Church Marketing

From the experience of many in the American church, Kenneson and Street’s words are comforting. It is difficult to argue with much of what the authors are stating. It is discomforting to hear church marketers speak of people in terms of cost and effectiveness, and it is equally saddening to see that many great church leaders have fallen into the marketing trap. There is little to contend with and much to praise in the work of Kenneson and Street. Three specific points are worth noting.

First, although Kenneson and Street are so adamant about the dangers of marketing, such an approach is in danger of going to the other extreme. There must a medium between marketing and not. The fact of the matter is that some will not come to church unless they receive a flier in their mailbox about the church. However, in light of Kenneson and Street, the specific congregation must not use those fliers as ways of making other congregations seem insignificant or irrelevant, and they must also be sure to not fall into the trap of seeing their specific program as a product. Thus, all techniques are not dangerous if done in the correct way.

Second, many established churches struggle with reaching those in contemporary culture. These churches attempt different ways to accomplish this. Kenneson and Street make a point that churches should not do this by offering services with different styles such as a traditional one with hymns and a contemporary service (e.g., traditional service at 8:30 AM and contemporary at 11 AM). At first, such a thought seems too harsh, but, as the authors explain, providing a traditional and contemporary service suggests that the traditional one is “automatically illegitimate” and “irrelevant.” The authors state, that “both emphasizes are vital to a full understanding of the Christian faith” (p. 139). Such churches would do well to create a blended service. This will teach both the traditional and contemporary constituents that the church does not belong to either of them.

Third, the church is called to be an alternative to the world. As stated above, it is difficult to do this when the church looks exactly like the culture. Thus, it would be wise for the church to create its own culture. One does not have to try and be culturally relevant for long before he or she realizes that he or she must move at a fast pace to keep up with the changing trends. Rather, if the church creates its own culture, it will not be in bondage to society’s culture. An example is helpful. For instance, the quarterback of a football team is taught to always throw a pass in front of the wide receiver allowing the receiver to catch up to the ball and run with it. If the quarterback were to aim directly at the receiver at the moment of release, the ball would fall behind the receiver. The quarterback must always aim in front of the receiver. In the same way, the church must aim in front of society by creating its own culture, and its culture must always be the alternative to the world.

Kenneson and Street’s book is a necessary resource for all church leaders. It provides precaution to following marketing techniques. Church leaders with struggling churches will be tempted to be quick to follow such techniques, and church leaders with growing congregations are tempted to see themselves as blessed by God and continue with more of the same. However, the church’s focus must be to remain faithful to its purpose of being a foretaste to God’s “upside-down” kingdom. The church is called to be a peculiar people, an alternative to the world.

It has been said that all churches participate in marketing–good or bad marketing. How have you found this to be true?

+++++++

The above is part 2 of 2 on a review of Kenneson and Street’s Selling Out the Church.

Buy the book here.

-Kenneson, P. D. & J. L. Street. (1997). Selling out the church: the dangers of church marketing. Cascade Books; Eugene.