The part of the story I know goes like this: There was a church in Sacramento that named themselves “Mars Hill” several years ago. It is the same name as the well known Mars Hill church led by Mark Driscoll in Seattle Washington. A couple weeks ago the “Sacramento congregation received a “Cease and Desist” letter which came from attorneys representing the Seattle Mars Hill Church. They were told that the Seattle Mars Hill had copyrighted the name “Mars Hill” and they demanded that the Sacramento California Mars Hill church stop using the name and any logos with similar lettering.” These events were made known by a blogger/pastor in the area (see here). A storm was stirred up. Then the Mars Hill Seattle pastors contacted the Mars Hill pastor in Sacramento. There was some good discussion, apologies and reconciliation. Sacramento Mars Hill agreed to change its logo so there would be less confusion surrounding its identity with the larger Mars Hill church in Seattle. (These events are reported here, here and here)
So everything seems good. I’m glad this is over. Nonetheless I think there’s something that remains left for all of us (including Mars Hill Seattle) to think about. It is the question of branding. Should a church ever be concerned about its own branding? Is branding a sign that the branded church has now morphed from being a participant in God’s Mission to now becoming a builder of a church empire? When a church expands beyond its immediate locale and works for its recognizability across cultural boundaries and broad ranging markets, is this a sign the church is no longer about reaching people outside the gospel, but rather about attracting people in who already know the gospel, but now want a particular brand? IS BRANDING THE ULTIMATE ANTI-MISSIONAL ACT?
I offer this post as an opportunity to discuss this question. I think it’s an important discussion to have. I think a lot of us face this question regularly in one way or another every year. To start off this discussion then, here’s three reasons why I believe branding is the Ultimate Anti-Missional Act and Mars Hill Seattle (and the rest of our churches) should CEASE AND DESIST all branding.
1.) Branding Is Consumerist Attractional The cease and desist letter, despite the apologies etc., reveals that Mars Hill recognizes itself as a brand and wants to protect that brand name. It seems to me you brand a name in order to communicate to a “market” that when you go to Mars Hill you get such and such. A brand name in this case is useful in helping those who do not know you or your church understand through advertising and media what the church is, who the speaker is, what kind of specifics about this church differentiate it from other churches. It therefore enables already existing consumers of church to select your church over against others fro personal reasons. It seems to me once you do this you are openly admitting you are seeking to attract Christians from other locales, other churches, Christians who are moving, or discontented with their present church. Because after all, aren’t these the only people that would get up on a Sunday morning and “shop” for a church via the brand. Branding therefore admits you not seeking to engage those outside the gospel. It is the ultimate anti-missional act.
2.) Branding Promotes Competition: Branding differentiates one church from another. It says we offer preaching like this, we offer this kind of celebrity speaker, we offer this kind of worship, this kind of theology. Over against other church choices “We’re better at this”? I contend we should not be competing with other churches. Instead of counter branding, we should instead enter each context humbly, seeking cooperation, wisdom and guidance from/alongside other churches. We should work in cooperation with each other for the same Mission from locale to locale. We should be grounding the body of Christ in each locale for life with God in His Mission. In that church-branding works against this, I think we should consider once again how branding is the ultimate anti-missional act.
3.) Branding DeContextualizes: Based on 2.), the act of branding differentiates a church for a religious consumer. It brings a brand of church contextualized somewhere else (Seattle Washington) and lands it in a different locale (like say Albuquerque nm) and assumes the context is the same as the one it came from. It assumes this church, its message, its pastor’s sermons piped in via video screen, can respond to the contextual issues presented by a context hundreds of miles away. Branding therefore decontextualizes the church and the gospel. It assumes one size fits all. It does not listen to the context. It does not seek to understand what God is already doing in this different context and how to join in. In other words, this kind of branding is the ultimate anti-missional act.
Summary
I think we have to discern carefully how to name our churches. Yes we need to name churches, we need to make them identifiable. We are here to make the works of God made manifest known (1 Peter 2:9). We need a public presence (not in the sense of the private/public distinction political theologians talk about). But we must discern carefully when doing this so as not to cross over the line into branding. Based on the above, I call upon Mars Hill Seattle (and the rest of our churches) to CEASE AND DESIST all branding!! Your thoughts?
P.S. Just a question. Does anyone know if I can get sued for using Mars Hill church’s logo on this post? 
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Dave,
Thanks for the post. As someone who has worked for 2 institutions who have been somewhat obsessed with branding I can only affirm what you are saying here.
