The site to frustrate, educate and motivate the church to communicate, with uncompromising clarity, the truth of Jesus Christ

Barbara Boxer on Being Authentic

April 24, 2005 by

If you’ve been a part of the Church Marketing Sucks conversation for any amount of time, you know a basic tenet of good marketing philosophy comes down to churches being authentic.

It appears even the political elite are understanding what it means to be authentic. In Time’s “10 Questions For…” column, Perry Bacon Jr. asked California Senator Barbara Boxer “What does your party need to do to win more elections?”

“I think we should be authentic, and I think we should allow our candidates to be who they are. We should be a big tent, and we’re pretty much tied together to be the party of hope, opportunity and fairness. But I think authenticity is the key; I think that’s what people want more than everything.”

Thanks Barbara for giving us a picture of what the church should be. A “big tent” where a church is who it is and “authenticity is the key” to hope.

Post By:

Brad Abare


Brad Abare is the founder of the Center for Church Communication. He consults with companies and organizations, helping them figure out why in the world they exist, why anyone should care and what to do about it. He and his wife Jamaica live in Los Angeles with their daughter, MirĂ³.
Read more posts by | Want to write for us?

13 Responses to “Barbara Boxer on Being Authentic”

  • marcus monroe
    April 29, 2005

    Do you guys even know anything about Barbra Boxer?


  • glenn
    April 29, 2005

    good question, marcus. further, what does boxer mean by “authentic”? i’m from california, have heard about boxer for years, and have a hunch that what she’s trying to say (in promoting her agenda) is probably a far cry from what the church should or ever attempt to implement . . . . btw: what election are we trying to win?


  • kevin
    April 29, 2005

    Wow you guys, is it that hard to get beyond politics? I don’t think Barbara Boxer’s politics are really the issue here.


  • glenn
    April 29, 2005

    ok, let’s look at the issue then. are we saying that being authentic means being all inclusive (i.e., tolerant to all without any demand to conformity [which happens to be a big danger in contemporary church "marketing"])? or, are we saying that being authentic means a gracious acceptance of someone’s individualistic style, flair, approach, etc. as regards to theology, praxis, polity, etc.? boxer is saying that the democratic tent ought to be big and thereby inclusive of the many different stripes of democrats. but what, pray tell, does inclusiveness have to do with authenticity? and even if we construe inclusiveness to mean authentic, authentic to what end, for what means?
    let’s talk about it . . . .


  • glenn
    April 29, 2005

    btw: i do really like your site!


  • kevin
    April 30, 2005

    I think Boxer is saying let’s be authentic–let’s be who we really are, and not force people to conform to certain standards. I think the entire point she was getting at was the Democratic party needs to be more open to faith and stop being the secular party. Her point isn’t that the Democratic party should conform to what’s in (be religious because it’s popular), but that they should be honest about who they are. There are Christian Democrats and the party would be better served if they were honest about that and allowed those Christian Democrats to have a voice.
    I think that’s the point Brad is getting at. Let’s not shoe-horn a message onto our church that doesn’t fit–let’s be honest about who we are as a church. In the long run that will be more successful.


  • Rob Adcox
    May 12, 2005

    If Barbara Boxer were truly “authentic”, then she would understand that Americans are sick and tired of screeching,snivelling liberals like Boxer, who is now vowing to fight the President over the nomination of NONliberal activist judges to federal benches. The Democrats know that they’re losing power. They also know that they’re losing credibility in the eyes of majority of the American public. Liberal activist courts have become one of the few “havens” for liberals to push their agendas, but you know what? They’re beginning to lose there as well, and Boxer knows it! Barbie’s tough talk means nothing, because she’s worried that her party is losing its grasp on political power, and she’s right. The Democrats are losing and losing BIG. I’m not impressed at all by that idiot Boxer. She couldn’t care less about what the American people want. All she cares about is pepetuating the agenda of the elitist core of her party. Barbara Boxer, you’re a loser. Sit down.


  • kevin
    May 12, 2005

    Thanks for completely missing the point, Rob. We’re not talking politics here.


  • Rob Adcox
    August 29, 2005

    And thanks Kevin for your oh-so-”Christian” sarcasm. I’m sure you put a smile on your prietst’s face when you two share a smoke and cuddle together.


  • kevin
    August 29, 2005

    Now you’re creeping me out, Rob. And still missing the point.


  • Rob Adcox
    August 30, 2005

    Touche, Kevin. Did Boxer ever define what she meant by being “authentic”? It sounded like she wanted to use a buzz word and hoped that it would make sense to someone.


  • Ida
    August 27, 2007

    Carol Gilligan and Annie Rogers, psychologists and professors, taught me about authenticity when I attended HGSE in Cambridge, MA.
    Young adolescent girls struggle with it — and are authentic until their voices go underground because it feels safer that way.
    If you want authenticity, talk to and 11- or 12-year-old girl. She talks about life as she sees it and feels it. Sometimes, people are too uncomfortable with that and shame girls into going underground. Often it is women who do this. But men are also part of the shaming process.
    This is just a small nugget that I learned. Thought I’d pass it on.
    Next time you make fun of someone for being real, look at yourself and see what you are trying to hide.


  • Rob
    September 22, 2007

    Ida, while you’re at it what ever happened to genuineness, congruence, and unconditional positive regard? Were they replaced with hatred of males? Ask Carol and Annie the next time you see them, and tell them their hypocrisy preceeds them. Thanks princess.



Leave a Reply

POST CATEGORIES:
Philosophy


 
Show CFCC Bar
Courageous storytellers welcome.
Hide the bar