what's the central message?

My personal friend A.J. Murray posted the following comment:

The thought that keeps leaping to my mind when reading through some of these [posts] (especially relating to comments on Rick Warren's church and his books) are two-fold.

First, having been on mission trips with a sole purpose of reaching out for new believers I recognize two things...I'm not Christ and I do not have His ability/eloquence/insight to share the Gospel as HE does in the Bible, without losing the audience. By this I mean, I have tried what I call the "Campus Crusade" method of a sort of "hit 'em between the eyes with their falleness and need for a savior". For me, it's seldom if ever worked. What I took away from that is, it wasn't the recipient, it was the sender. It wasn't the message, it was the presentation.

What I have found is that in today's cynical, doubting world is that it's important for us to share the Gospel in such a manner as to attract new believers, then lead them to an understanding of their falleness, then (by the means of the Holy Spirit) to a pronouncement of faith.

Thus, while I yearn for the eloquence and straight forwardness of our Lord, or the directness of a Paul, I've found that creating a conversation which gently leads a person to make a decision for faith requires more finesse on my behalf. So, I guess I'm guilty of possibly "dressing up" the message so that the audience is receptive. Once they make a profession of faith, then, I find I have the ability to share and teach of the deeper subjects.

The second thing that strikes me is that each of us has a need for the relationship with Christ. Acknowledgement of our fallen condition is central to our recognition of who we are, but we're also (upon accepting faith) called by Christ, brothers and sisters, adopted by God. So, there is a duality that I believe necessarily exists between the "lite and fluffy" faith of the family, and the hardness of our fallen condition. Some churches err on one side or the other of this equation. To me, as a believer, this duality of being both family and fallen must be taught at the same time, in the same church. Therefore, if a church swings too far one direction or another we ought to be reaching out to improve that pastoral leadership.

Great comments, A.J.! And possibly I should clarify.

I've witnessed many presentations of the Gospel in my time. Most have been perfectly orthodox, and almost all have been gentle, which is fine. But there's another category that I've encountered, typical of the Rick Warren example below, that have been gentle, but not what I'd call orthodox.

For example, I remember going to Promise Keepers some years ago in Colorado Springs, and the first evening they had a call to come forward. As I recall, the guys who came up were led in prayer, but a call to repentance was never made. And afterwards it was announced to them that they were now members of the family of God. (At least this was my impression at the time.)

If you look in the Gospel of Mark, this is how the start of Jesus' ministry is described:

Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:14-15)

Then Jesus went around teaching from village to village. Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two and gave them authority over evil spirits.

These were his instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff–no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. Wear sandals but not an extra tunic. Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them.”

They went out and preached that people should repent. They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them. (Mar 6:6-13)

"They went out and preached that people should repent."

If you examine both the Old and New Testaments, the message is consistent. Repentance is front and center. And a rejection of the message is characterized as an unwillingness to repent:

Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. (Matt. 11:20)

There is nothing about relationship with God here. And I'll talk about this in a future post, but if you examine the book of Acts, which describes the spreading of the Gospel by the early church, the love of God is not mentioned once in the entire book! (Greg Koulk, of the apologetics ministry Stand to Reason, has prepared an excellent analysis on this topic called Preaching God's Love in Acts? which I'd highly recommend.)

This is what makes me suspect the church is out of balance in some sectors. I have no reason to doubt that intentions are well meaning. But I think that in a zeal to increase numbers, some have lost sight of the ball.

Like you, I'm all in favor of finding good ways to communicate the message. I would even say that marketing techniques are fine as long as they aren't ones that entail distorting the message.

But the bottom line is, if the people we're communicating with aren't coming to repentance (from an accurate understanding of their sinfulness and God's provision for forgiveness through Christ's sacrifice), then we aren't making disciples. And if we tell them they're saved anyway, we may very well be escorting them to damnation. And obviously, that would be awful.

I don't anticipate I'll have any impact on the heavy hitters in this arena. But I'm hoping these observations will at least help you and I to be more careful and deliberate about how we present the Gospel.

rambling reality check

Tonight I spoke on the phone with a good friend of mine from twenty years ago who is almost the last guy I would have predicted would become a Christian. Not that he was antagonistic to the faith, but when we were close, he just seemed to have an attitude of self-sufficiency -- no need for God. (Actually, I was pretty much of the same mindset, so I probably shouldn't talk. But isn't it easy to assume that your spiritual journey is not something any of your "old friends" would be able to relate to?)

