Tracy's thoughts

My additional $.02 on this topic is that yes, we as Christians do need to be aware of what our messages (marketing efforts) communicate and how they are received. If there is a chance to learn how the culture at large receives our message (in whatever form) and what they are actually hearing, then we need to do a little homework and strive to make it the best and clearest and authentic message possible. Will we miss the mark sometimes? I know I already have in the past. But I do honestly try to learn from those experiences and trust that God meets people in spite of me at times.

In regard to marketing vs. evangelism, I have struggled with these delineations. I agree with Jay's perspectives on what marketing is, I personally wrestle with my own authenticity in the interpersonal actions. To say it another way, do I love those in my neighborhood because I am fulfilling an evangelistic New Year's resolution, or because I am slowly beginning to see them as Jesus does and then love them accordingly? I hope it is the latter one. Otherwise I have some soul searching to do.

tracy

Well you know the old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I think that is what I mean, yes.
I'm sure the "Battle Cry" site I previously talked about operates from a position of good intentions. Maybe the Battle Cry crew doesn't know it's approach falls into the category of propaganda? Should they be responsible for that even though they have good motivations?

Maybe a good question would be what is the harm in Christians unknowingly using something like propaganda tactics to spread the gospel? Especially when we have a such a gracious God.

Christian popular culture makes plenty of use, as John's current blog topic brings up, of the negative forms of marketing. So what is the harm in that?

I guess my point has to do with motivation. But what do you mena by setting parameters and bluring the message? Do you mean someone can use a tool and do harm even though it is done in love?

Good question. I view it like this. I see marketing as a tool. As I implied previously, I think it can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. Marketing in and of itself does not have to be an ideology or money producing endeavor. Of course, the tool of marketing is all too often used for these purposes.

Using the broader definition of marketing I proposed earlier, I think marketing can and should be used as part of Evangelism. Let me explain.

Here are some examples of using marketing to evangelize: the high-quality videos that are sometimes shown in church, this well designed website, a Christian tract, a BBQ for friends that don't regularly attend church, the Easter drama we had at Grace earlier this year, a Bible left in a hotel room, etc. I understand that some might even object to these forms of marketing within the Church, but I would argue that these activities are not in conflict with Biblical principle.

I agree with Courtney that there has become a blur in this area. It is sometimes hard to separate the tool from the message. And sometimes the tool is used to misrepresent or conceal the true objectives of the entity performing the communication. Over on Jon's blog, he alludes to this blur. I have been thinking of a meaningful way to address his question, but haven't been able to come up with anything.

Ephesians 4 gives us some guidance in this area. Verses 14-15 read, "Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ."

The "cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming" could certainly be understood as the type of distortion of the Gospel that we all fear, and we should always be aware of this possibility.

At the same time, "speaking the truth in love" should always be a basic requirement for any evangelistic activity.

Jay

Here summarized dictionary definitions.

Marketing: The action or business of selling or promoting products or services. (Jay's definition is more thorough certainly and includes "ideas")

Evangelism: The spreading of the Christian gospel by public preaching or personal witness.

It seems like there is a clear difference between the two. At their most stripped down one is driven by principal or belief, the other by money.
Can I assume that your question seeks to establish parameters? I would assert that American Evangelicalism has blended the two to a confusing degree. But I also feel that although not entirely intentional, the blending reflects a serious ignorance of the power of language. I would agree with Jay that the "entity performing the marketing is more of the issue than actual marketing techniques." It is the entities responsibility to know what they are doing and understand the tools they use.

What's your point?

You both talk about good points. Here's my question-What's the difference between marketing and evangleism?

Great topic Tracy. Very interesting and important. Thanks to Courtney for an insightful and thoughtful post.

By way of disclaimer, I should say that I have a master's degree in marketing, so I am certainly not unbiased when this topic is debated.

I view marketing as basically being morally neutral. It can be used for good or ill, and there are plenty of great examples of both.

Marketing is actually a very broad topic. In addition to the obvious inclusion of "advertising", marketing can also be: market research, competitive analysis, branding, sales, public relations, customer service, and many other things. I would argue that Grace already participates in several of these forms of marketing. The questionnaire we filled out a month ago, our beautiful new building, this website, invitations to our neighbors for the open house, and many others are all forms of marketing. I certainly view these types of marketing as good things and not evil in any way.

Courtney did a great job above with an example of marketing being used in an inappropriate manner. And we can all think of examples, of churches or para-church organizations using similar methods to promote their own agenda, rather than the agenda of the Lord.

One of the standard definitions of marketing is "The process of planning and executing the conception, pricing, promotion, and distribution of ideas, goods, services, organizations, and events to create and maintain relationships that will satisfy individual and organizational objectives." I think this is a great way to think about marketing. The last part is especially poignant: "...to create and maintain relationships that will satisfy individual and organizational objectives". It seems to me that if the organizational objectives (I.e., Grace's objectives) are Christ centered, and truth oriented, then our marketing efforts will and should reflect that desire. If the organizational objectives are "evil" then the marketing of that organization will be evil. But, it's the organization that is the cause, and not the art/science of marketing.

