Was Jesus a "Media Master"??
In my last post, I spoke of how I felt one church used a recent crisis to market and promote its church and services. Now I realize that this debate has taken place time and again, but something came up that I thought might be worth talking about. Did Jesus use marketing techniques to advance his ministry? Heather seems to think he didn't and Marc thinks he did... here's what they had to say.Jesus was not media-savvy. I'm not quite sure why his followers find it necessary. (Heather)
Now that's funny, you think Jesus wasn't media savvy. I guess that's why no one has ever heard of Him.
He was actually amazingly media savvy, He had the prophets publicize Him thousands of years before he was even born. He then worked miracles that were heard of across the world, even being recognized by the world leaders of his day,and then, in a stunt unprecidented [sic] in human history, He pulled a "David Copperfield" and arose from the dead starting His own religion.
Jesus wasn't just media savvy, He was the media master. (Marc)
So, is that what Jesus was about? Was the purpose of the recorded miracles to advance his cause? Was the purpose of his death to start and grow a world-wide religion with millions of followers and churches?
Was Jesus a "media master"?
My answer is "NO". My understanding of the Scripture is that Jesus didn't want others to know about his miracles, often telling the ones healed to "keep quiet". Also, his death wasn't part of his plan for a religion, it was the path he had to take for man's redemption. Man then took it and made it into a world-wide religion.
In my opinion it's man that takes the good things (or bad) in this world and spins them to advance their own causes. God wants to purely and simply advance the cause of love. Local churches want to grow in numbers so they market using gimmicks or press releases. God wants the church to grow by loving others...and the rest will fall into place. OK, so I sound like a hippie.
What do you think?
posted by Steve at
11/01/2007
17 Comments:
I was researching stupid church people for an article/book I am writing about parenting. Your blog is headed straight to my sidebar---if that's ok? Carry on.
I apologize in advance if this comes across as preachy. The application of marketing principles to church and Christianity gets me worked up. (More pygmalion effect, perhaps . . . ) But I appreciate that you used Heather and Marc's comments to perpetuate the discussion. I enjoyed the thought exercise.
>> He then worked miracles that were heard of across the world, . . .
What caused the news of those miracles to spread across the world? I doubt it was a press release to the local newspapyrus. More likely it was the first-hand accounts of those who experienced the miracle who told the story, and it spread across the region and eventually around the world.
> . . . in a stunt unprecidented [sic] in human history, he pulled a "David Copperfield" and arose from the dead starting His own religion.
A stunt? Since I don't know Marc, rather than disparaging him, I'll say it this way: Jesus' sacrificial offering of Himself on the cross for the salvation of all sinners has more impact on my life than any other action before it, and any action since has had, and any action that follows this moment will have. It was not an event packaged for the media of the time.
Regarding starting His own religion: He already had followers. He didn't need to die and rise again to start His own religion. He died and rose again to change hearts, one at a time, regardless of whether it received favorable (for example, the Palm Sunday triumphal entrance) or unfavorable (for example, Good Friday's calls from the crowd for crucifixion) reviews.
>> Now that's funny, you think Jesus wasn't media savvy. I guess that's why no one has ever heard of Him.
To me, "media savvy" implies a level of calculation applied to action: how will this action be received, and in what way does it need to be publicized in order to be received better? Jesus was indeed clever in His responses to the Pharisees ("Give to Caesar what is Caesar's . . . ", "Was John's baptism from God or from men?"), and He exhorted His disciples to be shrewd, but the things He did were, in His words, "the will of the Father who sent" Him.
And as far as why we've all heard of Him, I'll give the Holy Spirit the credit for the advance "publicity", submitted through the prophets, as Marc referenced.
I though Marc was being sarcastic in his comment - at least that's how I read it - and it was pretty funny. I actually think he is making the same point as you Steve (just via sarcasm).
As far Jesus being a 'media mogul' of some sort - I can't see that even being possible. Heck, he isn't even the press of the day (ex: Josephus) or whoever was reporting the happenings in Israel. Jesus only appears in his disciples writings and Paul's letters.
And I am not sure Jesus was at all concerned with being 'noticed'. Steve points out a few things about Jesus - but Matthew 6 in and of itself seems to reflect a person that thinks 'sincerity' is more important than 'spotlight' (of the the which he upbraids some pharisee's for 'acting' - or being hypocritical). I wonder what he would think of the televangelists?