As it turns out, my friend is not only a Christian, he's plugged into a good Bible believing church and was recently leading one of their home Bible studies. Wow!

It kind of shames me, because it highlights my guilt in forgetting that God can work in anybody's life. It also shames me in that I can't claim I had any part in my friend's journey to conversion, even though, maybe I could have.

I think sharing the Gospel to friends is a hard thing to do well. I'm not too bad at putting "pebbles in people's shoes," sharing points of apologetics and giving them something to contemplate. And while there's an important place for that, to be sure, it's also important to eventually share the crux of the Gospel. And I have a hard time working that in.

This is where I'm sort of schizophrenic about my critique of "seeker sensitive" ministry strategies. When it comes time for me to share the Gospel, I definitely try to frame it artfully to help get the hearer past negative preconceptions to a clear understanding the message. (And sometimes my motivation is a fear of rejection, which I think is clearly a wrong motivation.) But even so, I don't think I should ever change the content of the message in order to garner acceptance. For instance, I shouldn't say Christianity is fundamentally about having a relationship with God -- which a lot of Christians do -- when really Christianity is fundamentally about receiving atonement for my sins and living my life as Christ's disciple in obedience to His commands.

My friends need to understand the message accurately and then decide for themselves what they're going to do with it. And it's not appropriate for me feel responsible for that outcome because the responsibility is solely theirs. They need to reject the offer of forgiveness out of the rebelliousness of their hearts, not because they don't personally sense a need for "a relationship with God" or don't personally like the music or programs at some particular church. They've got a "disease" called sin, and the "cure" isn't "relationship." The cure is becoming repentant, pleading for forgiveness, and obtaining it. The message of this religion is not, "Love means never having to say I'm sorry," and we shouldn't imply that it is by deemphasizing the imperativeness of redemption in our message.

I will likely expound on this at some later date, but my impression is that one of the most effective "lures" for the Gospel is to demonstrate love for people by addressing their temporal, non-spiritual needs. Doing so gets their attention, because they see that the love we speak of is real. (And loving them in this way is commanded by God, too.) Wasn't this what Jesus did with His healings? He addressed not only the spiritual need of the person, but also the physical. When we meet people's needs, I think we find we have less motivation to cloak "the message" or be silent with it. "Those that have ears" will be receptive.

are you nicer than Jesus?

Randall Terry wrote a quite discerning book in 1993 titled Why Does a Nice Guy Like Me Keep Getting Thrown in Jail? How theological escapism and cultural retreatism has led to America's demise. The purpose of the book was similar to this blog's: challenging fuzzy ideas within the church.

In one chapter, The Idol of Reputation (Are You Nicer Than Jesus? Just Don't Speak the Whole Word of God!), Terry points out that, while it is indeed appropriate for a Christian to strive to have a good reputation, it should be a "good reputation" according to biblical terms, not on the world's terms. As Jesus said:

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also." (John 15:18-20)

Rather than being discouraged, Jesus said we should rejoice when our reputation gets ruined on His account.

"Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets. " (Luke 6:22-23)

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (Matthew 5:11-12)

From the book:

If your reputation is perfectly intact on every front, if you never irritate anyone, if you never make a stir, you might be doing something wrong -- or more likely, you're not doing something right. "Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for in the same way their fathers used to treat the false prophets." (Luke 6:26). The Bible has a crystal clear promise: "All who live godly lives in Christ Jesus shall experience persecution" (2 Tim. 3:12). If we never experience persecution, if we never make a single soul angry (as Christ often did), something is probably wrong. Probably very wrong.

When we stand for the Lord Jesus and the laws of God revealed in the Bible, it is inevitable that we will offend someone. And in that hour we must not shrink from our duty -- no compromise. In that hour of trail the unwholesome preservation of our reputation is of little or no consequence to God. In fact, He might be trying to smash the idol of reputation. The Prince of Life hung naked and shamed on a cross for you and me in the fulfillment of God's will. God has the right to require that our reputation be laid in the dust in obedience to His will. If we are mocked, falsely accused, berated, and maligned for doing or saying what our Lord has commanded, so be it. Blessed be His Name. He has given us the indescribable privilege of experiencing the trials with the prophets and of following our Savior's blood-stained steps. As the apostle Paul wrote, "For unto you is given in behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for his sake" (Phil. 1:29).