Creativity and innovation and local expression are all tempered by branding because, in most cases, branding is a top down effort at uniformity. Branding is a degree of totalitarianism that demands everyone submit to whatever cultural ethos the branding attempts to represent.
Devotion to brand is an all too easy way to discourage healthy self-reflection and reorientation when things go astray.
I think your post shines light on all that. Thanks.
Excellent post. You put to words the dirty feel I and others have about this episode. I especially like the counters to each. That’s the real strength of this post.
Agree completely, Dr. Fitch. As the church, isn’t our purpose to point people to Christ rather than to ourselves or our brand? But it seems to go right along with the multi-campus church approach that says, “I am the only one that can preach this well, or reach people effectively, so I and my teachings should be projected all over the city/country.” This is just an extension of the “cult of personality” that exists with celebrity pastors and popular churches. As a pastor of a small church in small town Iowa, I struggle every day with trying to lead our church in a way that points to God and not to me. Our churches have to do the same thing. Thanks.
Regan,
I’ve been thinking a lot about the multi-campus model as I am embedded within a community that is doing some of that. In general I’m quite uncomfortable with a video venue.
However, if the video venue de-centers the sermon as the locus of the service, and the service is re-centered on God-in-communitas, then it might be a great thing… in certain contexts. There may be multiple ways to “do the same thing”.
I’d love your thoughts on the matter, Regan.
Henry,
My understanding of communitas is that it is the result of a shared right of passage that is the point of unity/community. Baptism and communion are things that come to my mind first in that regard for Christ followers. Would you consider hearing the same pastor as a right of passage, or is your angle on communitas different?
Henry,
I think my struggle with the multi-campus model is that it seems that we can’t trust God to raise up leaders and pastors in a given context so we just beam a good preacher to that venue. Don’t you think that if God is guiding the planting of a church, He is also smart enough to plan for leadership? And leadership that is immersed in the context and needs of the people? I don’t think it’s an issue of whether your main focus is on the sermon or not. Jesus’ model was to pour into his closest friends and then send them out to build His Church. And while Paul certainly went from place to place – a bit of a celebrity preacher himself, it seems – he established local church pastors and leaders to actually teach and shepherd the people.
And as in the issue of church branding, the ministry becomes all about the founding church or pastor rather than Jesus. (Or at least it comes across that way.) I don’t imagine at all that these churches are intending for this, but it’s dangerous nonetheless. Even Paul had to continually remind people that the Gospel wasn’t his, but Jesus’.
Of course, I may be way off, but this is my perception.
As someone who long ago left the folds of Modern American Evangelicalism, this is a.) not surprising, b.) sad and c.) ridiculous. (I’m Eastern Orthodox)
The fact that the American evangelical church is even having such discussions is a commentary on how far away from the understanding of true 1st Century Christianity it truly is.
“branding,” “missional,” “authentic” …
Recover your roots, my brothers and sisters. Come home.
While Mars Hills certainly could have handled this without such a heavy hand, I don’t find “branding” to necessarily be a swear word. I belong to a mainline church that has an identifiable logo. When an independent church, one that does not share the same theology or missional outlook, starts using that logo it is confusing to church and non-church people who wonder what the heck is going on or assumes we have gone in another direction.
Who we are or how we represent Christ to the world does not stop or start with a logo or name…but sometimes it sure gives us and others a clue as to who we are and how we represent Christ to the world.
I agree with cesie. I can understand the necessity to make sure folks are not confused between churches as part of our calling is to “guard the doctrine” given to us by God. My church is called “grassroots” and we disappoint people sometimes that we don’t serve marijuana as a sacrament, which is a “church” around here. I would not be stoked to find out that a marijuana church named “grassroots” started up down to street. confusion.
From Seth Godin: http://bit.ly/2TE540
“If we define brand as a shortcut for a set of commercial attributes, emotions, stories, whatever, then any blogger with a following has a brand.”
Are you a brand, Dave?
Godin continues:
“There’s a difference between brands and branding. Brands exist whether you want them to or not. Brands aren’t going to go away any time soon. Brands are a useful shorthand for a complicated asset within an organization. Branding, on the other hand, is a thing you do.”
Branding goes way back, wouldn’t you say? I think of Acts 9:2 (“the Way”) and Acts 11:26 (“the disciples were first called Christians”). I don’t think we should think of branding as biblical or anti-biblical, missional or anti-missional. I think it is part of practical methodology. What led you to the name Life on the Vine? Were you trying to convey certain attributes and a story? Isn’t that branding? What would you do if a big Mormon church formed in Palatine and called themselves Life on the Vine?
