:: Dawkins, Hitchens, and McGrath ::
____________HT: The Hour______________
To Brand or Not to Brand the Gospel•___•__•_• A Response to Tyler Wigg-Stevenson
••••••••••• For an alternative and less pessimistic take on branding and the gospel, listen to the recent podcast I did with Aaron Skinner, the founder and president of Kairos Creative. •••••••••••••
Jesus is not a Brand … warns Tyler Wigg-Stevenson on the cover of January’s addition of Christianity Today. Well … He’s right. Jesus isn’t a Brand. But why does Tyler seem so pessimistic about using brands and marketing strategies for the sake of the gospel?
I thought about writing an in depth critique of the logic of his article in Christianity today, but I decided I didn’t really have the time to invest in something quite so detailed. Besides, others are already doing that. Although if I were put in a room with Stevenson, I’m almost sure that much of the difference between the way I think and the way he thinks about marketing would turn out to be semantic.
However, concisely put, I think Stevenson has done a poor job setting up the discussion in his article. His rhetoric will no doubt be appealing to many since we recognize that Jesus is not a brand, not just another consumer option, not just some product, etc. But all my friends who are using their branding and marketing gifts for the sake of the gospel understand this. None of them have reduced Jesus down to a brand, nor are the intended audiences of such branding necessarily having some sinful self-reliance reinforced as a result.
I think Stevenson is, for the most part, clotheslining scarecrows (read: attacking a staw man). His logic doesn’t hold up, and his statements are a bit extreme—especially his comment about how approaching Jesus through marketing that taps into felt needs is blasphemy.
… people who respond to church marketing approach Jesus as another consumer option. This is first and foremost a problem because it is blasphemy:
His criticisms and warnings are misguided, I think, and hinge on several assumptions that he never explicitly mentions. I might revisit my claims later with detailed analysis of his article, but right now I don’t have time, so just look for others to critique him and listen to the podcasts I mention below. Ultimately, I fear the spirit of his article could cause Christians to be less aggressive in engaging the cultural median of branding for the sake of the gospel.
• For an alternative and less pessimistic take on branding and the gospel, listen to the recent podcast I did with Aaron Skinner, the founder and president of Kairos Creative. The podcast is only 1 of 7 short excerpts from U R B A N G L O R Y that will be posted over the next two weeks to provide an alternative perspective to Stevenson’s extreme comments in Christianity Today. •
Jesus is Not A Brand : Jesus is Not A Brand : Jesus is Not A Brand : Jesus is Not A Brand : Jesus is Not A Brand : Jesus is Not A Brand
_________*****UPDATE_______________
I found out one of my friends, Kevin Hendricks, occasionally contributes to the well known website Church Marketing Sucks. I found the following comment of his in a thread.
… I think bad marketing does those things. Wigg-Stevenson assumes that all marketing fosters consumerism and leads to the negatives he lists. I agree that those things are all negatives, but I don’t agree that marketing automatically leads you there.
Those are definitely pitfalls of marketing and things we need to be on guard against, but I don’t think they occur simply because we do marketing. If that were the case, Wigg-Stevenson would be guilty of them as well (his book is marketed, the magazine in which his article appears is marketed, etc.)
• Determined to Argue for Determinism •
Often thoughts are best clarified in the comment threads that come once discussion ensues on a post. So often, rather than posting about another’s post, I will point people to comments that are made in the thread of that post. This is because often, 1) the authors point of view becomes more clear in the comment section than in the post, and 2) the dialogue that takes place once others have a chance to cross examine what is said are often more interesting than the post itself.
Having said all that … Gerald Hiestand recently wrote two posts about the position of Determinism. It’s an excellent post series. Gerald makes a biblical case for determinism as he understands it to have been held by Augustine, Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and others. I found the best summary of his position in the comment section:
Actually, the way that I am using the term “determinism” is consistent with its use by classical determinists (Augustine, Edwards, Calvin, Luther, Aquinas–all of whom I’ve read) and with how contemporary theologians use the term. Determinism is simply the belief that everything (everything) that happens does so in accordance with God’s pre-ordained plan. Determinists might differ slightly as to how God actualizes his pre-ordained plan, but what makes determinism determinism is the belief that God has a pre-ordained purpose for everything that happens, and that there are no random events. I don’t know of any determinist (classic or contemporary) who denies freewill (”freewill” being defined as the ability to make a free moral choice, and that we are responsible for our actions).
