You can’t be the urban church and the rural church.
You can’t be the men-friendly church and the women-friendly church.
You can’t be the advocate and the antagonist.
You can’t be the funny preacher and the serious preacher.
You can’t be the one-site church and the many-locations church.
You can’t be the Lutheran church and the Baptist church.
You can’t be the hipster church and the church for people who need hips.
Well, you could attempt to be all these things at once, but it won’t work.
Pick one.
And be the best in your community at it.
You can do other things too, but they must support your primary cause, not compete with it.
Pick one.
b/
June 10, 2009
Seems like a new trend is to polarize everything. I’m all about vision and mission and having people move in a common direction, (and I’ll agree that Jesus was a polarizing figure). But, He ministered to outcasts with leprosy, extremely rich tax collectors, prostitutes, alchy’s, other rabbis, etc. Seems to me he never changed his mode. Just loved people when and where they needed to be loved.
He ministered in Jerusalem and in the outskirt villages.
He loved Lazarus and the woman in Samaria.
He was advocate for the poor and antagonist to the pharisees.
He loved playing with little children but was dead serious on the boat with the 12 apostles.
just thoughts though…
Daniel Ems
June 10, 2009
I wholeheartedly disagree with this, and I think it is an incorrect view of the purpose of the local church. The local church should be specific to its physical location (i.e. you can’t be a rural church in the middle of NYC), but it should reach out to all in that area. Thank God that Jesus didn’t just reach out to 30-something Jewish males! He ministered to men, women, children, widows, rich, poor, etc. without exception. A local church MUST by God’s grace be many things at the same time.
Aaron Jackson
June 10, 2009
I would have to agree, although I can understand the points that others made. We’ve got to define what God called our church to do. Did God call me to be a ‘hipster’ church? Great, and if He did, then trying to make a “traditional” service work would probably be a waste of time. What is the vision God gave the Pastor for the church? Not all good things will fit into that vision. To me, it’s all about making the best use of our time and resources. Great post, Brad.
b/
June 10, 2009
Agreed Aaron.
Just seems like we speak in absolutes and with polarizing statements too much.
Go for the vision and be who you are, but not to the detriment of “well, I can’t reach those people, that’s not who I’m called to reach.”
Geoff in CT
June 10, 2009
I’m thinking you can bridge SOME of these, but certainly not all of them at once, and it helps if the focus is sharp.
For example, we’re a rural church in a small village that serves a congregation made up of both local residents whose families have been here forever, and weekenders and retirees from the large New York City parishes who are new here.
But we do have to work on bridging that gap ALL the time in terms of such things as scheduling activities (particularly for kids), and quality/sophistication of music.
Chad W Smith
June 10, 2009
You are being overly simplistic here. And, I believe, unbiblical.
Churches aren’t like designer shoes. You don’t need a different church for every occassion. “Church” in the Bible is compared to a body, a building, and a family. In all those comparisons – it’s made up of a lot of different parts. (“If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?”)
You can – you MUST – minister to men and women (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”). You can – you MUST minister to people from all walks of life (“For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. “) And all ages (“Let no man despise thy youth” – “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity. Honour widows that are widows indeed. “)
“But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.”
Before you say “You can’t be all things to all people” – that’s *exactly* what Paul did – and he’s just one man. The church, made up of many Christians with just as powerful a God as Paul had, should be able to do this much more effectively.
1 Corinthians 9:19-23 – For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
Katherine
June 10, 2009
I am so glad that people have spoken up against this ridiculous and yes, unbiblical load of hooey.
I’ve been a lurker here for awhile, despite my ambivalence about your approach. Many of your posts are valid and helpful, but this is the proverbial straw for me. I’m officially an unsubscriber.
Rick Wilson
June 10, 2009
What’s lost in the discussion so far is the essential brand question – “Who are you that nobody else is?” Without that knowledge, churches are as lost as anyone without a community identity.
