I want to initiate some sort of discussion/reflection around the idea that we very quickly speak of/treat “God” as a product, as an object, as a “means”.
- There is anxiety in the West that the numbers in churches are dropping, and the average age is rising. God often appears in talk around such anxiety as one who will help us re-fill the pews. God, then, is the means – the filling of our pews is the real goal (including the future maintenance of our pretty building)…
- Peace, ethics, values, meaning, happiness, health, financial security,… are taken for granted as the goals of life. God is presented as the means to help us achieve our goal. WIIFM (“what’s in it for me?”) often dominates church “evangelism” with little to differentiate this from any secular advertising campaign.
- Churches are for ever trying to appear relevant and “with it” with ever-new programmes trying to package the “message” as if they are one more option competing for people’s leisure time, and God is merely another product on an ever-expanding market.
You must be able to think of other points along this line… I’m sure I have also been similarly guilty… What do you think?…
Some denominations even talk of ‘branding’ – and the subsequent desire to move away from ecuminism as they look to bolster their own ‘market share’.
I still go cycling on a Sunday morning…
Yes, Mike. There is even that attitude within a denomination. Treating the different “ethos” of parishes, and even service-styles within a parish, as if they were different types of supermarkets “meeting the spiritual needs” of different types of personalities. Blessings.
Hi Bosco
When you frame the matter in that way, there is a discussion to be had, for indeed few of us, certainly not me, are innocent of trying to (say) advertise Christmas services without falling into the traps you alert us to.
But I like such discussions to also include discussion of why, when God is not a product, many churches, our own Anglican one included, even without advertising, effectively convey a message about God which seems to be tied up with old buildings, graveyards, special ways of singing which are no longer part of popular culture, vicars dressing in ways stemming from hundreds of years ago. In that tie up we may not quite make God a ‘product’ but do we make God ‘an historical artefact’ or a ‘relic of a bygone era’. Which is better: to make an attempt to relate God to life as we aspire to live it (risking God as product) or to make no such attempt (risking God as relic)?
I think your comment will need a lot more “unpacking”, Peter. I think it should be a very simple thing for people to find out what time services are – so I’m not sure how making that information available online, in newspapers, etc. falls quickly into making God our product?
As to “ways of singing which are no longer part of popular culture” – firstly, I’m not too concerned if Christianity is counter-cultural, in fact I think there are positives to that. Secondly, unlike other cultures, NZ is very much a non-singing culture. So any singing at all, here, is contrary to our “popular culture”. To suggest that wearing a uniform somehow makes what we do a “relic” would mean that the same would apply to our court system, academia, our sporting traditions, etc. Why did you wear your academic robes the other day, clearly connecting your degree to the monastic origins of Western education? Is your degree seen as a relic with no connection to “popular culture”? Blessings.
Hi Bosco,
I do not think advertising service time says anything much per se about God as a ‘product’.
One point, to unpack it a little (you will appreciate that there is a lot to unpack on any framing of important conversations such as this), is that we may hang on for too long to (say) buildings which speak to the surrounding community a message about who the God is that we worship – a message which may be at cross-purposes with what actually happens inside the building in worship services. Of course costs of demolition and replacement have an inertia of their own … but as you and I know the earthquake destroying churches in Christchurch seems to be giving rise to people saying they do not want to build replicas of the previous building (exempting the cathedral for reasons of time and space from the discussion!!!).
While it is true that our culture is becoming a non-corporate singing culture, there is still plenty of music going on so when we sing in church there is a reasonable question to pose about the style of the music, what that decision says about who the God is that we worship and whether God is most pleased by worship through music that draws fewer rather than more people, whether the dynamics for mission are most helped by the constraints many choirs/music groups/song groups seem to place on development of church life.
