|
|
||||||||
Mr. Chip Dinger
Director of Marketing
Erksom Products Ltd.
101 N. Frisk St.
Archminster, IL 41238
Archminster, October 31, 2006
Re: Exploiting the Evangelical Market
Dear Fellow Directors:
My department has completed our preliminary research into the market we discussed on Thursday. The good news: Demographically speaking, American evangelicals are rich, stupid, and easily sold. The bad news: We're not the first to have realized it. We must move quickly to take our share in this lucrative and expanding market.
Evangelicals began to emerge as a distinct purchasing force in the early- to mid-90s, but have only come into their own in the last few years. Several major product releases, including the The Passion of the Christ and The Purpose Driven Life, have recently demonstrated the vitality of this poorly-understood consumer group. Passion, for instance, grossed over $370 million at the box office and is the eleventh top-grossing film of all time, just ahead of Jurassic Park. Its success was propelled by evangelical leaders who saw the film as a marketing opportunity for their own (spiritual) product, and rented out whole theaters as an "evangelistic exercise." (It turns out, though, that most non-Christians--including most of us in marketing--found the film repulsive, and it had little "evangelistic" success.)
The Porpoise Driven Life (as some of my staff are calling it) has sold through over 25 million units. Interestingly, its early sales were driven by Warren himself, who, with the help of like-minded financial backers, bought hundreds of thousands of copies to distribute for free and to seed initial sales figures. The book's ambi-Christian packaging--devoid of clear religious references--helped it sell to the agnostic and quasi-religious self-help market. But a great deal of the marketing was propelled by evangelicals themselves, giving copies to "lost" friends and family members.
These and other product successes show that evangelicals are a major purchasing force. Product saturation still lies well beyond the horizon. This is our opportunity.
Some of our competitors have been working in this market for some time, so we must move quickly. In September, Fox Home Video, acting apparently out of their own deep-felt religious yearnings, launched FoxFaith Films, an arm dedicating to exploiting the evangelical market. The financials are interesting. The films are made for $5 million apiece (less than a tenth of the average movie budget), with an additional $5 million for marketing. FoxFaith clearly sees this consumer group as desperate, not discerning. Fox is known, paradoxically, for both raunch and conservativism; perhaps a Last Temptation Island of Christ series will spring from this happy union?
What is it about this market that makes it so lucrative? The key is this: Evangelicals are consumers first, religious believers second. Like all consumers, evangelicals shop in order to find and express themselves. Just as students flash their iPods, writers flash their Montblancs, and middle managers flash their Lexuses, evangelicals flash their NIV Study Bibles, their Veggie Tales videos, and their Calvert Math homeschool texts. Like all Americans, they spend money as a way of showing the people around them who they are. Human animals searching for meaning and self-expression will spend ridiculous money for a product that aids them in their quest--just look at the success of the iPod or Starbucks. That is one gravy train we cannot afford to miss.
So what do evangelicals spend their money on? "Family Values" is the buzzword to watch. Although an evangelical is just as likely to be divorced, absentee, or lecherous as the next guy, he likes to think of himself as a lover of home and hearth, a defender of decency, and the protector of his children. An evangelical's greatest dread is a future world where his or her children are wild and "pagan," having been lured from the faith by video games, hip-hop, and homosexuals. It's notable that the leading quasi-Christian radio network has the slogan "Safe for the Whole Family." One of the leading Christian retailers is "Family Christian Stores." The major Christian radio programs is "Focus on the Family." Spot a trend?
Evangelicals decry America's "moral decline" even while financing it. This contradiction is the key to success in this segment. An evangelical shopper will buy a family video with one hand and a porn video with the other. He or she will hand-wring over whether to give to charity, yet drive two thirsty SUVs. The secret is to exploit their sense of terror and guilt by offering products that promise to guard their children and strengthen their family while still providing the thrills and personal fulfillment Americans demand.
Marketing feels this is a crucial opportunity for Erksom Ltd. We believe one brand announcement before the end of 2006, with 3-5 additional in 2007, will help propel us into a leadership position in this segment by 2008. Given this background, here are some specific suggestions for product lines we feel PD should consider.
- The Happily-Ever-After Video Series. Each video in this series begins with a one-hour, family-oriented romantic adventure culminating in the triumphant marriage of the hero and heroine. The movie then pauses at an intermission, giving parents an opportunity to get their children to bed. The second hour of the movie continues the story of the wedding night with a mild (by normal standards) pornographic offering.
- The Lord is My Fortress Home Security System. Monitored by avowed evangelicals, this security system takes both spiritual and physical safety into account. At the press of a button, home owners can request a quick prayer for safety, comfort, or freedom from anxiety from regional monitor personnel. Installed keypads adorned with Scripture and crucifixes bring feelings of warmth and security.