Chad Smith
I suggest you go back and read the summary paragraph eh? Where I explicitly acknowledge the need to identify, name a “public” presence, something I’ve talked before on this blog about and some missional types have pushed back on me (naively I’m convinced). So I am not dneying any of what you’re talking about. Instead, I am nuancing what happens when you go beyond naming something out of a local expression … to do the three things I have described above.
As for my blog, am I attracting consumers?, no. This may indeed happen, but I am writing to spur on a particular movement of people alot of whom I know interpresonally. Am I competing? no, hardly. With whom? Am I crossing cultural boundaries? maybe. And so you may have a point on this last one except that I would suggest that I am pushing for means of contextuallization as opposed to doing things in ways that work against it ..
peace bro …
Your summary is what I was speaking to. Branding is something you intentionally do. So when you say “we need to name churches, we need to make them identifiable…we need a public presence” you are saying we need to engage in branding. I guess your point regarding what Mars Hill Seattle did is whether we should defend our branding. In light of what Tim Good said in reply to my comment about the Antioch believers being branded “Christians”, if they were to send C&D letters to other believers that began calling themselves Christians, that would look silly. But again, that’s the difference between a brand (which occurs whether you’re intentional or not) and branding (which is intentional).
I meant to write “is what I am speaking to”. Bad grammar. Sorry.
Does Holy Scripture or Holy Tradition say that it was the disciples who called themselves Christian? I don’t think that that’s the case…
I should have said “Brands go way back”
If the Christians in Antioch started sending C&D letters to “Christians” in other towns to stop using their name… that would be this level of branding.
Mark 9:38 recounts an occasion when the disciples wanted to send a “cease and desist” message to someone who was using the Jesus brand to cast out demons.
Perhaps there’s a reasonable difference between something having a name to make it *identifiable* in the public realm (such as church or denomination names, even names for larger movements like “missional” or “Eastern Orthodox”), versus to make it an ownable *identity*? (Is that what the Summary paragraph in your post is trying to get at, Dr. Fitch?) Seems like the former is to create a permeable boundary so you know what you’re getting into when you go in, while the latter is to create a rigid boundary to keep what’s ours inside and keep the intruders away.
But I also understand that several entities using the same name can be messy and there can be legit issues to work out. (I seem to recall this happening in the 1970s/’80s where one particular “church” was eventually labeled as a cult while a church with the same or very similar name mistakenly picked up flak from what the cult-church did.)
I’m not for “identity theft” or “spiritual plagiarism,” but neither am I for a brand new kind of “name-it-and-claim-it” practice that asserts exclusive domain rights over something that should be public access. It just seems so wrong …
Maybe a time will come when we need to forsake a name for the sake of the Name?
I am intrigued by this discussion about branding and missiology, etc. I ask seriously. Do all these words help? Do they mean anything? Does this discussion bear any resemblence to historic Christianity?
P.S. “Eastern Orthodoxy” is not a “movement.” It has never been a “movement”, other than the original gaggle of Christ-followers as they set about building His Church, the Bride, as He instructed here on Earth (starting with that first Bishop James).
Perhaps Eastern Orthodoxy could at least be considered, then, as a “movement of the Holy Spirit” through the footsteps of Bishop James.
If you reject my use of “movement” in a social/cultural sense for Eastern Orthodoxy, I’m okay with that. If it is what you call home and invite us into, then your own usage of the term still holds some semblance of an insider/outsider approach, and wouldn’t that mean that the words we are wrestling to understand do have meaning?
That is a very fair and interesting response. I graduated from a well-known Evangelical university, grew up in a Baptist household and spent most of my 20′s as a confused Protestant Christian.
I still subscribe to magazines such as Christianity Today, and much like here, I am intrigued by the dialogues and the questions, in part because they are no longer my questions. But they are still asked and discussed by members of my family and members of my friends. I just don’t understand them any longer.
Discussions about things like “branding,” “missional” “ecclesial colonialism” confuse me because while I used to worry about such things, I no longer do. I don’t need to because I have a specific task to accomplish – to work out my own salvation in fear and trembling. I ask questions, not to make any uncomfortable or to be an a$$, but just to know.
We are called to follow Christ in order to be saved, i.e. to recover the image of God within us. Any discussion that helps with that process is cool with me. And I didn’t mean to hijack the thread or interlope. Wandered over from Facebook and it looked like fun.
RSG – my journey may have taken me into even wider sojourns than yours; reared mainline Protestant but at a time when God’s grace was more central than the social gospel. And then born-again, fundamentalist, dominionist, evangelicalist, conservativist, baptist, etceterist. With dabs and dashes of studies and experiences into a range of other “branches” within “Christianitree” – mystic and monastic, classic liturgical anglican and orthodox, etc.