Re robes. (1) I think these matters should be regularly discussed. Robes can assist worship and can impede worship, from context to context. To be frank, I question the judgement of some of my peers on some occasions (i.e. robes worn when they are unhelpful to the occasion; robes not worn when they would be helpful). (2) Robes worn at a school prizegiving by staff and board represent something about the ‘product’ of education. They might symbolise the combined learned competency of staff and board in the context of a school transitioning many of its pupils through to tertiary education (the only sector which bestows garments as part of the achievement of its qualifications). In turn the gowns and academic regalia reach back into the beginnings of the universities in Europe. (3) What do robes worn in church represent? Christ himself? The beginnings of Christianity (which left no particular imprint on history as to distinctive Christian garb)? Early Latin Christianity? Medieval Christianity? Modern interpretations of medieval Christianity? There are many questions to discuss about robes in the context of discussing the extent to which anything we do in church may turn God into a ‘product’ (or ‘God’ into a product). (4) Further I find an evolving trend in robes which contradict the basic reason for wearing robes. That reason is that we make the person who is deacon or priest or bishop as anonymous as possible in order that Christ might be made visible. But what do we increasingly see in (say) the wearing of stoles? Individual fashion statements! Well, I would least like to ask the question whether that is what is the trend? Chasubles and cloaks represent larger canvases on which to paint those individual statements (e.g. http://badvestments.blogspot.com/ ). (5) To attempt to be clear: I am not arguing against the wearing of robes; I am arguing for ongoing discussion as to what their role and what their meaning(s) are in a changing world, especially in any discussion about whether the church is advertantly or inadvertantly making God into a product.
Thanks, Peter, for expanding some of these ideas. Each of your paragraphs really deserves a thread, or threads, of their own. I specifically mentioned obsession with buildings in my first point. As you know I’m doing a series on church archictecture which connects to your point. I’m interested you think we are becoming less of a singing culture. I recently wrote about liturgy and mission – music is a very important part of liturgy. Worship can tend towards concert at several points on the musical spectrum. And some lyrics can tend to make God a product. I struggle most to connect the robes section of your comment with treating God as a product. Again, this might be more for its own thread. Roman Catholics and Orthodox, in large gatherings, have quite a uniform robing, without great distinctions between fine gradations of “hierarchy”. Anglicans can be tiresomely obsessive about these fine gradations in getting titles correct and having some corresponding distinction in robing (see here). Anglicans manage those distinctions while still dressing eccentrically rather than uniformly! Then there are the signals sent within the clergy group of which camp and subgroup they want to identify with (not robing being one way of focusing on self rather than God). I wrote “within the clergy group” intentionally – these obsessions with titles and fine distinctions in robing are lost on even most well-informed Christians and have no relevance in their lives. I’m not sure how this impacts on our seeing God as product – but conversations can veer in many directions. Blessings.
An interesting thread! I live in France, and our Anglican based community is made up of Christians of all denominations,consequently the experiences of our 13 congregations across the region is wide. Recently we have been exploring ‘New ways of doing church’ in order to start addressing the needs of those not familiar with ‘tradition’. A small congregation meets in a pub!
Having a foot in both the French catholic church and our own broad Anglican community, it is interesting to experience the different styles of singing. Ours is far more robust, with a hymnody that appears theologically much deeper, drawing on texts from many centuries. We sing with gusto, something our French brothers and sisters are impressed by!
As for dress – well formal services see our clergy and lay ministers ‘robed’. For me as a lay minister (Reader) robing for a traditional service helps me to prepare for what I am about to do. I have also become accustomed to leading worship in smart ordinary clothes for more experimental services. There is a place for both! However we dress,at the heart of all we do is our longing to worship our creator and Saviour. He is definitely not a product, but the source of our existence.
Thanks for your concrete examples, Linda. God bless you and these ministrirs.
I don’t know if the ‘packaging’ is a particularly important element. Whether it is ancient custom, or ‘Jesus is my home-boy’, what is critical is the theology behind the presentation. God as a product is often about desired ownership of ‘truth’, and the power associated with that. That includes all the related income sources, of course.
As for singing – there are parts of NZ where it is very much a central facet of community life. That said, it is not practiced much these days in middle class pakeha community.