(pages 56, 57)

Terry calls our tendency to please people "the idol of reputation." He says we should repent of this and ask God for courage. For me personally, this is a challenging lesson.

I sometimes wonder if the push to filter the Gospel is partially driven by this desire to be viewed favorably by those outside the church, on the world's terms. The temptation to compromise is great. But we need to set limits on our efforts for acceptance when it comes to presenting God's message. As God's ambassadors, we primarily represent Him, not ourselves. And as far as I know, God hasn't given us the authority to soft-peddle or embellish His message.

Not everyone is going to like the message. And those that dislike it will dislike the messengers, too. It's not fair, but it's always been that way.

book recommendations

Someone posted a comment recommending the following two books (thank you!) :

Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down: A Theology of Worship for This Urgent Time
Marva J. Dawn

The Market-Driven Church: The Worldly Influence of Modern Culture on the Church in America
Udo W. Middelmann

I'll have to pick them up. Amazon also popped up these ones that look good on the "seeker sensitive"/megachurch movement:

Dining With the Devil: The Megachurch Movement Flirts With Modernity
Os Guinness

Ashamed of the Gospel: When the Church Becomes Like the World
John F. MacArthur

Hard To Believe : The High Cost and Infinite Value of Following Jesus
John MacArthur

This Little Church Went to Market: The Church in the Age of Entertainment
Gary Gilley, Gary E. Gilley

I wasn't aware these were out there. It's nice to know I'm not alone.

conversion by concealment

Last year I read most of the book Law & Gospel by C.F.W. Walther, first president of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. The book is comprised of transcripts from a series of lectures Walther gave in 1884. While I'm not in full agreement with the book, I think Walther's perspective on so called "sensitive" approaches to communicating the Gospel has merit. It's interesting that these techniques had their practitioners even back then.

"Even believing theologians of the modern type are frequently too timid to use terms that are fully warranted by Biblical and ecclesiastical usage, because they are afraid that these terms might prove offensive to their audience. They are averse to speaking of hereditary sin in their sermons or of the wrath of God against sinners, of the blindness of natural man, of spiritual death, in which all men are merged by nature. They do not like to speak of the devil going about as a roaring lion, seeing whom he may devour, because that would make them unpopular with their hearers. They are disinclined to speak of the everlasting fire of hell, of eternal torment and damnation; they prefer to speak of these matters to their hearers in terms that do not seem so strange, faulty, and offensive to them, employing phrases that are more in harmony with 'the religious sentiment of an enlightened people.'

"Now, there is no doubt that these men wish to convert people by using such false terms. They believe that they can convert men by concealing things from them or by presenting matters in a manner that is pleasing to men as they are by nature. They are like sorry physicians who do not like to prescribe a bitter medicine to delicate patients. . . Preachers who do not clearly and plainly proclaim the Gospel, which is offensive to the world, are not faithful in the discharge of their ministry and inflict great injury on men's souls. Instead of advancing Christians in the knowledge of pure doctrine, they allow them to grope in the dark, nurse false imaginations in them, and speed them in their false and dangerous path.

"The history of the Church shows how dangerous it is when theologians, otherwise reputed as orthodox, use wrong terms, which can easily be misunderstood. As a result, the most abominable heretics, to cover up their errors with a halo of sanctity, have appealed to phrases which men admittedly orthodox have used."

[pages 275, 276]

at what point does it qualify as a counterfeit?

Can Christianity be viewed as a group of product features that can be deliberately emphasized and de-emphasized and still remain the same religion? I guess that goes to the question of what exactly is a religion.

What delineates a false religion from a true religion? If the content of the teaching is a distortion of the truth, shouldn't it at some point cease to be considered a true religion? (How important is it that the message be "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?)

Is it important that leadership and laymen believe the same thing? Is a church orthodox if the leadership's beliefs are orthodox, yet their teaching is a filtered version of orthodoxy? Are the converts being converted to orthodoxy, or to a counterfeit?

