“The loudest one in the room is the weakest one in the room.”
Wow! That’s a provocative line from a marketing blog called “Brand Autopsy.” Here are some more noteworthy thoughts from them about real strength:
It’s so applicable to marketing that the loudest advertiser in the room probably has the weakest product in the room. It’s reasonable to assume that weak and unremarkable products/services need the loudest advertising because it’s the only way they will get remarked about.
We’ll be seeing lots of “loudest in the room” advertising during the 2009 Super Bowl. Most Super Bowl advertisers make lots of noise showcasing their “clown suit” gimmicky advertising with the hopes of grabbing our attention. The louder these companies talk, the weaker we can assume their product/service is.
These thoughts remind me of the resounding gongs and clanging cymbals in I Corinthians 13. If we have real strength the news will spread without the gimmicks and clatter. And it all seems to beg some important questions for ministry as well.
When people talk about your church, do they talk about real family, community or life transformation? Or do they talk about your charismatic pastor, trendy programs, or cool cafe instead? If people are only paying attention to the surface of your church, could that be like getting caught up in “loud” advertising? Could an over-emphasis on those kinds of things be hiding a potential weakness in real life or community transformation?
I’m wondering about my own life as I write. When people think about us do they remember what we look like, the companies we own, the hobbies we enjoy, or the house we live in? Does our life resemble “clown suit” gimmickery or a quiet strength?
There’s probably a big application to the American Church in general too. How much would we save on mailers, billboards, etc. if the body of Christ was just strong in our faith? If we gave to one another freely? If we modeled honesty and integrity? If our families functioned well? If we served people quietly?
Lex,
It makes you wonder doesn’t it?
It reminds me of the book of John where he reminded us that they will know we are Christians by our love.
However, I’m wouldn’t be quick to lump all church communication into the “clown suite” gimmickry catagory. If its purpose is to inform and engage others into real substantive worship and life change (selflessness) it can play a vital part in the effort.
As in all things, we have to ask, “What is at the heart of the effort.” Is there substance and selflessness at the core?
This past summer, we were visiting with a couple we’ve known for twenty years who now serve overseas trying to develop an indigenous church among a community of people who are utterly unreached. We were discussing “church growth,” and our friend said this, “What you win them with is what you win them to.”
That comment has continued to haunt me. If we win them with our clown suit, do we turn them into clowns? But if we win them with our own genuine discipleship — if we are truly Jesus people, and they know it by the love we have for each other, (John 13:35), then perhaps we will win them to that. Perhaps we will win them to become lovers of others, disciples. And isn’t that the great commission we’ve been given? Not to convince people to come and see our clown suits, but to go and be disciples among them…
Amen Dan….I really appreciate the thought:
“What you win them with you win them to”
Good article. Good thoughts. I came from outside the church and altho a member for 20+ plus years it is still often necessary to introduce me to visitors since I don’t have a church name. Inevitably I’m introduced as Bob, (followed by my position at the local company I work for). That’s always troubled me, as altho I love my job, I really don’t want my job to be the mental image of who I am, because this not who-I-am.
Bob,
I really appreciate your thoughts and discomfort with being labeled by your occupation.
Its interesting that we are so uncomfortable talking about heart and hope issues. So why do you think that is?
Heart n Hope are kinda the flip side of Lust and Dispare. Take all four, and deep discussion of one or all of them can be outside group bounderies. So, how does one communicate inside a group with tight bounderies of what can and cannot be admitted? You put on a mask. The mask meets all the group boundary critieria. What happens when the face behind the mask is significantly different than the mask?—- Sucide, (“I was so shocked, he seemed happy”), eating disorders, (“she seemed so with-it, I never imagined she had problems”), risky behaviour (“pregnant?, she always seemed so nice at choir practice”). To really share heart n soul issues there needs to be a well established link between the speaker and the listener(s). Our society really doesn’t try to be conducive to that, it’s fixated on exalting “the nuclear Me”. A group breakout discussion (“…remember, meet back in 20 minutes with your answers”) is not the same as sitting on a park bench and discussing the very same agenda one-on-one.
I have no real training in this stuff, I just observe a lot. So I probably should have started witha “IMHO”.