Comments on: Pick One

By: sheilab

sheilab — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:19:52 +0000

When we are talking about church, I think we are really talking about (Sunday) services. Each group of christians forming a body of believers offers a Sunday service. I’m not exactly sure why because it seems to such a centre of debate. Sunday service is like a product at times. But the challenge is that believer in the group may want a different type of format for Sunday. And there the trouble begins. I agree with Brad because the focus should not be on us but on who we are trying to reach. Perhaps if we spent more time on other Jesus approved activities and less time on programming/ Sunday services, we might have less of a debate here about marketing.

By: Jon

Jon — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:37:45 +0000

Sorry if this has already been said. I tried not to ‘TL:DR’ too much. :)
If the Church is several parts, we cannot expect the eyes to carry the pen or the feet to hear the songs. Each part has a specific purpose that all work together.
The local churches should work together, even if they never talk to each to other about it, to reach their part of the world.
Rosemary had a great example. Just on the music front, one church alone has a very hard time reaching across all styles. I do not believe one style is right while others are wrong and do not want to change this into an argument about style.
The point is there are things each congregation can do better than another. If we all built on our strengths, the kingdom would be far better off.

By: Michelle Castle

Michelle Castle — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:50:02 +0000

I appreciate Brad’s clarification. I agree that churches need to stick to their purpose. I attend both an inner city church and a suburban church, and it really wouldn’t be possible for one church to be both. However, I think the post went too far in advocating that churches stick to their specialty, whereas Paul tried to be all things to all men to save some. While that won’t work at a Donuts & Burgers shop, it has worked to a certain extent at the big box retailers like Walmart.
In addition to the narrowly-focused vision the original post seemed to advocate, I am bothered by it’s assertion that your church should aim to be the best in your community at your niche. Churches shouldn’t be competitors.

By: Jon Allen

Jon Allen — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:02:29 +0000

I get what you are trying to say, and I think to some degree you are right. Perhaps you used some examples that weren’t completely thought through. I know some people said that Jesus ministered to everyone around him effectively… which is true. Unfortunately the church isn’t Jesus and never will be.
Think about this though, if the church down the road is doing an extremely good job of reaching the hip-hop culture, should we focus on that group? Or would it be better to focus on the group that isn’t being effectively ministered to?
By the way, I am a funny preacher and a serious preacher all at the same time, and darn good at both. At least that’s what my mom tells me.

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:38:09 +0000

Forgive my long-windedness. For those of you who just went TL:DR on me, let me sum up.
The specific calling of God for a given local church is not (as the author forgivably presumes in his comment above) defined by the people who attend it but rather by the Cross and how Christ’s sacrifice allows them to come together in unity.

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:22:44 +0000

The author’s viewpoint is appealing from a natural, logical viewpoint; it misapprehends, however, the nature of the work Christ died to establish on the earth. Bear with me for a moment, as this is going to take some explaining.
Humanity stands divided and isolated from one another and from God as a result of our sinful natures; by paying for our sins, Christ made it possible for those divisions and all of the hurts they bring to humanity to be healed. The role of the church (which is to say, the local assembly of believers) in God’s plan is to lift Christ up and maintain an environment wherein His grace and power are allowed to meet the needs of each person.
The reason your opinion draws such strong negative reactions is the very reason that (pardon my reference) Church Marketing Sucks: Marketing concepts such as demographic positioning and demographic focus are based on natural thinking and human wisdom that while logical and sensible to us is, as pointed out quite effectively by other posters before me, completely counter to the scriptural model of how the church should minister to the community. That is to say that the mode of thinking you are expressing–the one that says that the things that divide us from one another are insurmountable–is part of the very nature of the world that Christ came to change.
Now that sounds very good theory, but good theory is nothing with out real applicability, so let me make it practical to you. I work as a sound technician in a church of about 300 people (and growing) in the Houston, TX area. We have people in our main service ranging in age from 12 to 80+. We have men and women representing every walk of life in our community – every race, every upbringing, etc – sitting next to each other. Under circumstances which would be considered normal in society at large, each of us would have nothing in common with any of the others–no reason to even speak to them. We live in the Kingdom, however, and because of what God has done for us we have common ground upon which to come together. My explanation doesn’t really do it justice, but we are the evidence that if a local church remains in Christ, He will meet that most basic and ineffable need that resides in every human heart, and that is more powerful than anything that can be done with marketing.

By: David Castro

David Castro — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:17:28 +0000

Positioning and Focus are two commonly used concepts to develop branding and marketing strategies that should always be considered by all churches and every other kind of non-profit organization. You can’t be everything to everyone. I recommend reading the classics from Ries and Trout or “Branding Faith” (Cooke).

By: Conner

Conner — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:40:06 +0000

I love this discussion and I’m so glad you brought it up. I agree with you.
At the end of the day people have to make human decisions about whether to moving graphics or a black slide for worship songs, send money to aid in foreign missions or help send their own students to camp, hire a Technical Director or Children’s Director. Not that any of those decisions are right or wrong, but they are appropriate or in alignment with one church’s vision or another. A church will have certain elements which are higher in priority because they cannot do all things for all people. What drives that should be their vision/strategy that moves things in the same direction. That occurs when you “choose one.” But that’s different for each church.
In my opinion.

By: Rosemary

Rosemary — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:15:40 +0000

Dear Jesus:
You can’t be human AND God.
Well, you could attempt to be both of these things at once, but it won’t work.
Pick one.
****
All snideness aside, I actually do agree with the idea of NOT trying to be all things for all people. Different churches have different strengths. You should know who you are and embrace it.
EXAMPLE:
The church I work at has an EXCELLENT, high quality traditional music program. People come here for to hear great Bach and great organ. And that’s wonderful.
The church I attend is all about letting people be who they are. People show up in church wearing cutoffs and flipflops and no one blinks. And that’s wonderful.
Neither of these churches should try to be the other one. And they do best when they realize that not everyone will click with them, but for those that do, they are wonderful places of God to be.

By: Geoff

Geoff — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:53:29 +0000

Well, after reading the article I was going to be critical. After reading the comments, I feel like I should defend Brad here – there’s some pretty strong reactions. I think that the key message coming out both in the post and in some of the comments here is that as the church we need to be clear on what our calling is.
But I think we want to be very very aware of the calling of the Global Church as well as the local church, when we consider who we are called to be. And I think that lots of the time the “call” is less about who we are called to market to, and more about who we are called to be in our community.
Don’t know if that all made sense, but I would encourage a little bit of restraint in getting your nose put out of joint.