets misused in modern society. Continuing from the article:

The United Church of Christ also has a TV spot. This one shows a gay couple…being barred from a handsome old church building. "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we," the ad says.

Sounds wonderful—except the underlying issue isn’t whether gays are actually prevented from attending or even entering a church service (very few churches do this) but rather whether the churches in question accept homosexual behavior as ‘okay’ (i.e. not a sin in God’s eyes). Saying “We welcome gay couples” in this context is essentially saying “We don’t teach that homosexual behavior is wrong.” –which if that genuinely is a doctrine of the church is one thing, but relaxing standards or ignoring doctrinal interpretations for the sake of attracting and welcoming people on the ‘outside’ is a morally dubious proposition.

So, is homosexual behavior (or heterosexual behavior outside of marriage) a ‘sin’ in God’s eyes or not? What method(s) do you use to answer important doctrinal questions like this? And if you know X number of people aren’t likely to join your church unless you give them the answer they want to hear, does this at all influence your decision? If ‘yes’, what does it say about a church that’s more concerned about increasing the membership total through ‘acceptance’ of what people want than of teaching correct principles?

There is a key difference between ‘tolerance’ and ‘permissiveness’ which many people don’t get… It is true that Jesus didn’t (doesn’t) turn people away, but neither did (does) He excuse problematic behavior. The key phrase is “Coming unto Him” (accepting His gospel and principles) not “Wait until someone creates an altered form of the gospel whose standards are broad enough that it comes unto me…”

The LDS Church is notable for being fairly stubborn (and is criticized as such) in making people ‘come to them’ rather than changing standards to be more attractive to a society that gets more and more permissive every day. The LDS Church is as ‘tolerant’ of gays as they should be (under the real definition of ‘tolerance’)--only they’re still going to say attending our Church means the principles of chastity and sexual purity must still be obeyed—no exceptions for you or anyone.

LDS missionaries (still the only form of ‘advertising’ the Church needs) don’t change the fundamental message to adapt to any foreign culture they’re sent to. Missionaries learn the same doctrinal discussions regardless of whether they’re going to Africa, Asia, or Alaska, and teach the same things to anyone they meet regardless of age, gender, skin color, or cultural background. Missionaries have often been criticized for not learning more about local religions in the regions they serve in, but in a sense that’s beside the point. The purpose of missionary work isn’t to attack other religions, nor to figure out how to adapt LDS principles within the context of local ones, but to explain your own so the other person understands what you believe and why. Other than for the basic benefit of discussing common beliefs and understanding during a discussion, missionaries don’t concern themselves with other religions at all, nor should they. Their purpose is to share about their religion, and let other people know what we believe and stand for and why they would want to join. While often appearing strict and inflexible, this in fact shows much more integrity and faith in the underlying doctrines than some other church who frequently change doctrines and beliefs in an attempt to capture the attention of the fickle non-church-going public. What is there to gain by finally getting more people who were ‘out’ to be ‘in’ when by doing so you’ve removed any distinction or benefit from being ‘in’ in the first place…?