———————————HT: Straight Up————————————
Call Me a Heretic if You Want x•x•x Trinity Doctrine Made Easy
One “kind” of being, three actual beings of that “kind.” That’s it.
The concept of the Trinity (God = one in essence and three in persons) is not hard to understand. There is no mystery to it. People just get tripped up with the semantics.
If I have human triplets (who would then have a human nature [nature x]) that each grow up to have the same moral character (character y), they would all be one in essence or nature (nature x + character y = essence). Three persons, one essence.
What’s so hard about that?
Here … I’ll make it even easier. The following letters have the same essence/nature as letters of written communication with the same size even, same shape, same everything, except there’s THREE of them:
X X X
What’s so hard about that?
So … God, as defined by the Nicene Creed teaches that there are three beings who are divine, and therefore each have all that is appropriate to that divine nature. Three persons … one divine nature. One “kind” of being, three actual beings of that “kind.” Simple. Easy. Fun. Yippee. Yay.
:: Johnny Hunt Talks About Calvinism and the SBC ::
Is there room for Calvinists in the SBC? Hear Johnny Hunt answer this question as he addresses the tension in the SBC over Calvinism with a personal story on the latest U R B A N G L O R Y podcast.
I appreciate the way Johnny address the issue. I, for one, think that when Christians start dividing over Calvinism, they need to repent by valuing the gospel more and our theological distinctive less. This is what I call having an affectional symmetry for doctrine.
::_:::__::::___:::::____HT: U R B A N G L O R Y
UPDATE: This podcast is not longer available, as the U R B A N G L O R Y project was terminated not long after it was launched.
:: Gay Bars Receive Death Threats in Seattle :: Same Sex Stuff
The Homosecular Gaytheist blog reports that
Eleven gay bars in Seattle have been targeted with ricin attacks.
The post displays a picture of the actual letter of threat, and Gaytheist laments
And Christians still say that they’re unjustly persecuted and that the gays are doing the persecuting.
____–___-__-_-_-HT: Homosecular Gaytheist
G O D changes his M I N D •::•::• Jonah 4:2
It’s part of God’s unchanging nature to change his heart and intentions whenever people repent from their evil ways. The following is my translation of the text.
So he prayed unto Yahweh and said, “Oh Yahweh was not this my word when I was in my land? Therefore I fled before you unto Tarshish because I knew that you are a gracious God and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding with kindness and relenting from calamity. –Jonah 4:2
I was pleased to find this excerpt from Robert B. Chisholm Jr. in A Workbook for Intermediate Hebrew: Grammar, Exegesis, and Commentary on Jonah and Ruth (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic and Professional, 2006), 83.
The appearance of the participle in this list of divine characteristics suggests that God’s capacity to change his mind with respect to sending calamity … is typical of his nature, like the other attributes listed before this. In this regard see Jeremiah 18:7-8. God’s immutability (the doctrine that he is unchanging in his very essence or nature) logically demands that he be flexible in his relationships with humans. In other words, because he is immutably compassionate and predisposed to be merciful, he is willing to relent from sending calamity when human beings respond properly to his warnings. God makes plans and announces his intentions, but human response can and often does impact God’s decision as to what will actually take place.
::: Tatoo’s are Okey Dokey ::: David Dunham
David Dunham looks at two verses that people cite to condemn Christians getting tatoo’s. Here is an excerpt from his discussion of Leviticus 19:28 which reads, “You shall not tatoo yourselves.”
Verse 27 states that men should not trim their sideburns or beards. Why is it that my critics are quick to cite verse 28, but do not themselves see a problem with breaking verse 27? We can both trim our facial hair and tattoo our bodies because these commands are part of Jewish civil law and therefore do not apply to Christians.
____—-___–__-_-_HT: Christ and Pop Culture
T h e o • p h i l o g u e 