That's too bad. I think you bring up an important thing. I also think that many churches struggle with knowing how to effectively reach out cross culturally. I have had ties with our local Chinese church for many decades now. I don't attend regularly these days because of my husband's needs, but I love these brothers and sisters, and I also appreciate the way they have reached out to the Chinese community here. There's something to be said for sermons and prayers in their own heart language. But your article makes a valid point. To take pictures of people without their knowledge or permission in order to APPEAR more diverse than they really are is disingenuous. It's also likely to harm the relationships they hope to cultivate.
Absolutely -- we live in a culture that values appearance over reality, but the gospel calls us to cultivate true relationships and love those who are not like us. That's hard to do and requires a lot of dying to our own preferences, so it's only natural that we find it easier to craft a show of "diversity."
True. But with integrity, crafting a show of diversity wouldn't be the preferred way to go about this. I am glad to see loving outreach to people of all kinds of backgrounds and races when it happens well.
I will admit up front I am in a quite cynical cycle about church so read my comments with that full disclosure.
Evangelical churches are particularly prone to feeling they “own” their flock. The church leadership decides the direction of the church without discussion or input from church at wide and then expects full participation with a smile.
In my corporate career, we hired people for advertising purposes. Employees photos used for publications, written or web, with permission. Occasionally real photos from real work events ( convention) but with permission .
It is dishonest to present a false picture and even more dishonest that permission is not sought.
Yes. This is just one way secondary interfaces interpret our genuine love for one another as being for them rather than people. They are truly symbiotic; parasitic at times and rarely benign. Thank you for sharing this.
I’ve done a great deal of thinking about these organisations along the symbiotic spectrum. While I think they probably mean well they are truly destructive in every sense of the term; towards other people, themselves and the gospel.
Spot on, Joy. I can see a church using social media for announcements, but really, do they need it for anything else? How many people actually go to a church because they saw a post on Instagram? I’d like to see a study.
I did some research on that, and I couldn't find hard numbers, but I do know that it's generally assumed today that everyone "church shops" by watching online services or scrolling social media. There's anxiety about having a presence and platform that will draw people in. It fuels so many unhealthy practices and I'm not sure it actually makes a difference.
The availability of “for purchase” propaganda images are deceptive; not unintentionally misleading. We can imagine the justification now; the images are aspirational (sort of like giving Woodrow Wilson and Barack Obama Nobel Peace Prizes for the good intentions they held at the moment their awards). So the respondents would argue that the images do not portray the current church, instead they project how we would like it to be. Ahh, truth-in-advertising…from a church. Great Post. Faith “consumer” “test everything, prove that which is good.”
This prompts so many questions for me… primarily questions about how we “shop” for churches. Even in a social media age, maybe churches wouldn’t feel so much pressure to market themselves to the point of inauthenticity or even exploitation if we returned to past ways of choosing churches (ie., physical proximity, neighborhood/community involvement, word of mouth, actual biblical guidelines instead of personal preferences, etc.)
Such a great point, yes. We're so accustomed to thinking in terms of consumer choice ("shopping" for churches) that we haven't considered whether this is how we "should" choose a church. I'm not sure I'd want to go back to the days where the only church options were whatever denominational representative happened to be established in your town, but selecting churches because of branding or ability to meet our preferences also shifts our relationship to church and the people in it. Is it a network of relationships that we have a responsibility to, or is it a product/experience that we switch when it no longer meets our needs?
Well thought-out, Joy. I read this reflectively as I thought about my own loving, small, and diverse church - areas to be aware of, look out for, and address if needed. I don’t ever want the authenticity of what’s there to turn into something cringy and unsafe. I appreciate you taking the time to write this!
That's wonderful. It takes intention and care to hold an authentic space... and is much more difficult than working on image management and advertising. Thank you for reading!
This is just such a good and needed conversation. I think the question to ask is “what is the motive?” If it isn’t to honor God and if it doesn’t honor all of his children then we probably shouldn’t be doing it.
Great way to frame it, yes. For too long the church equated numerical growth with "God's glory" -- but in many cases I think we stopped asking whether we want success for God's glory, or for our own.
During the Church Growth Movement of the 1990s, its critics produced counter-arguments on their websites. One counter-argument was a false reliance on “numbers.” Is the best example of Evangelism the numbers who were baptized on Pentacost? Or the Ethiopian Eunuch’s conversion and Baptism through the involvement of Philip the Evangelist. In other words, like most of Jesus’ efforts: one-on-one. Isn’t this how churches grow in the absence of advertising deception?
Good question! Who’s counting and what “counts” is really important… are we prioritizing our perspective, or letting the Lord determine what “growth” is supposed to look like ?
My former church posted a “notice” along with all the other announcement slides on screen that by being present I consent to my photo being used. I served with the youth on Wed. Note, underage cannot give permission for their likeness to be used, but photos of adults praying with kids were posted on social…private moments. I spent time last year in Mexico and attended church. The church announced the new law that no photos of underage kids are allowed to be taken…at all. No photos of kids at their upcoming Easter events and I was careful to not take photos of children anywhere. Who knew WE needed to learn from Mexico!! On a side note: shootings in Mexico are predominantly crime on crime, not random. I felt safer there than in USA.
That's too bad. I think you bring up an important thing. I also think that many churches struggle with knowing how to effectively reach out cross culturally. I have had ties with our local Chinese church for many decades now. I don't attend regularly these days because of my husband's needs, but I love these brothers and sisters, and I also appreciate the way they have reached out to the Chinese community here. There's something to be said for sermons and prayers in their own heart language. But your article makes a valid point. To take pictures of people without their knowledge or permission in order to APPEAR more diverse than they really are is disingenuous. It's also likely to harm the relationships they hope to cultivate.