Paul was a traveling apostle who started lots of churches in many neighborhoods. He understood that different communities looked at culture from a different grid and he knew that you had to get into their heads to know how they perceived messages. As an ad guy – I worked with people who knew how to “micro target” picture the customer/congregant before they came in the door. This is invaluable and should be a required exercise for every church!
Howie Luvzus
June 10, 2009
The world may try to divide us into “market segments” I’m happy that Jesus didn’t see the world that way. His inclusiveness and the inclusiveness of the early church was very compelling.
We need to quit trying to “do church” like persons run businesses.
Josh
June 10, 2009
I agree with some but for sure not all. Funny and serious preacher? I know plenty, they’re more effective because they have both. Others are more obvious like the urban/rural. Provocative post that generates some great thought, that’s why you’re here!
Brad Abare
June 10, 2009
Wow, I’ve obviously done a great job at communicating very poorly with this post. Forgive me everyone!
The point I’m trying to make is that churches (a local community of people) should not attempt to be everything to everybody. I am all for meeting the needs of the community, but it’s got to be in line with the specific calling of God—presumably defined by the very people that make-up the church.
I am NOT suggesting you have to minister only to men or only to women or only to kids or only to homeless or only to rich people.
I am suggesting that there is a unique purpose your church community has for the community you’re in. THAT is what all other ministry efforts should revolve around.
Robert Lane
June 10, 2009
“To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” -1 Corinthians 9:22
Geoff
June 10, 2009
Well, after reading the article I was going to be critical. After reading the comments, I feel like I should defend Brad here – there’s some pretty strong reactions. I think that the key message coming out both in the post and in some of the comments here is that as the church we need to be clear on what our calling is.
But I think we want to be very very aware of the calling of the Global Church as well as the local church, when we consider who we are called to be. And I think that lots of the time the “call” is less about who we are called to market to, and more about who we are called to be in our community.
Don’t know if that all made sense, but I would encourage a little bit of restraint in getting your nose put out of joint.
Rosemary
June 11, 2009
Dear Jesus:
You can’t be human AND God.
Well, you could attempt to be both of these things at once, but it won’t work.
Pick one.
****
All snideness aside, I actually do agree with the idea of NOT trying to be all things for all people. Different churches have different strengths. You should know who you are and embrace it.
EXAMPLE:
The church I work at has an EXCELLENT, high quality traditional music program. People come here for to hear great Bach and great organ. And that’s wonderful.
The church I attend is all about letting people be who they are. People show up in church wearing cutoffs and flipflops and no one blinks. And that’s wonderful.
Neither of these churches should try to be the other one. And they do best when they realize that not everyone will click with them, but for those that do, they are wonderful places of God to be.
Conner
June 11, 2009
I love this discussion and I’m so glad you brought it up. I agree with you.
At the end of the day people have to make human decisions about whether to moving graphics or a black slide for worship songs, send money to aid in foreign missions or help send their own students to camp, hire a Technical Director or Children’s Director. Not that any of those decisions are right or wrong, but they are appropriate or in alignment with one church’s vision or another. A church will have certain elements which are higher in priority because they cannot do all things for all people. What drives that should be their vision/strategy that moves things in the same direction. That occurs when you “choose one.” But that’s different for each church.
In my opinion.
David Castro
June 12, 2009
Positioning and Focus are two commonly used concepts to develop branding and marketing strategies that should always be considered by all churches and every other kind of non-profit organization. You can’t be everything to everyone. I recommend reading the classics from Ries and Trout or “Branding Faith” (Cooke).
Ian
June 12, 2009
The author’s viewpoint is appealing from a natural, logical viewpoint; it misapprehends, however, the nature of the work Christ died to establish on the earth. Bear with me for a moment, as this is going to take some explaining.
