What Kind Of Church Is This?

[Socrates]

While I think this *sounds* good in theory, in practice it distorts people's relationship with God long-term. If we "translate" the Christian message into consumerist terms—even if we keep the message in tact—people begin to relate to the Church, God, religion, etc. with consumerist attitudes. Capitalism is inherently goal-driven. Religion is relationship-driven. You can do both well, but it's rare, and typically one takes priority and dominates the other.

 

One thing I love about Catholicism is that, to me, it seems inherently anti-mass culture (a la the Frankfurt School). It is all about the individual's one-on-one relationship with God. Yes, we have relationships to one another, and to the Church as unified body, but we have those relationships by virtue of our one-on-one relationship with the Son. There is no equivalent for this in mass culture. Even with the advent of social media, the relationship between individuals and organizations is still very much "magic bullet"-like: The org disseminates messages/regulations/products, and the individual passively receives/obeys/consumes. It is very impersonal.

 

If people have been drawn to the Christian message by means of capitalist/consumerist/market tactics, they will respond in capitalist/consumerist/market ways—not consciously, but out of long-ingrained, unconscious, automatic habit. In Americans, these responses have reached near-instinct depth. I see it in my students every day. The consumerist disposition has so pervaded every corner of society that people no longer know how to behave in any non-consumerist relationship. They are constantly weighing the costs and benefits to themselves of every single thing they do, including relationships. For this reason, I think it is of the utmost importance that the Church jealously guard against the dissemination of Her message by such means. They deliver a spiritual message in a very confusing materialist package.

 

I suspect you're misunderstanding my point (probably in part because it was poorly and imprecisely worded).  I am certainly not a fan of the whole phenomenon of treating Christian religion as simply another consumer product to be slickly marketed and "sold" to "consumers," as this invariably tends to cheapen and trivialize the Christian Faith.  Likewise with continually trying to dress Christian faith up as the latest hip, cool new thing to appeal to the kids, or with presenting faith as the means to material ends ("health & wealth" or "prosperity gospel").

 

I was using the words "marketing" and "product" very loosely and analogously here.  In business, marketing means simply everything involved with getting a product to customers.  I was using the word "marketing" to refer to the art/science of effectively getting the Gospel message out to people.  For instance, part of Matthew Kelly's program involves distributing free books on the Catholic Faith to churches on Christmas and Easter in order to get non-practicing lukewarm "Christmas & Easter Catholics" back into their Faith - thus an easy and cost-effective means of reaching such lukewarm Catholics where they can be found.  He also speaks and writes in a way to engage and draw in people who might not be that much into the Faith without compromising the message.  Those are the kinds of "marketing" skills I was referring to that can be employed to spread the Gospel.

 

This really isn't a new concept.  Saint Paul was a great "salesman" of the Gospel - repeatedly risking his life to get the message of Christ to as many people as possible, and "becoming all things to all men" to bring the Gospel to a wide variety of different people from different backgrounds.  Not everyone's called to be an active missionary in this sense - but I think overall Catholics could be doing a lot more to spread the Faith to other people.  That's my point.

 

 

I'm really not sure what you mean by "capitalist/consumerist/market tactics" of spreading the Christian message. Obviously, we shouldn't be using the Faith with the goal of making a financial profit, but that's not what I was talking about.  And I agree that forming personal relationships is the most effective and primary means of spreading the Gospel.  But that doesn't mean that there's no place for using print and electronic media to help get the message out - books, magazines, TV, radio, internet, etc.  If use of any means of spreading the Christian message beyond one-on-one personal relationships was wrong, the Church would never have given us the written Bible.

[Gabriela]

I suspect you're misunderstanding my point (probably in part because it was poorly and imprecisely worded).  I am certainly not a fan of the whole phenomenon of treating Christian religion as simply another consumer product to be slickly marketed and "sold" to "consumers," as this invariably tends to cheapen and trivialize the Christian Faith.  Likewise with continually trying to dress Christian faith up as the latest hip, cool new thing to appeal to the kids, or with presenting faith as the means to material ends ("health & wealth" or "prosperity gospel").

