"In spiritual matters there really is no 'Third World.' It's all Third World."
- Dallas Willard
Saturday, April 25, 2009
I have long said, and wholeheartedly believe, that the Bride of Christ is beautiful. But I don't mean that in a physical sense, but rather because I believe her destiny, and her current, emerging1 reality, is great beauty. Perfection.
I love the church.
I also think iMonk makes a great point about a big problem in the market-driven church in America:
Appalachia has a lot of ugly people. We produce a bumper crop of them, and you’ll find plenty of them in church, in Gospel singing groups and on local Christian TV.
Southeastern Kentucky hasn’t yet heard what most of evangelicalism lives by: Keep the beautiful people up front.
Good looking hunky preacher boys. Gorgeous babettes on those worship teams. Authors, speakers, teachers: good lookin’ and keep ‘em looking better all the time. (Thank God for moder enhancements of the human body. Amen?)
Every see an ad for an evangelical church? Any Tom Pettys or Susan Boyles on that commercial?
Church web site? Oh my. Don’t use your own people. Use professional models. I want my senior adults to look like the happy consumers of various enhancement products. Smile Bob! Your hair may be gray, but the rest of you is 25.
And Contemporary Christian Music? Susan Boyle types….your phone is NOT ringing.
No, evangelicalism may not come out and say it, but God really does prefer his people looking good.
1 I used the word "emerging" here but this has nothing to do with the faddish Emerging/Emergent church moniker.
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/5377.
Comments on "The Look of the Church":
2. Crossbow
- 04/26/2009 8:39 am CDT
Come - to Dallas. Can't say I've ever seen an attractive person on any billboards or websites up here. Well - this one couple for a prosperity gospel church looks a little too fake and all - but it really is the real pastor and wife.
Can't say that I agree with the CCM quip either. Even though I am not a fan of CCM, I have always liked the fact that you could still get a contract even if you didn't look that good. Sure, there are some model looking types out there - but some real below average ones, too. Sure, they are all well groomed and presented in a slick fashion and all - but don't mistake that for having model-good looks.
I am sure there are plenty of churches out there like this iMonk describes, but not in my little corner of the church world. And I don't doubt that he/she really sees this in the churches they interact with. But once again, to me - this illustrates a problem I see with the blogosphere - assuming that your particular take on anything must be true for everyone.
So my question to Bill is - how do we know this is a big problem, instead of maybe a localized one in some places? You could spend the rest of the week hitting church websites and only scratch maybe 5% of them. Where ever this problem exists, I would agree that it is a big problem, but how can we know it exists everywhere? I am thinking over the last 10 churches that I have attended or worked with in some capacity, and can't think of a single one where is an issue. There are other issues to be sure. But I just think it is a bit irresponsible to say things like "what most of evangelicalism lives by."
4. Bird
- 04/26/2009 10:25 am CDT
I think I posted about this topic here in the past few months. Bill's totally right! I mean all you have to do is go to a local Christian bookstore and peruse through the CDs. Look at all the posters on the wall, any unattractive types? Heck no.
The evangelical world is just as obsessed with superficial beauty as the world is.
5. Bill
- 04/26/2009 1:33 pm CDT
Crossbow - I don't know. It was just an opinion.
My own church breaks this trend, at least the part that said "Authors, speakers, teachers: good lookin’ and keep ‘em looking better all the time."
They let me teach, and I'm uglier than a stump.
For what it's worth, overall I think my church does pretty well. But I've seen this in the church. I hope it's not widespread.
I love the church. The bride is beautiful. But I think we tend to fall into some of the same traps the world does, especially in our attitudes toward what real beauty is and what real success is.
I'm glad in your corner of the world you don't see this. That's a blessing.
6. Bob Sacamento
- 04/27/2009 8:37 am CDT
iMonk hit it out of the park again.
I have been so ticked at this stuff ever since my college days a couple of decades ago when it was clear that the college minister was intentionally filling the leadership positions with the best looking people. I have a Christmas album at home with a songs by a bunch of different artists signed with some Christian label. They are all beautiful. Even (shudder) the guys. And ever notice that every mega-church senior pastor is married to a hot blonde? And I could go on, but iMonk and Bill have already said it all better than I can.
Crossbow, I'm sure your experience has its own validity, but I am convinced that iMonk is right for the most part. And I have spent a few years in Dallas myself, and Dallas is maybe the worst of the worst.
7. Jared
- 04/27/2009 9:15 am CDT
I know Matt Chandler characterizes Dallas/Austin as perhaps the epicenter of Bible Belt Christian nominalism.
I don't know about that from experience. I do know Houston, and it seemed too diverse to feel Bible Belt-ish to me.
But here in Nashville . . . Man. With CCM, Christian publishing, all the Christian college kids at Belmont/Lipscomb/FreeWill, and the beating of the Bible Belt South, what iMonk writes and Bill is echoing is hammer-nail.
8. Quaid
- 04/27/2009 9:22 am CDT
One of the problems of using your own church members in marketing involves legal matters. If you use someone's picture (or likeness) and they decide later on to go off the deep end, they can sue the church for using them without paying them. Basically, in order to protect yourself, you have to have them sign a contract or have some means of proving that the people are providing the "modeling" without payment.
Same thing with using someone's child. Like Shrode said, it's difficult to:
A. Find someone who can take quality photos
B. Find people who are willing to have their photo taken
C. Have those people agree, in writing, that they won't ever ask for money (naming the specific photos church property)
D. Photograph those people in situations that are appropriate for web/mailers
E. Find Stock Photos of Ugly People
All this to say that while what imonk posted may be true, it may not be because of pride or some other superficial reasoning - it may be less expensive and much easier to use stock photos instead of paying a photographer and a lawyer to use your own people.
Just some thoughts to consider.
Also - Bill is not ugly as a stump and he certainly is in the running for most congenial. Still, you won't find me present during the swimsuit competition.
10. Bill
- 04/27/2009 8:17 pm CDT
RobT, Quaid, Phil,
Thanks for the insight into the legal issues behind images. I hadn't thought of that.
12. t.smith
- 04/29/2009 12:11 pm CDT
I'm taking the opportunity here to post about Jim Wallis, Sojourners, and the emerging church. If you go to www.frontpagemag.com and type Jim Wallis in the search box, it'll take you to articles written by Mark D. Tooley exposing Wallis' socialist bent. Brian McLaren and Donald Miller are associated with Wallis. I would like to see you guys study this. I can't find any good, conservative evangelicals blogging about this issue, how the emerging church movement is entwined with leftist politics. I've been to the the sojourners website, read a little of McLaren's latest book, I just don't see the gospel of Jesus anywhere in these places, just Jesus being used as a face on a political movement. Seems very dangerous for church to me.
13. t.smith
- 04/29/2009 12:36 pm CDT
Also, found via www.thunderstruck.org, and article at Christianity Today.com titled "After years of rejecting it, Sojourners claims the Religious Left Label (updated) - http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2009/04/after_years?of.html.
Leave a Comment:
He's right. I've thought that for years...
On the stock photo thing though...we're still figuring out how to do things like an electronic newsletter and website...but we've already started using stock photos just because it's easier. Not because we want to use "beautiful people" instead of our members. It's just easier than trying to take nice professional looking photos of our members and then having to pick which photos are good and then getting people to sign waivers to allow their image to be used on the website etc....
But he's still right in what he's saying.