So this is where I part paths with current Christian thought and it's buy-in of Capitalist values - marketing and it's use in faith. Are we selling a product here? Is Jesus something that needs promotion via the airwaves or press? Or are these churches doing it to make themselves look good and maintain numbers?
To me the whole things smells like church becoming business - and I am not sure Jesus liked that either (I recall a little whipping incident). I think our faith is becoming heavily cheapened by television, music, print, and merchandising. All outlets that can be used to promote our faith are being used - most of it shamelessly to promote the preacher or church (alongside the gospel). Somethings not right here - or at least - it's a huge walking away from the sincerity of what Jesus taught.
***Coming to a church near you - me and my 3 strand whip/cord - to overturn the tables of the moneychangers who are selling their books as faith essentials. Ha ha!
I agree, Steve. Jesus wasn't about self-promotion. In fact, in Jesus always glorified the Father, not Himself. Then He sent the Spirit, who glorifies Christ, not Himself.
And even though we may not be on exactly the same page regarding miracles & such, I DO believe that Jesus, were He here in the flesh today, would probably not be on TV, building a Jesus empire. He'd be in community, glorifying God (with hookers, drug-addicts and the like...)
At risk of being a blog-pimp, I just posted about this on my site, in relationship to Willow Creek Community Church in Chicago.
Here's a link
Marc, if you were being sarcastic, there's egg all over my face.
Steve, either way, I still enjoyed the thought exercise.
Dan
I suspect the way Warren sees it is the fact that he is appealing to "the crowd".
Jesus was pretty good at generating a crowd - I'm presuming we can all agree on that. (I guess we can debate whether that was calculated or not). But regardless, the outcome was the same and on the back of generating a crowd He would teach/preach.
Our time & culture doesn't present the same sort of opportunities. The way to "generate a crowd" in this time & culture is through the media.
Even the fact that we're talking about it now proves that Saddleback have got our attention.
I would have more of a problem if it were self-promotion (look at what I have done) but the press release is talking about a collective body. It's bigging up the Church. IMHO, it's making Jesus look good. Is that a bad thing?
As I like to tell 'em,we've gone from "Jesus Christ Superstar" to "Jesus Christ,C.E.O" in the last 40 yrs. Imo Steve nails it with "God wants the church to grow by loving others...and the rest will fall into place. OK, so I sound like a hippie." I became a believer at the end of the "Jesus Movement"-and showing the love of Christ worked for us "hippies" then in the spread of the Gospel-in fact- worked for a long time until the "nefarious numbers game" came into the "business mix". I'll leave it at for now.
John
Sheildsy.... you share a common thought around many church growth and emergent types that I have come across.
First I would argue... Rick Warren is synonomous with Saddleback and he signed the letter, so he could argue it's what HE has done (in effect). Also, the counter argument could be like me bragging about my kid and being a proud parent. Rick loves to brag about his church. I think it somewhat defines him.
But back to your point. You say: IMHO, it's making Jesus look good. Is that a bad thing?
So, anything is OK as long as Jesus is promoted. Promoting Jesus at any cost...is that a good thing? Not arguing that it isn't since I certainly see both sides of the argument. Just asking the question.
IMO, Christ was anything but "media savvy". At various points during the Gospels, he'd go off by himself to pray and spend some quality time with the father. And, like you (Steve) said, he would tell some of those he'd healed to keep mum about it.
That said, if anything, it was those who were touched by his ministry directly (e.g., the disciples, the woman at the well, the blind man, others) who were the "media savvy" ones. They're the ones who told the masses about what Christ was doing and what he had done. And even after all that had taken place, those who were putting together the Biblical canon were also way more "media savvy". Four books in the New Testament (and a small portion of Acts and bits of Revelation) are about him. (Plus, there are at least two other Gospels--Mary's and Thomas's--that didn't make it to the Bible that have to do with Christ.)
I'd also agree with Dan, in that the prophets who foretold of Christ's coming to earth in an incarnate form were more "media savvy" than Christ himself.