 

I was using the words "marketing" and "product" very loosely and analogously here.  In business, marketing means simply everything involved with getting a product to customers.  I was using the word "marketing" to refer to the art/science of effectively getting the Gospel message out to people.  For instance, part of Matthew Kelly's program involves distributing free books on the Catholic Faith to churches on Christmas and Easter in order to get non-practicing lukewarm "Christmas & Easter Catholics" back into their Faith - thus an easy and cost-effective means of reaching such lukewarm Catholics where they can be found.  He also speaks and writes in a way to engage and draw in people who might not be that much into the Faith without compromising the message.  Those are the kinds of "marketing" skills I was referring to that can be employed to spread the Gospel.

 

This really isn't a new concept.  Saint Paul was a great "salesman" of the Gospel - repeatedly risking his life to get the message of Christ to as many people as possible, and "becoming all things to all men" to bring the Gospel to a wide variety of different people from different backgrounds.  Not everyone's called to be an active missionary in this sense - but I think overall Catholics could be doing a lot more to spread the Faith to other people.  That's my point.

 

 

I'm really not sure what you mean by "capitalist/consumerist/market tactics" of spreading the Christian message. Obviously, we shouldn't be using the Faith with the goal of making a financial profit, but that's not what I was talking about.  And I agree that forming personal relationships is the most effective and primary means of spreading the Gospel.  But that doesn't mean that there's no place for using print and electronic media to help get the message out - books, magazines, TV, radio, internet, etc.  If use of any means of spreading the Christian message beyond one-on-one personal relationships was wrong, the Church would never have given us the written Bible.

 

I'm not saying that using any kind of mass medium to promote the Gospel is wrong. I'm saying that McLuhan was right: the medium is the message. If one talks about the Faith in marketing terms and calls it a "product" (or even likens it to a product, or for that matter even thinks of it as a product in order to disseminate it more effectively), then I think that market/product mentality will inevitably penetrate through to the evangelee, who then approaches the Faith as consumer—maybe not consciously, but just as evidently.

 

Your own message is an indication of how ingrained in us it is to think in capitalistic/market/product terms. We can compare everything to that, but in so doing, we fail to realize how the comparison obscures the fundamentally different nature of the two things being compared. Ultimately, such talk contributes to the subsumption of all things under the law of profit. Thus, I think that, when talking about things that are essentially different from products—especially the Faith—we should not compare those things to products in any way, shape, or form, precisely because the tendency in our culture to see everything as product is so strong.

 

This doesn't mean not spreading the Gospel via television, radio, the internet, etc. It simply means presenting it via those media in ways that are immediately and noticeably different. This is where the medium is the message: If I look at a church website and it reminds me of a consumer website, we have a problem. If I look at a website and its design shouts: "This is not for sale. This is holy. This is transcendent. This is the House of God," then all is well. If I see an advertisement for a church and it appeals to my short-term desire for instant gratification/worldly pleasure with rock bands, a "no judgmental rules" atmosphere, etc., then it is appealing to the same part of me that responds to product advertisements. If a church advertisement appeals to my higher self, to my desire for relief from suffering, for union with something larger than myself, etc., then it is appealing to that part of me that remains "turned off" when I'm watching a commercial for [insert consumer product name here].

 

I'm not saying this kind of thing is black or white, either. I think there's a spectrum from "totally acceptable" to "totally unacceptable". But I do think that the acceptability of any given presentation of the Christian message ought to be judged at least partly on this basis: Presentation and medium are just as important in communicating the message as the content of the message itself because they influence how the recipient receives the message, processes it, and from that point on, orients him/herself to things associated with the message. Thus, as Christians, I think we have to ask ourselves not just, "Is what I'm saying here in harmony with the Gospel?" but also "Is how I'm saying this in harmony with Gospel living?"

