It is that way in other areas. Branding is what sells a college. Think here of the Ivy League schools who have spared no expense to develop their brand. I think it is fairly universally agreed that you may not get a better education at an Ivy League school but you will only get your address book, networking, and connections from one of those schools. Is it worth the money? Seems like it since many pay a premium to go there. They are not the only ones with a brand. Hillsdale has a brand that is recognizable and acknowledged. It is sought after by some of the same folks the Ivy League attracts and by many who are tuned off by the Harvards of this world.
Churches have a brand. Or, they used to, anyway. It was once a universal brand --Roman Catholic. Everyone knew what you were talking about. Latin chant, elaborate vestments, lots of smoke, rosaries, soaring candlesticks, and enough mystery and majesty to fill you with awe. Perhaps they did not intend to but Vatican II destroyed the brand. Rome shot itself in the foot the same way Coke nearly killed itself with New Coke. Tinkering with the recipe can be disaster. Rome is still playing catch up.
Lutherans once had a brand. In 1958 TIME magazine did a cover story on Lutherans and said you could go to any Lutheran congregation in America and hear the same readings, a similar sermon, sing the same hymns, and see the same ceremonial. So much for that. Now nobody knows what a Lutheran is -- including the Lutherans. The ELCA is more comfortable with Methodists (not so united anymore) than with the LCMS. WELS lives in its own little cocoon. Europe is filled with great buildings but no Lutheranism in them. The LCMS is all over the page -- having successfully divorced faith from practice. But my argument here is less the doctrine or lack of it than the brand, or, rather, the lack of it. We are declining not because our "product" won't sell but rather because we don't know what it is anymore. We do not know who we are anymore. We stand for everything in a world that values something.
Driving through my city of some 250K, you see one real mall but a thousand strip malls with the latest and greatest in names and products people are willing to drive across town to find. I don't know what they sell but enough folks younger than I am do and they shop there. Like the niche retailers online, these selective little boutiques cater not to the masses but to a dedicated crowd willing to pay a premium for the brand. Nobody is willing to pay anything for our Lutheran brand. It has become so "squishy" that it does not say anything about it all the while it is trying to say everything to everyone. I don't think St. Paul really meant that being all things to all people meant sacrificing the brand. That is what we have learned, however. We don't have our own music or catechesis or liturgy or preaching. It all depends upon where you are and what you find around you. Lutheran has come to mean too many things until it has finally come to mean nothing at all. Those who think that the word Concordia means something to the broader populace or that our myriad of acronyms for our jurisdictions mean something are living in the past. I am not saying we could not have a brand again but I am not sure we have the stomach for it. It would require that we be more willing to be uniform and less invested in the diversity thing. Perhaps for that reason alone it will not pass muster in our congregations or among our clergy. And, by the way, I am not at all suggesting that we choose the muddle middle as our Lutheran identity. Not even God likes the lukewarm. No, it is time to reassess if we are serious about our brand. I suspect Rome is going to have to do the same sort of thing. The ELCA is too far gone to matter and WELS is, well, WELS. The power of a brand could help us in our mission if we were really serious about it.
1 comment:
The April 7, 1958 Time article, "Religion: The New Lutheran" (https://time.com/archive/6800717/religion-the-new-lutheran/) doesn't mention having the same readings, sermons, and hymns. The article was predominately about ULCA clergyman Franklin Clark Fry:
"Dr. Fry’s accumulation of jobs is impressive. He is a top man in the ecumenical movement as 1) chairman of the policymaking Central and Executive Committees of the World Council of Churches, and 2) member of the Policy and Strategy Committee of the National Council of Churches. At the same time, he is a force in Lutheranism as 1) president (since 1944) of the United Lutheran Church in America, 2) member of the Executive Committee of the National Lutheran Council, and 3) first American ever elected president of the 50-million-member Lutheran World Federation. All these titles illustrate one fact: of all the denominations in the U.S., Lutheranism is experiencing the most dramatic new birth, and Franklin Clark Fry, more than any other Lutheran, is its symbol."
The Time article does note about Lutheran churches, in genral:
"What do the Lutheran converts find in their new churches? They find, above all. two things still relatively unchanged—liturgy and theology. Martin Luther, a prolific composer, himself handed down the most famous Lutheran hymn: A Mighty Fortress Is Our God.
"Lutherans’ “theological specifics” come directly from Martin Luther. who through his stormy life faced up to the problems that Protestantism has been coping with ever since."
About the Missouri Synod, the Time article includes:
"Says Historian Pelikan, himself a Missouri Synod Lutheran [But later XXXA, then Eastern Otherodix]: “There is a growing restlessness with the literal attitude toward the Bible. This comes from the science-minded laity who are unwilling to ignore the meaning of modern science and cosmology. Then too, the clergy is reading all sorts of things and finding the authors don’t have horns. Thus the predictability of the Missouri Synod position has gone down considerably. If Lutheranism is what it claims to be—open to the insights of both the fathers and the brethren—then this is a healthy shift.”
Post a Comment