I know that I'm perhaps a day late and a dollar short posting about the "Doing the Most Good" branding almost two weeks (maybe more) after Cory did but I just went through the branding process and have a few thoughts to share.
All of the branding didn't really bother me before I went to the Branding meeting. I had people explain it to me as a promise to the public which I still believe it is. People kept telling me that they thought it was boastful - I'm not sure I ever thought it really was. I just kept my mouth shut about all of it - one way or another (except for questions here and there) until I had been through the meeting and heard what they had to say.
Now, I'm angry. Perhaps a little more than I need to be but I'm still quite ticked. I almost made it all the way through that stinking meeting without any objections and then they showed a video of Stan Richards who is obviously the founder of the group who came up with the branding. He began talking about getting a vision for people in the organization to live by - okay, I can do that. I can always ask myself if I'm doing the most good. Not a problem. Then he said that the next thing they do in order to come up with the brand is categorize in one word the organization or company which they are branding. For The Salvation Army the word they chose to describe us was CHARITY. I was angry - still am. We are a charitable organization but only because of the message we preach about the Good News of the gospel. It seems like every time I turn around we, The Salvation Army, are choosing not to let people know about who we serve when we have the opportunity. Why couldn't the stupid brand be about more than doing the most good with people's time, resources and contributions and be about doing the most good to win the world for Christ! That's why we do what we do and for the life of me I can't get past the thought that this isn't going to help. I will always have to tell my friends that we're not just a red kettle and a Thrift Store which this branding is supposed to help alleviate. I didn't see how but perhaps I will over time. Why is it that we chose to spend 12.7 million dollars on advertising last year and will continue to do so in the future and never EVER mention why we're the SALVATION army or spend a dollar trying to get that word out? Kelly asked the question that I'm asking. Not about funds but about how this will help people know we're a church and the answer that was returned was that it's up to us! Right, so, I get the responsibility to tell my sphere of friends, neighbors, whoever that we're a church ALL BY MYSELF? I love doing that - don't have a problem with it. In fact I feel it's my duty. Yet, the entire country gets a chance to hear about the other things we do and not why we do them through the media. That seems equal.
Perhaps we're putting the emPHAsis on the wrong syLAbell - concentrating our energy, our money, our time on the wrong part of the mission - the services, instead of why we offer the services in the first place.
Just my thoughts. Could go on and on but I think I'm beginning to beat a dead horse.
Are we doing the most good?
Joy
12 comments:
one consoling fact for me in this whole process is that I am only responsible for what I have been given. God will not ask me what I did with that 12.7 million, only my... well, a lot less than that.
i do find it funny, though, that the answer given was that it is up to us to let people know we're a church, while it was up to those in "power" to further reinforce the lopsided view of the Army as a charity.
just a side note to who all may be reading this. my question was not asking how we can let more people know we are a church.. my question was "how can we make more people aware of our Christian mission as the Salvation Army. the WHY we do the most good, not the HOW."
Greast post,
As an outsider looking in I am intrigued as to how the people on the inside are responding to the branding.
I wonder if the S.A. isn't actually living up to its identity MORE with the slogan "Doing the most good" instead of "Heart to God hand to man." I say this with some degree of incredulity because I have noticed the Army evolving into more of a social service organization anyway over the years (at least in the south).
I guess a much bigger question I would be asking doesn't have to do with the branding (although I think it's an aweful slogan) and that is, "Why is it the only people describing the Salvation Army as a soul winning community are the individuals within the movement and only in coversations with each other. The coversation never goes outside into the market place so to speak. The Army does a great job using a religious language when it is talking to itself and never when it engages the world. That to me should be the bigger question. The branding came about because of an already established worldview. This really isn't an enigma. Maybe the second question should be why have we nurtured an environment where leaders are ok with a Godless slogan.
Keep up the good work.
Hey Joy!
Interesting post (I do drop in and read them from time to time!). Just a couple of thoughts to add to the condiseration process.
In the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46) I think it's worth noting that there is no element of evangelism or spiritual ministry...but the group doing the work is called "the righteous". That in mind, I think that the efforts and direction of the salvation army can exist and be fulfilled to the people of the world without telling them why we are doing it. I beleive that the parable tells us that there are many ways to serve God in this world...and not all of them are focused on telling people about God. In the parable, "the righteous" didn't even know that they had done anything good at all!! Now, don't misinterpret me...I beleive that the people who were served in the parable are included in the whosoever and must be told about the good news of the gospel, but the parable does point out that "the righteous" must also serve basic human need sometimes without any other added elements...that's thought number 1.
Thought number 2 (I said there were a couple!) is that I totally agree that the onus for proclamation of the "why" should rest solely on our shoulders as soldiers and adherents of the salvation army. 1 Peter 3:15 also exemplifies a situation where someone (one of us aliens and strangers!) is obviously exemplifying some type of behavious that has caused someone to ask why. The implication again is that we do the 'good deed' because of who we are in Christ, and because of Christ in us. If we were intended to start with "I'm doing good to you because of the cause of Christ", then no one would have to ask why, and we might find ourselves never needing to exude hope and peace (casa alianza peace!) because it's stated for us.
There...2 thoughts and a lot of words. For what it's worth, I may recant them in the future if necesary!
See you at Christman...
