toxic church

‘News International’ has become ‘News UK’ in an attempt at what the BBC News website is calling “brand decontamination”. Following a procession of bad publicity and scandals the organisation has changed its name. A change of name won’t change much. I suspect it will not make much difference unless there is an associated change of culture and attitude, and even then it will take a long time to change the public perception and erase the residual collective memory we have about News International. 

WARNING ICON GLOSSY 14The concept of ‘brand decontamination’ is an interesting one. It suggests that brands can become toxic and become a liability. I wonder whether ‘church’ might be in danger of heading that way and need decontamination? There have been too many scandals (one is too many) associated with churches in recent years. The public and painful debates in the Church of England have also contributed to this effect, particularly given how they were portrayed in the media. It doesn’t help that lazy journalism talks about “the Church” when it means “The Church of England” or the “Roman Catholic Church”, but I suspect that potential toxicity cannot be attributed only to that.

So what can we do? I suppose the first thing is to work out whether we should be bothered about it at all. After all, Jesus warned us that our reputation would be tarnished as his followers and that we can expect opposition (and persecution). But those are because of who he is, not because of our failures. We should be concerned not because of our reputation but because of how it reflects on his. If churches are the visible representation of Jesus today (his body) then we should be worried if people think his character to be ugly, cruel, even evil because of us.

Should we change our name in order to effect a brand decontamination? Suggestions for a new name are welcome (just hit ‘leave a reply’ above)! But unless we undergo a corporate character and culture change it may be as ineffective as I suspect News UK’s re-branding will be. And that is where we have a distinct advantage. We are followers of the One who is able to change us. We are disciples of the forgiver, the reconciler, the fresh-start-giver, the transformer. He has filled us with his Spirit who will bear fruit within us that will help us to be more like Jesus.

On balance I don’t think we need a brand decontamination. What we need is openness to God’s Spirit, a willingness to change, and a desire to be the best free samples of Jesus that we can. And surely admitting our mistakes, seeking forgiveness and starting afresh is a much better approach than re-branding – that goes for us as individuals and as groups of Christians (aka ‘church’).

Be blessed, be a blessing.

One thought on “toxic church

  1. We should be equally aware of the subtle risk of brand contamination. The World does not like non-conformity nor does it smile on those who dare to be dissidents and will not follow its path of compromise. It may talk of moderation but it now rides roughshod over religious conscience, pressurising the Church to be “inclusive” and “accommodating” in matters of morality, far more “relaxed” about ethics (lack of) and invariably “liberal” in its scriptural interpretation. We witness in increasingly difficult and challenging times.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s