- Pet Rock of Ages. It's high time pet rocks made a comeback, and what better market than those wholesome, nostalgic evangelicals to usher it in? Each rock comes with a care-and-feeding booklet complete with rock-oriented spiritual lessons for children.
- The Martin Luther Bling Streetwise Jewelry Line. Evangelical children living in 21st century America can hardly escape the allure of gangster rap and its "cool" accouterments. Christian parents have long recognized: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. What better way to sanitize Junior's rap obsession than with spiritually edifying "Martin Luther Bling" jewelry? Now Junior can dress like Chamillionaire while learning important lessons in Reformation history and soteriology. Line includes oversize necklaces, bracelets, rings, clip-on earrings, phylacteries, and alarm clocks.
Yours Sincerely,
Chip Dinger
Director of Marketing
cc: Dick Bascaroni
Epstein Brianson
Fitch Williams
Arg Neckplankton
P. Stephen Sloan
|
|
||||||||
It appears in Philippians 3:8 (which I've recently been working on for my 3rd semester Greek class at seminary). Here it is in the original Greek:
ἀλλὰ μενοῦνγε καὶ ἡγοῦμαι πάντα ζημίαν εἶναι διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου μου, διὃν τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώθην, καὶ ἡγοῦμαι σκύβαλα, ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω...The word you want to keep your eye on is "σκύβαλα"--pronounced "skubala." Here's a literal translation of the verse.
But indeed I also consider everything to be loss on account of the surpassing knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, on account of whom I forfeited all things; and I consider them shit so that I may gain Christ...Yes, you heard me right. Skubala means shit. Not only does it literally mean shit--i.e., human excrement--but it also has the same connotation. It is a vulgar word. Paul would not have said it in mixed company unless he expected a reaction.
It's difficult to find Christian sources that discuss skubala, but its use in ancient writings outside of the Bible makes clear that it was considered very impolite. The leading modern Greek lexicon--BDAG, it's called--glosses skubala as "refuse," "garbage," "human excrement," "crud," and "crap"--very strong words for this Christian scholarly book.
So the original text of the sacred Scripture contains a dirty word. I don't know about you, but I felt a profound sense of relief when I discovered this.
English translations don't like this word. They take the edge off it.
King James: ...Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ...It's interesting that all these translations "soften up" the original vulgarity. What does that say about the people who make and buy Bibles? What does it mean when the Bible is more profane than we are?
New American Standard: ...Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ...
New English Translation: ...Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things– indeed, I regard them as dung!– that I may gain Christ... [I suppose the exclamation point is there to make it a bit "edgier."]
Revised Standard: ...Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ...
Why Do We Sanitize the Bible?
I'm betting there are two sorts of people reading this post. One sort of person will be asking, "Why have the translators been sanitizing the Bible? If Paul said it, surely it's not our business to change it." The other sort of person will ask, "Why, Jeff, are you writing about this? Why air this dirty laundry? How is this discussion helpful to Christianity?"Interestingly, the answer to both these questions lies in Philippians 3 itself. Paul uses this naughty word for a reason. Look at what Paul is saying here (Phil 3:4b-9, NET translation).
If someone thinks he has good reasons to put confidence in human credentials, I have more: I was circumcised on the eighth day, from the people of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews. I lived according to the law as a Pharisee. In my zeal for God I persecuted the church. According to the righteousness stipulated in the law I was blameless. But these assets I have come to regard as liabilities because of Christ. More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things– indeed, I regard them as dung!– that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of Christ's faithfulness–a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ's faithfulness.So what's the connection between the fact that Paul uses a dirty word and the fact we purge it from our translations? The connection is legalism.
How Good is Good Enough?
Legalism is the pretense that some human beings are nice and others are naughty: that there is a standard of "normal" behavior that defines what sort of person is "decent" and what sort is a scumbag. The Philippians were starting to buy into this idea, and Paul wrote to them to wake them up. He says, in effect, "Don't bother trying to be 'decent': I've already tried it. I was as 'normal' and 'decent' as you can get and I was still a scumbag. If you want to be righteous, it's going to take a whole lot more than politeness and normalcy. It's going to take a divine intervention." And to make sure they get the point, as well as to illustrate his contempt for human standards of normalcy, Paul drops the s-bomb.In his discussion of legalism, Paul is saying what Jesus himself said again and again. Here are some of the ways Jesus said it.
Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs that look beautiful on the outside but inside are full of the bones of the dead and of everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you look righteous to people, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (Matthew 23:27-28)(You can already sense the Ted Haggard reference coming, can't you?)
You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28)Interestingly, in the Old Testament, Isaiah uses another "vulgar" image when talking about this same topic:
On that day, many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!' (Matthew 7:22-23)
We are all like one who is unclean, all our so-called righteous acts are like a menstrual rag in your sight. (Isaiah 64:6)In other words, what human beings perceive as upstanding behavior, God perceives as a soiled tampon. Thanks for that image, Isaiah.