Humanity stands divided and isolated from one another and from God as a result of our sinful natures; by paying for our sins, Christ made it possible for those divisions and all of the hurts they bring to humanity to be healed. The role of the church (which is to say, the local assembly of believers) in God’s plan is to lift Christ up and maintain an environment wherein His grace and power are allowed to meet the needs of each person.
The reason your opinion draws such strong negative reactions is the very reason that (pardon my reference) Church Marketing Sucks: Marketing concepts such as demographic positioning and demographic focus are based on natural thinking and human wisdom that while logical and sensible to us is, as pointed out quite effectively by other posters before me, completely counter to the scriptural model of how the church should minister to the community. That is to say that the mode of thinking you are expressing–the one that says that the things that divide us from one another are insurmountable–is part of the very nature of the world that Christ came to change.
Now that sounds very good theory, but good theory is nothing with out real applicability, so let me make it practical to you. I work as a sound technician in a church of about 300 people (and growing) in the Houston, TX area. We have people in our main service ranging in age from 12 to 80+. We have men and women representing every walk of life in our community – every race, every upbringing, etc – sitting next to each other. Under circumstances which would be considered normal in society at large, each of us would have nothing in common with any of the others–no reason to even speak to them. We live in the Kingdom, however, and because of what God has done for us we have common ground upon which to come together. My explanation doesn’t really do it justice, but we are the evidence that if a local church remains in Christ, He will meet that most basic and ineffable need that resides in every human heart, and that is more powerful than anything that can be done with marketing.
Ian
June 12, 2009
Forgive my long-windedness. For those of you who just went TL:DR on me, let me sum up.
The specific calling of God for a given local church is not (as the author forgivably presumes in his comment above) defined by the people who attend it but rather by the Cross and how Christ’s sacrifice allows them to come together in unity.
Jon Allen
June 16, 2009
I get what you are trying to say, and I think to some degree you are right. Perhaps you used some examples that weren’t completely thought through. I know some people said that Jesus ministered to everyone around him effectively… which is true. Unfortunately the church isn’t Jesus and never will be.
Think about this though, if the church down the road is doing an extremely good job of reaching the hip-hop culture, should we focus on that group? Or would it be better to focus on the group that isn’t being effectively ministered to?
By the way, I am a funny preacher and a serious preacher all at the same time, and darn good at both. At least that’s what my mom tells me.
Michelle Castle
June 17, 2009
I appreciate Brad’s clarification. I agree that churches need to stick to their purpose. I attend both an inner city church and a suburban church, and it really wouldn’t be possible for one church to be both. However, I think the post went too far in advocating that churches stick to their specialty, whereas Paul tried to be all things to all men to save some. While that won’t work at a Donuts & Burgers shop, it has worked to a certain extent at the big box retailers like Walmart.
In addition to the narrowly-focused vision the original post seemed to advocate, I am bothered by it’s assertion that your church should aim to be the best in your community at your niche. Churches shouldn’t be competitors.
Jon
July 1, 2009
Sorry if this has already been said. I tried not to ‘TL:DR’ too much. :)
If the Church is several parts, we cannot expect the eyes to carry the pen or the feet to hear the songs. Each part has a specific purpose that all work together.
The local churches should work together, even if they never talk to each to other about it, to reach their part of the world.
Rosemary had a great example. Just on the music front, one church alone has a very hard time reaching across all styles. I do not believe one style is right while others are wrong and do not want to change this into an argument about style.
The point is there are things each congregation can do better than another. If we all built on our strengths, the kingdom would be far better off.
sheilab
July 12, 2009
When we are talking about church, I think we are really talking about (Sunday) services. Each group of christians forming a body of believers offers a Sunday service. I’m not exactly sure why because it seems to such a centre of debate. Sunday service is like a product at times. But the challenge is that believer in the group may want a different type of format for Sunday. And there the trouble begins. I agree with Brad because the focus should not be on us but on who we are trying to reach. Perhaps if we spent more time on other Jesus approved activities and less time on programming/ Sunday services, we might have less of a debate here about marketing.