What if features are actually added to the religion? The Protestant Reformation was partly a rejection of new cars the Catholic church had added to the train. Is anyone concerned about Protestant additions?

Christianity in the bargain bin

We see in Rick Warren's presentation below an assurance that the listener will enter heaven. But can a person really have such assurance when the message presented is so ambiguous? Is not the sinner's prayer being treated here as something akin to a magic incantation -- repeat the right words, and you're automatically in? What are the possible consequences to the hearer if such an assurance is false?

One thing that strikes me is that Warren's message is so soft, it would be hard to imagine anyone rejecting it (except to dismiss it as mere nonsense). As it's presented, why not pray the prayer? There's nothing to lose. No costs to consider. Just tell Jesus you want to be friends and God will give you a ticket to heaven.

Did Jesus make it that easy?

The Cost of Being a Disciple
Luke 14:25-33

Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

"Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.'

"Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple."

spinning the gospel: Rick Warren's Saddleback Church

An example of what I think is God's message being changed for the sake of greater acceptance comes from the current epicenter of "seeker sensitive" ministry, Saddleback Church of Orange County, California.

Before I begin, let me just state that my fundamental fear/concern here is that the message of the gospel is being "spun" by these "seeker sensitive" churches in order to garner greater acceptance from potential converts. I struggle with this, because, with a lot of these churches, their doctrinal professions are within orthodoxy. Yet they present God's message in a skewed manner -- differently than God presented it in Scripture. They filter it.

Saddleback's web site has a video "altar call" on it given by Pastor Rick Warren. [This has since been removed. It used to be accessed via a link on their home page labeled "What's my purpose?"]

Here's an outline of the message (my comments in brackets):

[start of outline]

Saddleback's goal is to help you discover God's purpose, love and plan for your life.

God made you for a reason, purpose and mission in life.

Part of that is to establish a personal relationship with God, where you get to know God just like you know your best friend.

God wants to know you in a close and personal way.

This is not religion.

God knows everything about you, He just wants you to know Him the same way.

You were made by God for God.

He made you as an object of His love.

Our problem:
- We don't sense or feel God's love.

Cause of the problem:
- Sin has broken our relationship with God.
- We do what we want to do rather that what God put me on earth to do.

Jesus came to earth.
His mission was:
- Become the bridge between man and God
- Came in human form so we could understand Him and know what He's like. It's hard to understand God when you talk about God as being some impersonal force or some "spirit in the sky" -- we want to see what God is really like

The solution:
Simply trust [Trust in what? Warren doesn't say.]
It's nothing earned, it's a free gift of God's grace.

- God would like to take us to heaven.
- Heaven is a perfect place that can't accept anything imperfect into it -- if it did, it would then cease to be perfect.
- You and I are not perfect.
- Luckily, God came up with "Plan B."
- He came to earth himself, lived a perfect life, and said, "If you put your trust/faith in Me, then I will give you a ticket to heaven and be a part of My family."
- God has a ticket to heaven for you, but the only way you get it by being a friend of His Son, Jesus Christ -- having that relationship, getting to know God. [Has friendship replaced justification?]

You can take that step right now. You can make a commitment/decision. [A commitment to what, being Jesus' friend?]

"Pray with me, not necessarily the same words, but it's the attitude of your heart that counts."

Prayer:
- Thank you for making me
- I don't understand it all
- But I believe you exist
- And I do believe that you have a plan for my life
- Help me with all my doubts
- I don't have all the answers
- But I know I want to get to know you
- So as much as I know how, I open my life to you
- I want to begin a personal relationship with you
- I want to believe in you
- I want to trust you
- I ask you to forgive me for all the things I've done wrong
- I ask you to help me to understand your purpose for my life
- I pray this with what little faith I have

If you just prayed that prayer and really meant it, you have just become a part of the family of God -- a Christian, have crossed the line from seeker to believer.

Jesus has just done something good for you:
1. Every sin you have ever committed has been forgiven -- even if there were no heaven, it's still good that you can have a clear conscience. [I think I know what Warren means. But to a post-modern listener, this could easily be interpret to mean, "Even if this isn't all true, it's still good because it gives you a clear conscience." This is going to appeal to the post-modern who is seeking a spiritualistic hobby.]
2. God has guaranteed that you are going to go to heaven when you die - not because you deserve it, but because you've put your faith and trust in Christ. [Again, what is the person trusting Christ for? Based on Warren's message, one might conclude, he's trusting Christ to be his friend.]
3. You can now discover God's purpose and plan for you.