I’m not sure there is a specific “home” for a mystic, holistic, ana-baptistic who seeks to be Spirit-led without being Charismatic/Pentecostal; who seeks for some kind of covenant and rule and rhythm to life that gives shape to community without being legalistic/abusive/cultic; that encourages personal transformation toward Christlikeness in the context of community; and that is multicultural, cross-cultural, intercultural. I, likewise, don’t exactly fit modern American Evangelicalism, but I’m also trying to figure out where I do fit.
Like everyone, I’ve been created and “wired” to (among many other things) pursue making sense of the world I’m observing, and my/our redemptive place within it. I keep searching and wrestling, and words and concepts are a part of that. I’m trying to differentiate things that matter (or, at least, that matter to me). I’ve opted out of certain questions, satisfied with either the answer or impasse I already came to, and choose instead to invest in other questions and issues that seem to be driving me. Which at this point seem to deal mostly with the fragmentation of Christendom and reformulation of new integrations from the chards … hopefully some of them ending up far more holistic and culture-current while still being culture-resistant when necessary.
And I didn’t see your comments as distracting – they’re part of the whole dialogue. Your point about being labeled “christians” is very relevant. To quote the famous filosopher (okay, so it was Dana Carvey), “To label me is to ignore me.” But accepting God’s names/labels and self-labeling along His lines has been an important part of being disciples. Could “branding” as being talked about here be a misuse of self-labeling?
And the question of roots is relevant. You may feel fine being setting at the roots in Eastern Orthodoxy. I feel like I’m trying to jump on a stream of sap that’s moving, and is budding and about to burst into a 21st-century branch. I can’t totally help where I am in the tree, but that’s where my journey is taking me …
Brad/futuristguy: You said “I’m not sure there is a specific “home” for a mystic, holistic, ana-baptistic who seeks to be Spirit-led without being Charismatic/Pentecostal; who seeks for some kind of covenant and rule and rhythm to life that gives shape to community without being legalistic/abusive/cultic; that encourages personal transformation toward Christlikeness in the context of community; and that is multicultural, cross-cultural, intercultural.”
You are describing my home in Orthodoxy. I talk about it a bit on my blog (linked to my name). That, sir, is exactly what I found in the Ancient Church. I pray God continues to richly bless your journey, wherever it leads you.
The only pushback I’d offer is that your three reasons tend to assume only *some* of the results of paying attention to unique public perception – and the more problematic ones at that (going after other Christians and seeking a supra-contextual name). No doubt the desire would always be attractional to some degree (though arguably no more in principle than what you assume when you argue for churches having names), but of course attractional is designed to attracts non-followers as well as disgruntled followers. There is “evangelistic” potential in the whole enterprise, for better and/or worse. And the same is true with the argument about decontextualizes. Could one not easily respond, “Um, not necessarily.” Brands work locally as much as extra-locally.
I’m not saying you don’t have legit concerns, but the way you present them goes after some of the more easily questionable consequences of branding and implicitly suggests that questioning these aspects calls into question the whole thing.
No?
yeah, Michael, so admittedly blog writing “gets to the point” rather quickly. But as with Chad Smith’s comment above and my pushback on him, there is a nuancing here that is required that I am suggesting when naming identifying a political presence in the neighborhood. When it crosses these certain lines, i.e. when a cease and desist order is required several hundred miles away, I suggest the whole naming process has devolved into a branding which is inherently anti-missional. The good things you talk about I suggest are constrained to the local “naming” that goes on in order to testify to God’s works in a neighborhood.
Thanks for the comment!!
Dave -
I think you’re already getting this criticism a bit, but I do think you’re are over-drawing branding.
Branding is a means of identity-making and story-telling in a clear, concise, and compelling way. You seem to be saying that you want to make a nuanced distinction, but it reads to me more sledgehammer than scalpel.
I can agree that consumerism (point 1), market competition (point 2), and decontextualization (point 3) are anti-missional. I can’t follow you that branding necessarily indicates these.
- chris
Yeah Chris,
…..
but this from a guy who wants to start a Facebook church
I agree and disagree. I do think that it is in a church’s best interest to differentiate itself from other churches with questionable or even distinctly different theology. Case in point: the Mars Hill Graduate School in Seattle is changing its name to avoid confusion and separate itself a little because it is more liberal tha MHC. But branding to the point that you need a PR team, etc, is a little much to me. But MHC makes all its resources available for free or cheaply, which is pretty awesome and risky.
