Promoting your religious brand--the wrong way

[Hane]

An incident here in my small New England city has my blood boiling: The other day, my sister encountered a food drive at a local supermarket. She went up to the coordinator and said, "I'm a recently retired social worker, and I'd like to volunteer with your program." The woman asked her what church she belonged to, and my sister said, "Saint Joe's." The woman then told her that only members of the New Life Church were allowed to participate.  Being a better person than I am, my sister made a food donation anyway.

New Life is part of Jerry Falwell's ministries. Our local New Life pastor set up a "church for people who don't like church", opened a thrift shop, and started giving big glitzy free Christmas and Easter services in a nearby 5,000-seat concert venue. The group then absorbed one of the local mainstream Baptist churches in town, then bought a multi-acre recreation venue for $5 million.

The church's political poster boy is our disgraced former governor, who is now serving his second prison term for corruption and who, between terms, had a radio talk show called "Church and State." (He's one of those guys who addresses his misdemeanors by saying self-exculpatory things like "Mistakes were made.")

Thus thing has me so upset because I came of age in the ecumenical years of the '60s and '70s, when our town had a robust Council of Churches, in which various denominations came together for the common good.

[Ennui]

It seems like any religious group has a "brand" anymore, and it's more and more exclusive. The "common good" is laughable in this day and age, which is unfortunate. If they let outsiders in then their brand gets watered down. What would be the gain if everyone were included and Christianity itself were promoted?

[JoyfullyUnavailable]

It seems like any religious group has a "brand" anymore, and it's more and more exclusive. The "common good" is laughable in this day and age, which is unfortunate. If they let outsiders in then their brand gets watered down. What would be the gain if everyone were included and Christianity itself were promoted?

I completely agree with your statement about church groups branding themselves. I often see church more of a business then a place of worship in most cases. 

[sparkles]

So one can't just be a good person, you have be the"right kind" of good person. Huh, who knew? So I guess we're doing it wrong here on Long Island then. There are a number of food banks, some affiliated with religious organizations, and not a single one that I know of prohibits non-members from participating. In fact, they all work together, regardless of religious affiliation. Churches have no problem publicizing efforts by synagogues and vice-versa. Because it's not about who you are, it's about what you do.

[jerkit]

I don't see an inherent problem with a church having a "brand." Different people prefer different styles of church and I don't see a problem with that. I DO see a problem with turning people away who want to serve because of the different styles.

[Hane]

I'm going to suggest that my sister offer her services at the city soup kitchen--last I checked, it was non-denominational.  I'm still shaking my head at a poverty outreach program that would reject the free services of a social worker with decades of experience with street people!

[Jingerbread]

I completely agree with your statement about church groups branding themselves. I often see church more of a business then a place of worship in most cases. 

Tax them all.  Churches don't even try to hide the competition anymore, and most fight to be #1.  Tax them like businesses, and let them write off the expenses incurred directly for charitable acts.  We shouldn't be subsidizing the taxes they use on advertising and politics.