[end of outline]

Here are my observations about this attempt at sharing the Gospel:

- Nowhere is Jesus characterized as savior or sacrifice.

- No mention of the cross

- No mention of God as judge

- No mention of possible damnation

- The "bad news" is not, as Scripture teaches, that we stand rightly condemned before a holy and just God. It's that we don't "sense or feel God's love." It's also that heaven is a place that can't accommodate corrupt inhabitants -- which is crummy for us, since we're all corrupt. (Perhaps God needs a less picky dwelling place, one that doesn't have such strict requirements for residency.)

- The mention of forgiveness is really on the periphery, smuggled into the prayer. It's as if saying the prayer is considered magical, and that merely speaking the words, a person automatically receives forgiveness.

- The nature of Jesus' mission is characterized as an effort to show mankind what God is really like. Warren mentions "bridging the gap," but in the context of his presentation, this sounds more like a gap of friendship/relationship rather than an atonement for guilt.

- Is it correct to say that Jesus came to help us understand God and know what He's really like? I suppose, in one sense, Jesus did say He came to show us the Father. But to me, this way of talking implies that the manner in which God had revealed Himself in prior times had been inadequate, and maybe given man an excuse for his rebellion. I know Philip Yancey flirts with that line of reasoning in his book "The Jesus I Never Knew." But is this really Biblical? Would we have had no way of knowing what God was like without the Incarnation? If so, that implies that all of the Old Testament believers were in the dark. (It makes one wonder why God even bothered with the prophets.)

- It seems to me, the message being conveyed by Warren's presentation to someone without foreknowledge of the Gospel is that, at its crux, being a Christian means having "a relationship" with God. You become a Christian by praying a prayer to tell God you want to become His friend.


I visited Saddleback for one of their Christmas services last year, and my impression at that time was that the message was characteristically the same as above, which struck me as problematic.

I've studied Marketing, and what I think I see happening here is the practice of that discipline. You calculatedly compose your message. You emphasizing those things your target audience will find appealing. You de-emphasizing (or omit) those things your target audience will not find appealing. In some arenas of life, I think that's a perfectly legitimate thing to do. The discomfort I have is that that is not the communication style I see modeled by God, or the people of God, in Scripture.

The question I have to ask is, if God didn't choose to characterize Christianity as being fundamentally about "relationship" with Him, where you and I get to know Him "just like we know our best friend," by who's authority do we do so?

I know it's not the strongest argument, but I don't think it's completely insignificant that the word "relationship" never appears in the text of Scripture. If "relationship" is "what Christianity is all about," shouldn't it strike us as odd that God never used the term Himself? Wouldn't it be more instructive for us to use the terms God actually did use -- like Lord, God, Master, Father, Savior, Judge, Redeemer, King, Lamb of God, Sacrifice, Friend, "I Am," Brother, and the like -- and consider their implications?


Am I being hyper-critical? I'm not positive I'm not. On the one hand, I don't have strong a reason to doubt the actual beliefs or motives of these leaders. And there are some dimensions of relationship and such in Christianity. So, in some ways, it almost looks like it comes down to tactics.

But what do you do when, in the name of tactics, someone decides to be God's editor, taking the message of God and massaging it to make it more palatable for the masses? Is that deception or not? Where is the line crossed between contextualizing the gospel and changing it? And isn't carelessness with the message also disrespect for the message?

Christianity lite (part 2)

Like I said, marketing messages generally emphasize the important attributes of a product and de-emphasize the unimportant attributes -- important being defined as the level of appeal to the target audience. The purpose of marketing is to increase audience receptivity.

Do Christians have a desire for people to be receptive to God's message? They most certainly do.

Are they at liberty to put a marketing "spin" on the message in order to achieve that receptivity? I think the answer to that is no. (The issue of whether "spinning" is actually what is occurring will be tackled in future posts.)