Was it really the branding that was the anti-missional act…or, rather, the exhibited behavior (the airing of the dirty laundry in fighting over the brand)?
Churches using brands are not marketing to the Christian world alone…they are generally attempting to reach into the community at large, non-Christians included.
In this fast-paced, online world of non-Christians and Christians alike, (who according to studies have a collective attention span of 3-7 seconds)…what would be the solution, beyond a brand visual…you would offer to communicate a sense of the culture a seeker might find at your church?
I would not dismiss the usefulness of thoughtfully, wisely and prayerfully using a brand to communicate the heart of a church community to a world that absorbs information through recognized visuals…and one with very short attention spans.
Donna,
do you believe that non Christians, do you know and talk with any people outside of the gospel (who have not before or are not in churches or in any other way particpating in the gospel), who would know or recognize what Mars Hill could mean? as a point if instant focus?
I find it incredulous to think (generally speaking) that everyday folk who live outside of Christ would have any recongition in this symbol? I’m sure there a few instances where non Christians could recognize culturally what Mars Hill would stand for. But where? I’m not talking Dallas TX, these non Christians generally don’t exist. Right?
David, I couldn’t agree more.
I think some of the misunderstanding that’s coming up in the comments is that you’re attacking branding as an outworking of ecclesial colonialism. The deeper crisis here, that I’m hearing you rebuke, is empire-building a’la Acts 29 and others.
If that’s the case, then this is not about anything in particular about the theologies of of those empires. You’re not just finding another excuse to lob a grenade at Driscoll.
Branding is worrisome because it’s part of colonialism, which doesn’t let stakeholders be decision-makers. It’s part of a hub-and-spoke way of organizing religion that doesn’t take “the local” seriously enough, doesn’t understand the nuances of where the rubber meets the road. Brand aggression is just an outworking of that.
In one of your questions at the beginning of the post, you asked: “Is branding a sign that the branded church has now morphed from being a participant in God’s Mission to now becoming a builder of a church empire?”
This question gets to the heart of what I believe is wrong. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is God’s promise of victory. It is God’s promise that his mission, his kingdom, and his people will not be defeated, for the decisive battle of battles has already been waged and won by God. Therefore what God has accomplished needs no defense by secular means.
Thus, it seems that if we, as Christians and churches, must resort to civil and legal action to protect something, we can most certainly be assured that what we are attempting to protect is kingdom (or as you say, “empire”) other than God’s.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
I think it depends on how you define branding.
It’s very specific in marketing jargon, as in:
http://www.marketingpower.com/_layouts/Dictionary.aspx?dLetter=B
By that definition… naming a church carefully, making it identifiable and supporting that with certain ideas connected with God’s presence and power would qualify as branding as defined above.
If you mean something else, it might help to better define the term or subset of branding that you find to be the heart of the issue here.
Three additional thoughts:
1) If you step back from branding for a second, if the use of graphic design, font, tone, etc… (all of which are present in the blog article) to communicate well to the people God wants you to touch is ok… then it seems to me that those facets of communication are an aspect of our culture that provides us an opportunity to speak to our community in a culturally relevant way. Paul was a jew to the jew, a greek to the greek… and in the same way I think a Christian in our culture could use the form of marketing communication as a effective tool to connect with people in our culture.
Jesus spoke in parables, using contemporary images that His audience could understand. Graphic design and some techniques of communication that also are used in marketing and branding can be the same kind of thing – and used for the same reason, to connect with people well.
I don’t think it is necessary that these things are bad.
2) The biggest issue here in my mind would be the lack of biblical counsel related to resolving conflict. Per Matthew 18, they have a path to follow – talk to them, get third parties involved, appeal to church leaders in turn. And in Corinthians Paul tells us not to sue other Christians pretty directly.
That was alarming and I’m glad to hear things have resolved in a positive way.
3) Your first two points seem to be the same issue, competition with other churches, which I would agree is certainly not a biblical value and I would even agree that decontextualization is something that would be a detriment to authentic ministry. Holding that above loving people in the way they need to be loved would be a miss in my opinion. Don’t do that… I completely agree.
But what about competition with spiritual apathy? Or kid’s sports leagues on Sunday morning? Or any of the thousand other very present messages that inundate all of us every week? The message of the gospel in that context is very much in competition with other messages that are antithetical to it.
My disagreement would be with the idea that you can completely get away from this in our culture. The decision NOT to brand in these specific ways, as such, would communicate a counter-cultural decision in the midst of a media rich and over-communicated world and would in itself be a way of communicating what you find important. A non-Christian marketing guy would call that your brand.