In summary, I think the motives of the entity performing the marketing is more of the issue than actual marketing techniques. As a church Grace can learn from the techniques that the business world has employed in the area of marketing, and be more effective ministers of the Gospel. Some of the techniques may be appropriate and some not. But, I am confident that if our "organizational objectives" remain Christ focused, then our marketing efforts cannot help but reflect that focus.

Thanks for indulging my rambling.

Jay

True,
Nothing in and of itself is evil. Marketing therefore cannot be an evil thing, but rather used with evil intentions. Evil may be to strong a word for this subject. Let's call it dishonest.
We have to clarify that we are talking about American marketing as it has been developed as a tool of American Capitalism and advertising.
Since the post-war 50's marketing has been fine-tuned to create need in consumers for products in order to turn a profit. Some products are necessities (I need to brush my teeth), others are not (I don't NEED tri-color toothpaste). We should all be in agreement that MOST consumer products are not necessary. Companies know this and they also know to stay ahead of the competition they have to come up with the next big thing. For profit to be made we have to be convinced that new product "x" will make an improvement on my life, will make me faster, stronger, sexier whatever... This is why marketing exists. Advertising and marketing appeal to the flesh (to use the language of our subculture) or human desire in order to make money.
Ad and marketing language is deceptive by design, because this is how we become convinced. It is slight of hand. "Don't pay attention to what you know to be true about yourself. Believe our definition of what you WANT to believe."

Our issue in America is that advertising grew up alongside Evangelicalism in America- but about 20 years behind. Christian subculture has always had an uncomfortable relationship with the "world", but it has always had an earnest desire to spread the gospel. To do this, the most common practice has been to adopt the tools of the "world" in an attempt to speak its language and therefore make an impact. Unfortunately, as I stated above, Christianity caught on too late. Advertising itself has always been one or two steps behind popular culture. Christianity has been years behind everyone else. And since its relationship with the world has always been hesitant, it had the tendency to adopt what it saw on the surface with out really understanding the cultural implications. Advertising thrives on the spectacle. Christian culture also thrives on spectacle. On the outside, taking on the appearance of what some believers interpret as being current or relevant without understanding how the rest of American culture may "read" what they are doing- all in order to mask the good intentions of sharing the gospel. Which, by nature of the bait-and-switch approach, presents the image of someone who is at once saying "I know what is best for you" and "I have know idea who you are or where you are coming from."
To present an example of what I consider an ignorant use of imagery and language used by Christians today I want point you towards www.battlecry.com (this won't let me post html, sorry no link) This is the website for one of Ron Luce's ministry's.
The site makes use of imagery that is rooted in revolutionary propaganda design (See histories of Russia, Cuba, China, Nazi Germany, US) and language of war. It describes the "crisis of a generation" as being "Music, Internet, Advertising, Television" as well as corporations and conglomerates. It warns kids about the how "A stealthy enemy has infiltrated our country".

The writing is fear-based hyperbole. It has no substance and (in the fine tradition of marketing) preys upon emotion by glossing over facts and cultural subtleties in favor of spiritual hype. It in no ways gives kids tools to engage a changing culture. Instead entices them to pull away and join their culture instead. Don't buy popular products or engage in using myspace, instead buy OUR products and join OUR social community instead. By claiming that objects in culture are evil and that they will ensnare you, it objectifies evil and therefore gives "evil" more power by distracting you with another set of social distractions- the christian sub-culture.

From a design standpoint, propaganda imagery should be steered cleared of by christians because it shows historical ignorance of what those governments used propaganda for. While their are elements that are popular in society (See Che Guevara T-shirts at the mall) but hardly used for anything meant to be so important as eternal salvation. More importantly it seems ironic that the language and imagery of the site could be classified as propaganda itself. It seems unaware of that fact.

Wikipedia defines propaganda as this:

"Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda."

Omissions? Yes this site leaves out a lot of valuable information about the world. Emotional? I would say its not very rational. Combine these things with the selling of specialized products and driving readers to their own social network, I would say this site misses the mark and is spiritually irresponsible. If we said, "Well if at least one kid gets saved through its message" then not are we horrible clichés, but we show a sad and possibly sickening idea of what helping someone come to Christ is all about. The kind of Christian this kind of information may develop makes me sad and embarrassed.

War language, while having biblical precedent, shows a lack of awareness of the mood of our nation and young people. A good portion of young America today oppose war. It is distasteful. To use such language make us sound like we are not about love. If that is the case then who is the site for. If it is for believers, we have a problem. If it is to win souls, we have a problem. To hold a favorable view on war in our country today is a political statement not a spiritual one.

That's all.

Tracy, you got me with the hook.