Absolutely -- we live in a culture that values appearance over reality, but the gospel calls us to cultivate true relationships and love those who are not like us. That's hard to do and requires a lot of dying to our own preferences, so it's only natural that we find it easier to craft a show of "diversity."
True. But with integrity, crafting a show of diversity wouldn't be the preferred way to go about this. I am glad to see loving outreach to people of all kinds of backgrounds and races when it happens well.
I will admit up front I am in a quite cynical cycle about church so read my comments with that full disclosure.
Evangelical churches are particularly prone to feeling they “own” their flock. The church leadership decides the direction of the church without discussion or input from church at wide and then expects full participation with a smile.
In my corporate career, we hired people for advertising purposes. Employees photos used for publications, written or web, with permission. Occasionally real photos from real work events ( convention) but with permission .
It is dishonest to present a false picture and even more dishonest that permission is not sought.
,
Yes. This is just one way secondary interfaces interpret our genuine love for one another as being for them rather than people. They are truly symbiotic; parasitic at times and rarely benign. Thank you for sharing this.
Parasitic is a great term to describe it.
I’ve done a great deal of thinking about these organisations along the symbiotic spectrum. While I think they probably mean well they are truly destructive in every sense of the term; towards other people, themselves and the gospel.
Spot on, Joy. I can see a church using social media for announcements, but really, do they need it for anything else? How many people actually go to a church because they saw a post on Instagram? I’d like to see a study.
I did some research on that, and I couldn't find hard numbers, but I do know that it's generally assumed today that everyone "church shops" by watching online services or scrolling social media. There's anxiety about having a presence and platform that will draw people in. It fuels so many unhealthy practices and I'm not sure it actually makes a difference.
What a title 😤
It's a shame it can be said by so many, isn't it?
Extraordinarily disturbing, honestly.
And then there’s the folks who use AI to write their sermons… and church social content… and their christian website copy…
Beyond words astounding.
The availability of “for purchase” propaganda images are deceptive; not unintentionally misleading. We can imagine the justification now; the images are aspirational (sort of like giving Woodrow Wilson and Barack Obama Nobel Peace Prizes for the good intentions they held at the moment their awards). So the respondents would argue that the images do not portray the current church, instead they project how we would like it to be. Ahh, truth-in-advertising…from a church. Great Post. Faith “consumer” “test everything, prove that which is good.”
1 Thessalonians 5:21
This prompts so many questions for me… primarily questions about how we “shop” for churches. Even in a social media age, maybe churches wouldn’t feel so much pressure to market themselves to the point of inauthenticity or even exploitation if we returned to past ways of choosing churches (ie., physical proximity, neighborhood/community involvement, word of mouth, actual biblical guidelines instead of personal preferences, etc.)
Such a great point, yes. We're so accustomed to thinking in terms of consumer choice ("shopping" for churches) that we haven't considered whether this is how we "should" choose a church. I'm not sure I'd want to go back to the days where the only church options were whatever denominational representative happened to be established in your town, but selecting churches because of branding or ability to meet our preferences also shifts our relationship to church and the people in it. Is it a network of relationships that we have a responsibility to, or is it a product/experience that we switch when it no longer meets our needs?
Well thought-out, Joy. I read this reflectively as I thought about my own loving, small, and diverse church - areas to be aware of, look out for, and address if needed. I don’t ever want the authenticity of what’s there to turn into something cringy and unsafe. I appreciate you taking the time to write this!
That's wonderful. It takes intention and care to hold an authentic space... and is much more difficult than working on image management and advertising. Thank you for reading!
This is just such a good and needed conversation. I think the question to ask is “what is the motive?” If it isn’t to honor God and if it doesn’t honor all of his children then we probably shouldn’t be doing it.
Great way to frame it, yes. For too long the church equated numerical growth with "God's glory" -- but in many cases I think we stopped asking whether we want success for God's glory, or for our own.
During the Church Growth Movement of the 1990s, its critics produced counter-arguments on their websites. One counter-argument was a false reliance on “numbers.” Is the best example of Evangelism the numbers who were baptized on Pentacost? Or the Ethiopian Eunuch’s conversion and Baptism through the involvement of Philip the Evangelist. In other words, like most of Jesus’ efforts: one-on-one. Isn’t this how churches grow in the absence of advertising deception?
Good question! Who’s counting and what “counts” is really important… are we prioritizing our perspective, or letting the Lord determine what “growth” is supposed to look like ?
I think another good question is, “And what is the result?” How are those videos, done with good intent in the eyes of leadership, harming the youth?
yes! We have to be able to discern the difference between intent and impact, and when they don't align, have the humility to admit it and change.
Absolutely!
My former church posted a “notice” along with all the other announcement slides on screen that by being present I consent to my photo being used. I served with the youth on Wed. Note, underage cannot give permission for their likeness to be used, but photos of adults praying with kids were posted on social…private moments. I spent time last year in Mexico and attended church. The church announced the new law that no photos of underage kids are allowed to be taken…at all. No photos of kids at their upcoming Easter events and I was careful to not take photos of children anywhere. Who knew WE needed to learn from Mexico!! On a side note: shootings in Mexico are predominantly crime on crime, not random. I felt safer there than in USA.
Wow. What great insight here. A bunch of mini thoughts popped into my head while reading this.
1. The old adage “the road to ruin was built on good intentions” resonated through my brain as I read this.
2. This is a pause to stop and think about what churches are doing, or should be doing.
3. Maybe a follow up article could even be how the evangelical church has lost its focus.
4. Last mini thought, we are shaped in the image of God, but what image are we shaping churches? Deuteronomy 5:7-10, anyone?