Not to be mean, but it seems to me that the phrase “missional” carries with it a set of ideas and perception… and if it isn’t branding directly, it certainly is performing a similar role in the soup of ideas that are currently swirling.
reminds me of this post back in 2004 about purpose driven life and copyrights.
http://marcsmessages.typepad.com/mm/2004/07/40_days_of_purp.html
United Methodists are pretty picky about the cross and flame emblem. Here is their rationale http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=3206
My basic question is why would I want to be derivative in my presentation of my community to the world…
I find it interesting in this thread that there seems to be a consistent assumption that the exponentially growing majority of unchurched North Americans care one bit what we name a church or that there are any doctrinal differences across the various groups and denominations that are worthy of three seconds reflection. I think not.
This branding discussion–regardless of how one defines the word–is symptomatic of and a window into three deeper and infinitely more problematic issues.
First, it helps us see how deeply the institutional church is intertwined with a consumer mindset. Consumerism is a fundamental assumption in the attractional model, and as such, can never form a majority of its followers to live non-self-absorbed spiritual lives.
Second, this issue helps us see how far out of step many Christians are with their changing world. The institutional church hasn’t gained numerical ground in the US for how many decades? At what point do we admit that the current methodology for “reaching” our own nation (the christendom notion of church planting and attracting people in to our organizational influence, because people will recognize their spiritual need and intuit that we have the answer) simply doesn’t work?
Third, this helps us see that answers to the dilemma of reaching our world may lie outside our cultural box. Most of us, myself included, grew up believing that the only legitimate way to establish the church’s presence in a given locale was to start an organization that would eventually hold meetings on Sunday mornings. Our dogged persistence in using this failed model highlights the depth of this assumption. If we are truly compelled by the missio dei, then why not think and live outside of what is demonstrably broken?
Finally, where is the rule that says a group of dedicated Christ-followers has to have a name? What is it that we have to protect? If John 13:34 is still in effect, then let people call us what they want. I don’t have to put a marketing spin on this bad boy known as “agape.”
Bob,
three good questions … I think this issue of naming, or forming an identity, is a way of identifying the manifestation of a political way of life in a cultural context. It helps proclaim the mighty works of God (helps people outside of the community locate it as part of what God is doing). This deserves a much longer post … but this is what I see happening for example, when followers of Christ began being idenitified as “the Way” in Acts.
Having said all that, the process of naming, should come after a long process of on the ground contextual nurturing of community by which a name might make sense – not a name that is put forth on billboards to attract somethings around a single man’s idea.
I redcognbize that mishandled, tgis can become a disaster, so this is not the first time I have blathered but the antimissional nature of branding.
peace
Great post Dave. As always pushing us to think about the unintended consequences of things we take for granted. As a pastor and someone who just planted a church a few years ago, I know the tension you’re pushing toward well. We talked a lot about the dangers of branding and marketing when we first started and wrestled with how to proceed. If you name your church, create a logo, make a website or create any printed materials you’ve already taken some steps down the branding/marketing road. The tension is how far to go in feeding or reinforcing the brand and marketing your church. I don’t know if there is an absolute line that should not be crossed, or if there is a line, where exactly it is. I think your points above are good warnings that with each step down the branding marketing road you become more consumerist/attractional, more competitive with other churches in your community, and in the case of aligning with known national churches or networks, more decontextualized.
I was forwarded your article and since this whole nasty business of ‘branding’ is my work and my passion (aside from living a faith in Christ) – I am compelled by that same Spirit to add a whole additional facet to the discussion. Having been at this for 25 years and done work for both global commercial brands and countless mission-driven organizations, I hope my POV will add something of value.
First, I do not attend nor do I subscribe to anything the Seattle-based Mars Hill Church does or ever has. Second, I understand the special point of view that a ministry brand is somehow different from other communications – sorry, they are not and if you are running an organization with a mission, then the brand is part of it.
The World we live in now is one where geography is no longer pertinent to most communications – the web and mass of instantly forwarded blip-information through social media accelerates communications in a crude and non-descriminate way. Let me give you an example – let’s say a pastor or staff at the Sacramento church is arrested for incest or some less heinous but un-Christlike behavior. Search engines will pick-up that story based on the fact the he/she worked at “Mars hill church” without any specific delineation of who they are or which “church” might be involved. It would be 100% logical for a non-interested party to assume they are connected based solely on the name of the institution they choose to serve through in order to serve the Lord. Someone picks up the Tweet that “a pastor at Mars Hill was arrested for…” and whoever is unfortunate enough to share that “brand” is just about to hear that loud flushing sound just overhead.