Edited March 21, 2013 by curiousing

[Socrates]

I'm not saying that using any kind of mass medium to promote the Gospel is wrong. I'm saying that McLuhan was right: the medium is the message. If one talks about the Faith in marketing terms and calls it a "product" (or even likens it to a product, or for that matter even thinks of it as a product in order to disseminate it more effectively), then I think that market/product mentality will inevitably penetrate through to the evangelee, who then approaches the Faith as consumer—maybe not consciously, but just as evidently.

 

Your own message is an indication of how ingrained in us it is to think in capitalistic/market/product terms. We can compare everything to that, but in so doing, we fail to realize how the comparison obscures the fundamentally different nature of the two things being compared. Ultimately, such talk contributes to the subsumption of all things under the law of profit. Thus, I think that, when talking about things that are essentially different from products—especially the Faith—we should not compare those things to products in any way, shape, or form, precisely because the tendency in our culture to see everything as product is so strong.

 

This doesn't mean not spreading the Gospel via television, radio, the internet, etc. It simply means presenting it via those media in ways that are immediately and noticeably different. This is where the medium is the message: If I look at a church website and it reminds me of a consumer website, we have a problem. If I look at a website and its design shouts: "This is not for sale. This is holy. This is transcendent. This is the House of God," then all is well. If I see an advertisement for a church and it appeals to my short-term desire for instant gratification/worldly pleasure with rock bands, a "no judgmental rules" atmosphere, etc., then it is appealing to the same part of me that responds to product advertisements. If a church advertisement appeals to my higher self, to my desire for relief from suffering, for union with something larger than myself, etc., then it is appealing to that part of me that remains "turned off" when I'm watching a commercial for [insert consumer product name here].

 

I'm not saying this kind of thing is black or white, either. I think there's a spectrum from "totally acceptable" to "totally unacceptable". But I do think that the acceptability of any given presentation of the Christian message ought to be judged at least partly on this basis: Presentation and medium are just as important in communicating the message as the content of the message itself because they influence how the recipient receives the message, processes it, and from that point on, orients him/herself to things associated with the message. Thus, as Christians, I think we have to ask ourselves not just, "Is what I'm saying here in harmony with the Gospel?" but also "Is how I'm saying this in harmony with Gospel living?"

 

I still think you're reading too much into my words.  I don't think the Faith should be treated as just another product to be sold and consumed, and believe it should be treated with due reverence. I actually agree with most of what you've said.  I don't like the "megachurch" approach to religion, but I thought I made all that clear already.

 

I do believe skills and knowledge from business and marketing can be applied to evangelization (much as any other secular skill-set), and I think Matthew Kelly's ministry is an example of this (which does not cheapen or trivialize the Faith or treat it as a consumer commodity).

 

Obviously, you have a severe aversion to any kind of business or "capitalist" language or analogy when dealing with the faith, which is okay, but I don't personally share.  I didn't intend my wording to imply that religion is a mere business or consumer product to be sold, anymore than using athletic or sports analogies or imagery to deal with spiritual issues (as even St. Paul did) implies that the Faith is nothing more than a game or sport.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Socrates

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

I voted Non-denominational, not easily apparent as most Non-Denom websites have a better "marketing" look about them...
This made me go, huh? "You’ll experience great music and a relevant message that isn’t about religion or rules but about you and God" Somebody needs to teach them that RELIGION as a necessity involves you and God.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

I voted Non-denominational, not easily apparent as most Non-Denom websites have a better "marketing" look about them...
This made me go, huh? "You’ll experience great music and a relevant message that isn’t about religion or rules but about you and God" Somebody needs to teach them that RELIGION as a necessity involves you and God.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

I voted Non-denominational, not easily apparent as most Non-Denom websites have a better "marketing" look about them...
This made me go, huh? "You’ll experience great music and a relevant message that isn’t about religion or rules but about you and God" Somebody needs to teach them that RELIGION as a necessity involves you and God.

[Apotheoun]

PadrePioOfPietrelcino, I would second or third what you said, but you did that yourself.  :dance5:

[LouisvilleFan]

This reminds me of something Matthew Kelly shared in one of his talks.  He mentioned that when he reverted to Catholicism, a friend of his told him, "i'm happy for you, but I was never fed in the Catholic church." 