Agreed with all your points, thanks Mike. Singing is central to Maori, and, thankfully, at the school where I serve as chaplain. Blessings.
Quote, source unknown:
‘Christianity began as a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. When it went to Athens, it became a philosophy. When it went to Rome, it became an organization. When it went to Europe, it became a culture. When it came to America, it became a business.’
I wrote the following to a colleague this week who had been listening to Joel Osteen, one of the biggest packagers of God ( http://www.joelosteen.com/Pages/Index.aspx ) who runs the largest church congregation in the US, of about 44 000 members:
“For me the signs that a church is unhealthy and not following Christ’s teachings include:
naming the ministry after oneself; promoting oneself as the ministry; generating huge incomes to live a luxury extravagant lifestyle- cars, jets, expensive clothes, vacations etc; telling people Jesus wants them to be wealthy- especially manipulating them that they can please God just by giving money to that ministry!; no accountability ( this is especially interesting in the US where there is no regulation of churches and practically anyone can set one up and teach whatever they like ) ; rigid teachings, no openness to people or ideas that don’t ‘fit’; no programmes for assistance to the poor or sick or marginalised in society; tax evasion & use of attorneys to find tax loopholes; no public financial ( and other ) records; reports of abusive behaviours within the church including manipulating people to give financially beyond their means; excessive social power & influence; celebrity status & tv shows; hanging out with the rich and famous and powerful.
I am sure Joel Osteen’s words provide comfort and encouragement but so does any motivational speaker or psychologist, and most successful salespeople. To me he’s just another snake-oil-man who has made a lot of money from a big business posing as a church. Just because he does it relatively benignly doesn’t make it good Christian leadership.
Other people grow churches and run useful ministries without using it to become personal millionaires and celebrities. I’m not saying a rich person cannot be a Christian ( though Jesus said it’s very tough to ) but I like a quote from Rick Warren ‘I don’t think it is a sin to be rich. I think it is a sin to die rich.’ Waiting to see now whether Pastor Warren will give all his own money away in his lifetime….because the sad thing about wealth is despite anyone’s better intentions it’s seductive and changes people, and not in a good way spiritually with regard to Jesus: ‘Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also’. ”
One thing God is not is a ‘product’ either of our marketing or even our dogmas….the spirit becomes notably elusive when we try to package it!
I always appreciate your insights, Tracy! And I love your opening quote. Blessings.
Rev. Bosco;
A perceptive comment and a pleasure to read. The comments likewise. I’d like to cast considerable doubt upon whether this ‘productization’ and ‘relevancing’ strategy will work. Let me explain…
I’m of a slightly younger generation, and do some work with yet younger ones (of course, not as much as you, Rev. Bosco). What I’ve noticed is that younger generations – mine included – don’t much care if they aren’t in church. They need a solid reason to turn up, nothing vague or contradictory — if it can’t be explained clearly it’s clearly not worth listening to.
This must mean solid expository preaching, doctrine seminars, adult Sunday school, and the like. I believe this to be the major challenge for the church today – especially given the influence of liberalism in the last few decades which has made many ministers unwilling to set out a systematic theology, explain the substitutionary atonement, speak plainly of the Bible’s teaching on judgement, or make the truth claims which Saints through all generations have affirmed… and that’s before we get to the influence of post-modernism.
Unfortunately for many liberal ministers, the younger generations just don’t see the point in being a member of a church which doesn’t seem to be sure of anything apart from its insatiable wish to be a neighbourhood social and charitable club.
Thanks, Vincent, for these thoughts. They dovetail into my own that, while liturgy also has an inculturating dimension, liturgy is counter-cultural. The attempt to make worship no different to outside of church is a mistake. If what happens inside church is identical to what happens outside of it, or as so often the case, a “lite” version of it – why make the effort to go inside when you can get a better version outside? Post-modernism has reopened the possibility of mystery. Liberalism, in and of itself, cannot satisfy us – but nor can conservatism, or any ism. Hence my stressing that God is the goal, not merely the means in an idolatry of something else. Blessings.