Also note that the local “school of theology” up here in Seattle (formerly Mars Hill Theological Seminary) also went through just such an exercise to distance themselves from any potential erroneous, confusing or limiting connection to the church – a smart move, although their solution is an absolute horror – that’s another topic.
Another example – would World Vision allow someone else in some other part of the world to call themselves the same thing? How about Fuller Theological Seminary, or Willow Creek Church, or Denver Rescue Mission, or Save the Children – I think not – at least if they care about their respect in the community, the culture of their employees and volunteers, and their future.
If you do not create and carefully manage that perception and act in accordance with the promise you want it to stand for, someone else will do it for you – on purpose or by negative association.
Bravo to the concern for their brand – boo to their method, but that’s just stupid management.
Are brands, even “ministry brands” worth protecting – NOW what do you think?
DAN
Dan,
I think you have a point to a degree. I say to “a degree” only because yes, we should probably watch how we are associated with certain organizations too readily. Inter-web etc. communications does make this more complicated.
Where I think we differ is, you say “The World we live in now is one where geography is no longer pertinent to most communications” Well this common standard account of things is not how some of us see it. For those of us in political theory, we’re seeing that perception turn in on itself … Those powers, those forces need to be subverted, not participarted in, because to do so perpetuates various other forces not germain or even oposed to the work of the Kingdom.
One of the biggest problems with those organizations you mention is they transcend the local in such a way as to become subservient to other market, political, and just plain socio-economic forces. I see no reason to go managing a wider immage, or false perceptions of yourself … if you’re dedicated to local relatiionships and the work of on the ground contextualzied reconciliation, justice and proclaiming the gospel. I see no reason my you would want to preserve a brand.
So … humbly … I disagree .. at least at this point DF
Dave:
I hate to point this out, but the text style and graphics of your book, The End of Evangelicalism?, mimic almost to a “T” the graphics and text layouts of Mars Hill Church publications that were published well before yours. Seems that a savvy lawyer could make the case that you borrowed your “branding” from them, minus the trademark circled M, of course. What say you?
Theo .. are you a lawyer?
Lots of good thoughts and ideas. I only wonder (from the Mars Hill Church perspective) that they feared the worse. I mean, if a group that does things like Westboro Baptist began and engaged in very non-Biblical type protests and other extremely offensive and objective behavior, would someone be concerned if Westboro changed their name to be the same as another church.
I realize that could very well be the worst case scenario, but if the good and upright church with good staff doing God’s work and seeking His mission was suddenly being torn down, discredited and under attack from an adverse group seeking to hurt what God is doing through this other group… well, I’d be pretty concerned if I (as the good and noble group) had little to no recourse to distance myself from their actions.
We wouldn’t want photos of people engaged in “Westboro” style behavior with OUR church name on it if we believe the WBC behaviors are not embraced by our local fellowship.
And I don’t know that for fact, but if it could happen it would be an alarm and cause for concern.
Since I wrote “Branding Faith,” which was the first book on branding for churches and nonprofits, I thought I might jump into this conversation….
(I’ve also ready your book “The Great Giveaway.”) Your post is very thoughtful, and to be honest, I wrestle with these questions every day of my life. But while I agree the Mars Hill situation may have been handled better, I’m not ready to discount the role a brand plays – particular when it comes to engaging people in today’s remarkably distracted, cluttered culture.
A “brand” isn’t necessarily the evil most people think – truthfully, it’s simply a perception, and in today’s world of unlimited choices, our initial perceptions matter. In your own case, your book covers, your blog – even the name “reclaiming the mission” are all created to help people understand who you are and what your mission is. It helps define your “brand.” It may indeed be “consumerist,” but it helps people connect with you more effectively.
There are places where competition simply happens. Your publishers knew that there would be many titles at a bookstore, so your cover designs matter. It’s no different for a message on Christian media, or a website. UK researchers indicate that we’re being bombarded with as many as 5,000 media messages a day, so the gospel message can easily get lost in that tidal wave of competition.
Finally – even with churches – I’m not sure if it’s simply a matter of stealing people from other churches. I live in Los Angeles, where tens of thousands move in and out every day. Many are looking for a church that preaches the appropriate message, fits their family needs, matches their doctrine, and more. Plus, many people were raised in the faith and have drifted, so if they start looking seriously again, they’re looking for these distinctions. So it’s not always just an issue of competing for other believers – it’s about sharing your church’s story in the community.