I feel all famous now. :-)
I actually had no idea that anybody could possibly disagree with me when I said Jesus wasn't media-savvy. I didn't even consider it possible that it was up for discussion!
Jesus COULD have put up signs directing people where to go to see him next. He COULD have left all his miracle-working to be done in front of these crowds. He COULD have made deals with the powers-that-be to give him airtime during meetings with 'important' people. He COULD have sent along a street team before him to make sure people knew he was heading their way.
He never once did any of this.
Jesus attracted a crowd because of his natural magnetism, not because of his fantastic self-promotion. People followed him because they heard something, saw something, that made them sit up and take notice. He was every bit a revolutionary.
If anybody *was* media-saavy, it was that Saul from Tarsus guy, who single-handedly reshaped and refocused Judaic Literature and created the propaganda platform that we nowadays call "Christianity." Pretty impressive for a tentmaker.
> God wants to purely and simply
> advance the cause of love.
Seriously, what does love have to do with Contemporary Christianism?
Love is patient?
Love is kind?
Love is not envious?
Love does not boast?
Love puts other ahead of itself?
None of those statements even remotely resemble what I see or hear from Christianists, in pretty much any and every forum. Oh, wait... unless it's "tough love" based on flawed "reasoning" and "logic" with scripture thrown in to make it sound sanctified.
I think Christianists are the last in line when it comes to any tangible or realistic application of love.
(I have snarky Christianist exposition for each of the love statements I made above, but I'm pretending to be "mature" and am just commenting that I have 'em instead of making 'em. [Somebody pat me on the back, please])
For the sake of clarity, the last post was from me, Rev. Dan (the Outchurched guy... c'mon Steve, you remember who I am...), not the other Dan who has his own stuff to say. :)
- Rev. Dan (or "Dan" if you're into that non-clarity thing)
Well, shoot. I had commented on the previous post before reading this one (trying to go in order). People here pretty much said the same stuff I was going to say. *shrugs*
Suffice it to say, I agree with Dan and Heather on this one. Jesus' followers may have been media-savvy (and the snow-balling effect of 2,000 years of history and the Church pretty much being the ruling government of Europe for a long time surely had something to do with Christianity's popularity), but Jesus himself didn't toot his own horn. Even when he attracted a crowd (such as the miracle of the feeding of 5,000) he usually botched the deal later by presenting a tough teaching that caused many to leave (you must eat of my flesh and drink of my blood...). To say that Christianity's current popularity is due to Jesus being "media-savvy" is really looking at history through the wrong end of the periscope (or telescope. or whatever). And I certainly wouldn't call Jesus dying on the cross a publicity stunt akin to David Coppafeel. While soteriology has been long-debated in theological circles, I'm pretty sure no theologian or pastor worth their salt thinks Jesus did it just to get attention.
I guess I don't understand what everyone's argument is. So I am requesting a little clarification.
The word "media" comes from the word "medium". Well shoot,let me just define media:
-the means of communication that reach or influence people widely.
I am by no means arguing motive. I was simply pointing out that Jesus' purpose was to "reach or influence people widely". To me it's not the question of the morals of being "media savvy", it's the heart behind that media.
No matter what you say or do in the public arena people somewhere out there are going to disagree.
And as a side note who are we to judge the heart of them. I have to be honest, I think the whole letter is stupid, but that's irrelevant, I think lot's of things are stupid.
Media is simply someone gettting good news out and that's what Jesus did and that's what He told us to do. The question is not whether or not Jesus used media. The real question is the difference between good and bad media and I think you answered that - the difference between the two is to what end?
http://www.organizeddoodles.blogspot.com/
Doesn't exactly relate, but still appropriate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra6ZMIkHhiA
Funny... I had just finished reading an article that discusses as to whether Jesus tried to keep his identity a secret and why, and when it was ok for everyone to start telling people about Jesus.
Why would Jesus try to keep his identity a secret?
The following response is based partly on an article in Hard Sayings of the Bible (HSOTB) by Peter H. Davids.
There are three separate cases to consider:
1. Jesus wouldn't let demons say who he was
2. Jesus healed people but told them not to tell anyone
3. Jesus told his disciples he was the Messiah, but told them to keep it secret
For the rest of the story (Far to much material to post here) follow this link and "Read all about it!"
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_secret.html
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home