 

"Never fed?"  Matthew responded.  This friend had been Catholic for 30 years, and she left for evangelical pastures.  Matthew explained that the Catholic church reads almost the total Bible in three year cycles (A,B,C.)  This means she have read the Bible 10 times at Mass during that 30 year stretch!    So, how could she not have been fed with the Good News?  Not to mention, we are the ONLY Christian church that believes we eat the Flesh and Blood of Jesus at every Mass.  How could she not be fed???

 

He concluded by telling her, "It's not that you were not fed during that time as a Catholic.  What you are trying to say is you were not ENTERTAINED."

 

My hunch is this person Kelly talked to was not fed with good teaching, which left her largely ignorant about the sacraments and Scriptures. Plus, plenty of Evangelical churches place the first emphasis on preaching/teaching above entertainment.

[Brother Adam]

I do believe there is something to be said to listen to people when they say they are not being fed. Even if we know they are "wrong" it won't do us any good to tell them that - ex-Catholics make up 60-80% of the membership of these mega-churches. We have to find a way to reach back out to them without browbeating them. While St. John Bosco juggled to evangelize, he did not juggle in Mass. I think its fine, even necessary for parishes to host fun events to draw in crowds, but maintain the sanctity of the liturgy and not compromise the content of the faith by leaving huge chunks out.

[LouisvilleFan]

While there are some disturbing aspects to this parish, there is one question I haven't seen asked. What can we learn from this parish to improve upon?

 

I like how you think! Learn from what works, and baptize it.

 

From what I've read above there are many concerns with a loss of orthodoxy but look at it from a "marketing" standpoint. This website does have a modern and streamlined design, accessible menus and eye catching design and every part of their website and presentation is well developed. They are using new media sources such as podcasts and live streaming to engage with their parishioners and everything to get people talking about this parish. Word of mouth is still a very powerful means of marketing. Even though we do not agree with how this parish is marketing itself it has still achieved its goal, we are talking about the parish and spreading information about it.

 

I don't think the site is a good design. As some others pointed out earlier, it's all Flash-based, so if you don't have Flash, or Flash crashes, or you have an older/slower system, or an older Android phone, etc. it may not work at all. And if all you want to do is look up the Mass time on your phone, you'll be waiting a few minutes for the simplest information. Plus, the colors clash and generally lacks a polished feel. They obviously get props for using social media and using creative outreach. Sometimes with websites "less is more."

 

 

Now looking at the parish that I am working with, we are looking at "re-branding" ourselves in order to more effectively communicate with our parishioners and the community as well as have a more recognizable presence at any of our three sites. (We have our main church, the Catholic School and a site at the state college campus) We have an outreach to most of the local county and are the largest parish in the diocese. However, we are not "engaging" with our parishioners outside of Sundays or when we need something (their perception). There are many ideas we can run with from this parish but, we need to weed out the usable from the non.

 

To do what Nativity is doing would require a pastor and a parish to be engaged in the mission. You could hire someone to design a website and handle that responsibility for you. From there, starting a small group that meets to discuss pray, reflect on the Sunday readings/homily, read good books together, etc. would be a good first step. I used to be in a Baptist church that started with one small group and grew into about 20 groups before they founded a second campus. Meeting with a few people every week builds relationships and they grew because the pastor promoted them every week as an integral part of belonging to the community. Most successful Evangelical churches follow a similar model, but it's not common among Catholic parishes. Could you get a few people to start meeting once a week in someone's home, and from there seek your pastor's cooperation to invite more parishioners into more groups?

[LouisvilleFan]

I think if you look at the opening set of pics you can see its Catholic from the shot of all the candles.

 

As Evangelical/Baptist/non-denomational communities are opening more to tradition, it's not that easy to tell. Baptists can celebrate Ash Wednesday, Holy Week, and have liturgical services that might make a Catholic feel more at home than they would at some of the mega-church praise-and-worship parishes.