The truth is, I understand your frustration and agree with much of what you say. Branding should not become a religion of it’s own, and that’s the mistake so many churches and nonprofits make. I would be the first to stand with your call to act more humbly, and resist the corporate mindset so many church leaders have adopted.
But we all do have a unique story to tell.
Either way, I’m grateful for your post, and always appreciate the opportunity to continue the discussion about sharing Christ in today’s media-driven culture.
By the way – if we drop the word “branding,” then let’s also drop “missional.” I think that’s becoming way to overused.
But how are you supposed make sure everyone knows that you’re the right kind of Christian and they’re the wrong type!
Good thoughts Dave. Marketing one’s church to other Christians always makes me a bit queasy.
But the contrarian in me wonders aloud, “Has ‘missional’ become a brand?”
Believers moving into our city have found our church from google searches that turned up the word missional (or other words that mattered to them) appearing on our website.
Granted, a word appearing on a website falls short of the kind of branding efforts a multisite church might engage in, but isn’t it a deliberate form of marketing all the same? Isn’t this merely a difference in scale, not in type?
Tim, you’d be amused to know that there’s a church up here in Portland that has a sandwich board outside where they meet that says “a missional community”. Which, in and of itself, is so grindingly against what the missional posture is about! Using “missional” in your sub-header is branding to insiders, not outsiders.
I suppose, though, that that kind of insider jargon is legit for websites, as they’re really “brochures” for the community, as opposed to a reader board outside a building.
Tim, Brandon,
I’ve been arguing that “Missional” can become and has become for many just another “brand” to mark off one church over against another church that is not “missional.” I’ve used the language of a “master-signifier” in this regard. Just like anything that can have substance and meaning when grounded in concrete practice, but when turned into a concept to gather a people in atractional mode, itworks against (ironically) the very thing it was meant to describe in the first place.
To you all.. I say “amen” … and this leads to the need to continually force the conversation to on the ground working out in the flesh life practice of being “in Christ.”
Thanks for the commenst
Thanks for this discussion….
I think the issue becomes the difference between church the institution and church the organism. Organisms tend to adapt to their surroundings. Institutions try to force their “brand” on their surroundings. We’re the Body of Christ in a given locale where ever we worship and whatever the configuration. It adapts to personal needs and issues rather than the idea that we have to conform to someone’s particular view. I’ve seen too many people hurt by the “get with the program or find somewhere else to worship” mentality. We make room for one another.
Luvyawerk….
Wow, I am really shocked at the branding positive comments here. As someone looking in from the outside I keep thinking “only in America”. Keep on keeping at the church in America David!
This is a lot of responses, and maybe I’ll come back tomorrow and read them, but as a trademark attorney who has represented several multi-site mega-churches in trademarks, the issue is the same as in secular business: source confusion and what will the other party do to damage the brand. I suppose with churches it would be that the other place puts out some crazy stuff that gets mistaken associated with the original (e.g., Rob Bell vs. Mark Driscoll, and vice versa). Usually churches aren’t aggressive, and seek advice from attorneys and handle it themselves, which I’ve seen happen twice. But with the mega-church business model, branding is an inherent outcome IMO.
For a smaller church like LOTV, I suppose if a new church opened in Barrington or Buffalo Grove naming itself LOTV, the original would just keep on going or change its name. The name change may be more desirable if the new church picketted soldier’s funerals, for example.
It does seem like some churches specifically rebrand to spread, like the Orchard in AH, which is perhaps missional in an attractional sort of way.
And Dr. Fitch’s use of Mars Hill’s logo is likely a fair use (but legal ethics compel me to tell you this is not legal advice and this does not mean I represent you, or any affiliated organization, in any manner).
[...] More on the Mars Hill trademark issue from David Fitch, who feels that branding is “the ultimate anti-missional act.” [...]
[...] of which, I really liked what David Fitch had to say recently in a post he made about branding as the ultimate anti-missional act. Seems very related to this [...]
[...] I was somewhat staggered to learn that one of the many Mars Hill Churches in the US had ordered another church of the same name to stop calling themselves ‘Mars Hill’ as it is in breach of copyright! Good grief, as if the Church didn’t have some real problems to address in this world. The problem has been resolved, but it is still worth reading David Fitch’s superb commentary on the issue. [...]
[...] Here is an excerpt from an article that was quite disconcerting to me - Reclaiming the Mission » The Mars Hill Seattle “Cease and Desist” Letter: Why Branding Is the U…: [...]
[...] of which, I really liked what David Fitch had to say recently in a post he made about branding as the ultimate anti-missional act. Seems very related to this struggle. Share [...]