For anyone who isn't so sure, consider whether we have any examples of God using anything like marketing techniques to enhance the appeal of His message in Scripture. From what I see, the pattern is this: a message is delivered -- the good, the bad and the ugly -- and full responsibility for rejecting it is given to the listener. And even in Jesus' ministry, rejection was probably the most common response. Jesus didn't pad His message for appeal. Neither did the prophets. (Yet we mustn't ignore the fact that, some people still listened.) Far from predicting good PR, Jesus warned His disciples that their message -- the same as His -- would incite hatred toward them (Matt. 10:24,25, Luke 6:22,23, Mark 13:13) and that few would be receptive to it (Matt. 7:13,14).

There is no doubt marketing "spin" works. It can dramatically increase receptivity to a message. For pragmatic reasons, the appeal for Christians to utilize such techniques is understandable. But it increases receptivity because it alters the message. It makes it out of balance. And I think I have good reason to question the idea that God has authorized us to alter His message. (Has God ever asked us to make His message more appealing than it already is coming from His mouth??)

It seems to me, editing God's message should, on its face, be easily recognizable as improper. The principle is addressed in Revelation 22: 18, 19:

“I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.”

In my next post, I will examine an example of what I believe is the Christian message being changed -- by a very high profile Christian minister in fact -- in order to solicit a more positive response. (At least that's my guess as to his motivation; I don't suspect this particular minister isn't actually orthodox in his beliefs.)

say it like it is

This week I bought a CD that happens to have a song about not trying to improve upon Jesus' message and/or public image (how timely!). It was written over 30 years ago, but it's probably even more applicable now.

Say It Like It Is

Don't dress up my Gospel in fancy clothes
Don't gloss up my Jesus for the London shows
He'll take care of himself wherever He goes
You just say it like it is
You say it like it is
Say it like it is

He didn't come to put mysteries within your mind
Or even go to college to study for words that rhyme
Man, He would have never even wasted His time
He just said it like it is
He said it like it is
Said it like it is

Don't fix my Jesus in some stained glass frame
Pretend to be trendy just by speaking His name
He won't fit into any superstar game
You just say it like it is
You say it like it is
Say it like it is

Malcolm & Alwyn
from the 1973 album Fool's Wisdom
hear it buy it

Christianity lite (part 1)

Last year a childhood friend of mine used the term "Christianity Lite" in conversation. I asked him what he meant. Basically, he said the contemporary practice of teaching the Christian religion in such a way as to de-emphasize (or ignore) the stuff that's complicated, challenging or unappealing.

I've noticed the same thing myself.

There's a push I think, that's unmistakable, to make it all easier -- to avoid subjects at church and in Christian media that don't score well in marketing studies (allowing us to see, I suppose, what might have been had God had a PR consultant or editorial staff when He was inspiring Scripture).

There's no question that the discipline of marketing has become an important tool in the ministries of many contemporary churches. And many would argue that there's nothing wrong with that. And to a degree, I would agree with them, though these days I find I agree with them much less than I used to.

I have a bachelor's degree in marketing, so I know something about how the discipline works. As far as I can tell, there's nothing inherently wrong with marketing. Like anything, it can be used or misused.

At its foundation, marketing is the practice of evaluating what your audience wants, evaluating your product or service's features, and developing a message that conveys the intersection of the two. If all goes as intended, the audience will be attracted to what you want them to be attracted to.

At times marketing strategies include creating an intangible "image" (or reputation) in the public's mind that has only loose (if any) connection with the reality of the product or service being promoted. While this practice may sometimes be considered manipulative, it's not considered by most to be an egregious ethical violation.

Marketing generally emphasizes the important attributes of a product or service and de-emphasize the unimportant attributes, as determined by the perception of the audience. If your product is strong in attribute XYZ, but your prospective customer doesn't care about XYZ, you don't emphasize it. You find out what your customer is interested in.

In my mind, marketing, as long as it's truthful, is pretty okay when applied to commerce.

What draws my concern is when I see marketing techniques applied to efforts to make and grow Christian disciples. And furthermore, it concerns me that I don't see Christian leaders grappling with the question of whether or not such techniques are actually appropriate to apply to religion. (Religion and commerce, after all, are very different animals.) Unfortunately, it seems pragmatism rules the day, and an "if it works, do it" philosophy is almost everywhere to be found, from mega-churches down to home bible studies. (In fairness, I understand pragmatic concerns are not the only things being considered. But I think less is being considered than arguably should be.)

[to be continued]