Author Archives: Rob Harrison

Marketing the gospel?

Posted on by | 3 Comments

There are some real disagreements in the church over the whole question of marketing and advertising.  On the one hand, you have the folks who are firm believers in marketing the church just like any other business, who are completely comfortable in talking about the church in terms of “product,” and “customers,” and “market share”; on the other, you have the skeptics and those who don’t believe the real work of the church is advanced by marketing.In a lot of ways, you can put me down with the skeptics; in particular, as Tyler Wigg-Stevenson recently articulated well in Christianity Today, I think there’s a real and significant theological danger to our understanding of the church in treating “church” as just another product to be marketed to consumers.  This is a road we go down at our peril.  On the other hand, though, we have the responsibility to communicate the gospel message—and in this day and age, with so many competing voices, if we don’t use the media for that purpose, we’ll probably find ourselves drowned out by all the noise.  In a sense, then, we have to use the tools of marketing and advertising just to make ourselves heard.The question is, then, how do we do that without allowing the medium to distort our message?  There are a lot of bright people thinking about that question these days, and I can’t claim to be an expert on the subject; but I recently ran across this post by a fellow named Seth Godin that I think sheds some light on this.  He’s writing about the Super Bowl ads, but I think this applies to the church, too; in particular, I think it helps us understand marketing in a way that’s actually constructive for the mission of the church.

Putting on a show is expensive, time-consuming and quite fun. And it rarely works. . . .Marketing is telling a story that sticks, that spreads and that changes the way people act. The story you tell is far more important than the way you tell it. Don’t worry so much about being cool, and worry a lot more about resonating your story with my worldview. If you don’t have a story, then a great show isn’t going to help much.(And yes, every successful organization has a story, even if they’ve never considered running an ad, during the Super Bowl or anywhere else.)

Certainly, the church does; we have the greatest story of all.  Telling that story, by whatever means are available, is what we’re supposed to be on about.

Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address

Posted on by | No Comments

In honoring Abraham Lincoln’s 200th birthday, I wanted to post here my favorite of his speeches, which I believe is the greatest piece of public theology ever produced in this nation.

At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention, and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it—all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said: “the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.”With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

Abraham Lincoln, 200 (updated)

Posted on by | 6 Comments

Today is the bicentennial anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth.  In Lincoln I believe we see, more clearly than at any time since the founding of this nation, the hand of God providentially appointing the right person to lead these United States of America; there has been no greater leader in this country’s history, and there may never be.  Power Line has a good series of reflections posted on Lincoln as war leader, as “America’s indispensable teacher of the moral ground of political freedom,” as perhaps the greatest lawyer in American history, as anti-slavery debater, as constitutional commander-in-chief, and as friend to Frederick Douglass; it’s well worth your time to read them and follow the links (particularly Diana Schaub’s article on the Lincoln-Douglas debates).  Also well worth reading is Warner Todd Huston’s piece on “The Lincoln We Need.”  I’m not going to try to explicate Lincoln, because I know it’s beyond me to do the man justice; he is to American history as Hamlet is to English literature, the towering figure that we’ll still be trying to fully understand when God rings down the curtain on this world.  I will simply say this:  as Americans, we should get down on our knees and thank God for sending this nation Abraham Lincoln for that critical time in our history—and pray that he’ll raise up an equivalent leader soon.

Is “anti-bipartisanship” a word?

Posted on by | 3 Comments

If not, someone needs to coin it; there’s no other way I can think of to label the behavior the Democratic leadership of Congress is engaging in these days:

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV) met at length last night to put together the House/Senate conference report on the “stimulus” package. Only Democratic conference committee members were informed of the meeting and permitted to attend.The purpose behind the meeting was apparently to produce a conference report on the over $800 billion borrow-and-spend bill that was entirely free of Republican input, and that could be presented no later than this afternoon in preparation for House and Senate floor action tomorrow.

(Bold in the original, italics mine.)  Not only is there no deliberate effort to involve the GOP in crafting the final version of this spendathon, there’s a deliberate effort to prevent the GOP from having anything at all to do with the bill as it’s finally passed.Oh, and as for that “compromise” the Senate produced to get the RINO votes they needed for cloture?  The Democrats apparently intend to renege on the deal.  Nice.

Good news in Zimbabwe: unity government in place

Posted on by | No Comments

It looks like Robert Mugabe finally buckled—enough, at least, for the opposition to agree to form a unity government.  When the power-sharing agreement was first reached in principle, the sticking point was which ministries the MDC would get, and they were crystal-clear on their wish list:

The MDC wants to take control of ministries of home affairs in charge of the police, local government to oversee councils, one of the justice ministries, foreign affairs and the finance ministry—giving it responsibility for rescuing the shattered economy.

They look to have gotten much if not most of what they wanted.  MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai, the new Prime Minister (the leader of the breakoff faction, Arthur Mutambara, will be his deputy), named an MDC minister of finance and co-minister of home affairs (that portfolio will be shared with a co-minister from Mugabe’s ZANU-PF), and a deputy minister of justice; the ministers of foreign affairs and local government are as yet unnamed.  MDC also took the health ministry and the ministry of water development, meaning it will also be their job to deal with the cholera epidemic.This isn’t a guarantee of anything, but it’s a hopeful sign.  Keep praying.HT:  Skanderbeg

The new American revolution?