El Mariachi LOCO!!!!
that's a good point, about "never needing to exude hope and peace because it's stated for us." as opposed as i am to the new brand, i'll admit that i hadn't thought about it that way. because aren't we often tempted to rely on the collective Godliness of the group rather than exuding it ourselves? allowing ourselves to exist under the label of the army's piety may very possibly lull us into not acting out Christ's love with any fervor--a fervor to which i now feel motivated, since i wish to "prove" the army's mission to the outside world in the face of the religiously impotent slogan. i absolutely do not think that this was in the minds of the higher-ups when they agreed to the new brand, but it's an interesting new perspective.
Unsure if the parable of the sheep and goats is exegeted properly in the previous thread? Isn't interesting that a case it being made as to why it is ok for the Salvation Army to exist strictly on a charity basis without proclaiming its allegiance to Christ to the World. (I smell a red eplet). jk
For the sake of making a point, let's say that Jesus was talking about doing ministry without preaching the message of the good news in Matt 25. I am well convinced that He balanced that out three chapters later in the Great Commission which I might add mentions nothing about social service. Strictly evangelistic!
I too agree that individuals in the Army need to be autonomous when it comes to living out their faith and personalizing their relationship with Christ BUT when you function in an organization that does not value theological autonomy and by policy determines your public statement one must demand reciprocity!!! "Don't speak for me unless you allow me to have a say in what you are espousing!" If you wish to Brand me, at least make sure it is the cross and nail marks of the Savior that died for me. That is what I'd want the public to know.
just for the record...el Mariachi LOCO wears jeans to church (the red eplet smell must be coming from somehwere else!!!) And the interpretation was more 'eise' than 'exe' -gesical...although I don't think it was exegeted incorrectly!
Additionally, el Mariachi Loco does fully embrace the plenaray nature of the scripture and would agree whole heartedly that the end result for all should be salvation and restoration...
That out of the way, (thankfully!) I was simply trying to draw a point (unsuccessfully it seems!) to the nature of salvation and the process that it can entail. Sometimes, the planting of the seed is found in a kindness offered without other things attached to it. I was simply saying that TSA can potentially, through doing good works, be used to plant that seed, and I think (eisegesis here) that, for each of us, the reality of the sheep and the goats can be viewed in that light. (My mistake btw, calling it a parable)
As an organization, the salvation army cannot make good on a religious mandate...but salvationists can...and as stated, our 'brand' can never be anything other than the cross of christ. That said, why should we want to flaunt the religious capacity or capability of anything...can any organization have either of those things?
God did not call TSA to the great commission, he called you and me. Let The Salvation Army "do the most good" frankly it can and it does...but for me...
"God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." Galatians 6:14
Till next time,
el Mariachi LOCO!!
(is that even real spanish?)
Great retort!
You make a good argument. Sorry for the confusion on the "eplet" thing just a sorry attempt at some humor. Although, I did notice the vociferous reaction to the accusation of being a "red eplet"?
Branding is only important if you are interested in selling a product. So, with that in mind, I understand the strategy behind "Doing the most Good" I I mean think about all the other commercial brands that have been succesful:
"I'm Lovin It"
"Just Do it"
"Make a Run for the Border" (I couldn't help that one La Nacho)
Cheers: "Where everybody knows your name"
You get the idea,
Christ really could have done a much better job in "Branding" his movement if you ask me. "Coexist" would have been a great chariot sticker! Or what about, "What happens in Jerusalem stays in Jerusalem!" Or my favorite, "Focus on your own *&*% Family."
Christ just missed the point. Or did he? Maybe he did intend for his followers to be branded just in a way that ensures their distinct nature. John 15, "Slaves should not expect to be treated any better than their master" Maybe, just maybe, Jesus was saying it's not about coming up with a "fancypants" slogan that makes our product sellable at Walmart (or atleast on the sidewalk outside of walmart) its about making sure your allegiance is undivided. Helping to usher in the Kingdom of God into the lives of the downtrotten and outcast.
Now maybe a case can and should be made that in your good works your faith is evident (James). That's OK. But I am a bit suspicious to the idea that that is what was going on in developing this marketing ploy. This would have been a great task for Trump's next Apprentice not the Salvation army.
Regards,
Ahhhh...smells I love. Freshly mown grass, the first frost on a maple tree, the inside of a ping pong ball, cedar chests, butter chicken, and common ground!!!
Great debate...if Joy can maintain the thought provoking BLOG entries, maybe we can have another.
For the record, el mariachi loco is Dean, from Pickering Ontario!
I concur, have a good week,
http://gulfport.biloxi.diningchannel.com/id100804-el-mariachi-loco.htm
Really interesting post. I'd seen something somewhere else about the branding. You know, branding has been trendy in the secular corporate world for several years, so it isn't surprising that the Army, as a business, would follow the trend.
I agree with another anonymous comment about how Army people are very good at talking to each other about their spiritual mission, but not to outsiders. I have frequently educated the uneducated about how William Booth was called to save the souls of the poor, but quickly realized that he wouldn't get through to them until their physical needs were met. Even Jesus fed the masses with fish and bread before giving his sermon.
I wouldn't say the Army is becoming more of a social services organization, but rather that the social service are far removed from the spiritual services instead of the one leading into the other. My experience tells me that it is very difficult for an outsider to become accepted into the Army's "spiritual" circles.
La Mariachi Loco or Dean from Ontario,
Nice to meet you,
Sincerely,
Chris
Atlanta (aka "The Dirty South")
Post a Comment