Posted on by | No Comments

Most informed citizens know the Bill of Rights has ten amendments; nowadays, though, most people don’t remember the Tenth Amendment.  If you’re one of them, here’s the text:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If you didn’t know that was in the Constitution, don’t kick yourself too hard—to all intents and purposes, our government doesn’t either.  (The same is true of the Ninth Amendment, which declares, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”)Now, however, we have the first sign in a very long time that that might be about to change.  If Congress won’t recognize the proper sphere of sovereignty of the states, some of the states are thinking about standing up to claim it for themselves.

Although Fox News and CNN are not telling you about it, a growing number of states are declaring sovereignty. Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, and Georgia have all introduced bills and resolutions declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering such measures.

Here’s the payoff from the bill introduced in the state of Washington, which follows a number of “Whereas” clauses laying out the historical and constitutional justifications for the bill:

NOW, THEREFORE, Your Memorialists respectfully resolve:(1) That the State of Washington hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and(2) That this serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its constitutionally delegated powers.

That’s just one example; go to the article and you’ll find links to all the bills that are currently pending in state legislatures. Knowing my old home state as I do, I’ll be surprised if that one passes, but some of these will. Of course, I’m sure the initial response from the Obama administration will be to dismiss or ignore these bills; but if these states have the guts to act on this language and resist (or even seek to roll back) the federal usurpation of state power, we have a shot at reviving federalism. After all, the Tenth Amendment may be treated like a dead letter, but it’s still in the Constitution; the Obama administration may succeed in buying states off, but if any of them hang in there and refuse to give up their Tenth Amendment claim, as long as they pick an issue on which they’re on firm ground, it would be hard to make a constitutional case against them.It’s encouraging to see state governments asserting themselves as independent and responsible political entities, rather than as lapdogs of D.C.; here’s hoping it keeps up.HT:  Shane Vander Hart

If you can fake that, you’ve got it made

Posted on by | No Comments

Isn’t that what they say about sincerity?  When it comes to getting on in the world, it’s a true statement, with one big “if”:  it’s only true as long as nobody catches you faking it.  Get caught, all bets are off.Unfortunately for Alex Rodriguez, he’s been caught faking it a few too many times by now for anyone to believe much of anything he says.  It’s been revealed that he tested positive for steroids in ’03, and he’s trying to control the damage by admitting the positive test and spinning the circumstances—but why should anybody buy the line?  After all, this is a guy who . . . well, I’ll let veteran Tacoma News-Tribune sportswriter Larry LaRue tell the story:

One day in the visiting clubhouse in Cleveland, Alex called me over to his locker. His grandmother had died a day earlier, and he wanted to tell me how hard losing her had been. He had been close to her, he said, and was devastated by her loss.Alex told me all this without showing emotion. I thought he might be trying not to, so I nodded and listened.“The funeral is Sunday,” he said.“Are you going?” I asked.Alex looked genuinely surprised.“No,” he said. After a pause, he told me he’d had a long talk with Lou Piniella, who’d asked him to play through the pain.It occurred to me that day that Rodriguez might not be feeling anguish so much as wanting me to know he was—and to write about it. I didn’t, in part because I thought it sent too mixed a message and I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.I still do, but it has gotten harder.Alex Rodriguez never said a spontaneous thing to the media. Ever. On one level, that could be seen as caution. But over the years around Alex, it became apparent he was that way with teammates, coaches, everyone. . . .I don’t know anyone who believes they’ve seen an honest emotion from Alex. When I watched his confessional interview with Peter Gammons and thought we might finally hear him level with the world.Until he said he wasn’t sure what he’d taken, only that it was banned.Alex took something for three years without knowing exactly what it was? Impossible. Alex didn’t get dressed without thinking of the impact he wanted to make with his attire. He never spoke to the press without knowing precisely what message he wanted to deliver.And the steroid cocktail he is alleged to have consumed is not something he could have purchased over the counter at GNC—part of it can’t even legally be sold in this country.What Alex did Monday was confess to as little as possible. He never said the word ‘illegal.’. Only ‘banned.’ He never said he’d injected anything, or been on a program.Alex Rodriguez taking injections without knowing what was in the syringe or how would impact his body? . . .When you think you’re just a bit smarter than anyone who interviews you, things get said that are too easily checked. Alex’s grandmother story, for instance. I talked to then-manager Piniella a bit later in the evening, and asked if he’d counseled his young shortstop about the death in the family.“I didn’t know about it,” he said. “Alex hasn’t told me.”Now, Alex wants the world to know he’s sorry. That whatever it was he took in Texas because of the pressure he felt after signing that contract, he stopped taking when he went to New York—where apparently, there was no pressure.At least this time, he left Piniella out of it.

The thing about trust—and it’s something our president should remember; sure, he’s the golden boy who can do no wrong, but so was A-Rod, once upon a time—is that once you lose it, once people decide they can’t trust you not to spin them, it’s extremely difficult to get it back.