Insiders and Outsiders
We only let G-rated people into our churches. In church, a person who smokes, or cusses, or reeks of liquor, or dresses seductively is viewed as suspect, inferior, abnormal, an outsider. You're only allowed into the church body/family/club/clique if your shirts are starched and your smile is white and your speech is inoffensive.It wasn't always this way. Jesus himself hung out with "sinners"--including tax collectors, drunks, and prostitutes--to such a great degree that the decent "church people" of his day accused him of being a debauched party animal (Luke 7:34). The early church was a motley crew, not the clean middle-class stereotype of modern evangelical churches.
What changed? One of the things that changed is the reason why we go to church. Now we go to "connect with people like ourselves," to "form community," to "fellowship" and receive "support." We go so that our children will be in a loving, safe setting where they can learn about God and family values. Well, these are noble goals, but what do they have to do with Jesus hanging on a bloody cross? Did Jesus hang on a bloody cross to provide us with a clean, safe, child-friendly mall-like clubhouse where we can hold banal conversations with like-minded family-values-oriented people? Or did he hang on a bloody cross to utterly transform our shitty lives? And if it is the latter, who do you think "gets" Jesus more: the clean, polite middle-class people or the dirty, vulgar funky-class people? He said: "Those who are healthy don't need a physician, but those who are sick do. Go and learn what this saying means: 'I want mercy and not sacrifice.' For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Matthew 9:12)
So the Bible says "shit" and "soiled tampon" because that's what the Bible thinks of how good we are. But your translation says "dung" and "filthy rags" because Christians are still trying to whitewash the truth.
Invested in Sin
Well, how's this strategy working out for us? We evangelicals are faring pretty well, right? I mean, maybe we don't uphold God's crazy-high standard of moral behavior, but we sure do a lot better than the normal human standard, right?Oh sure. That's why our divorce rate is no better than the national average. That's why 50% of all Christian men admit to being addicted to pornography--admit to being addicted. Twenty percent of Christian women do too.
And that's why Ted Haggard's recent confession does not surprise me in the least. (There's the mention--you knew it was coming.) Evangelicalism has become a religion of appearances. We've created a subculture of politeness and "good morals" instead of humble worship and radical obedience to God. We churn money and votes through our glistening megachurches, but have lost touch with our own deep brokenness. Our talk is all about "conversion" (i.e. selling club memberships) rather than the discipleship (transformation and obedience) that Jesus offers and commands. Why should I be surprised when the king of the religion of appearances turns out to be not as he appears?
There's an interesting article on the National Association of Evangelicals' response to the Ted Haggard scandal. In it, Rev. Leith Anderson, a megachurch pastor who is temporarily replacing Haggard as NAE director, says, "[Most people] will understand that if there are 45,000 churches [affiliated with NAE], that 44,999 of them have leaders that did not misbehave and that one person misbehaved and that that is an anomaly."
So "misbehavior" is an anomaly? See, that's funny, 'cause I thought the Bible said everyone misbehaves; something like: "There is no one who does good, not even one." Is "misbehavior" different from "sin," in Rev. Anderson's view? Is he suggesting that misbehavior is gross, whereas sin is mild and excusable? Or is he saying that "misbehavior" is when sin becomes embarrassingly public, whereas mere "sin" is kept pleasantly private?
It's too bad that a religion that names itself after Christ, that purports to offer his Good News to the world, still wants to deny the very reason he went to the cross. People are broken. Not some people: all people. So which is worse: to be broken in a way everyone can see, or to be broken in a way that you can keep secret--even from yourself? Think about it. To understand the answer to that question is to begin to understand the Sermon the Mount. "Blessed are the poor in spirit." "Blessed are those who weep and mourn." "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it." "I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." The Bible doesn't offer "decency" as an option. Either you're mired in sin, or you are justified. The Bible neither denies sin nor revels in it. It tells the truth about our grotesque brokenness, and then offers a supernatural solution. Isn't that the gospel we are so eager to spread? Then why are we still running from it?
Jesus ' story of the two worshipers sums it all up (Luke 18:10-14).
Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed about himself like this: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people: extortionists, unrighteous people, adulterers–or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of everything I get.' The tax collector, however, stood far off and would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, be merciful to me, sinner that I am!' I tell you that this man went down to his home justified rather than the Pharisee.
|
|
||||||||
I was just reading about that 16th century clash between Calvinism and Lutherism. Calvin and Luther got along just fine, but after their deaths, their followers couldn't stop fighting. The Great Men themselves seemed to have the insight, confidence, and love of unity necessary to navigate their differences peacefully, but their followers lacked such nuance or love. It got me thinking: why do institutions always seem to deteriorate in the generations after their founders pass on?
Walt Disney is another example. The man himself created magic wherever he went and seemed incapable of taking a misstep. Certainly he propelled his company from obscurity to one of the great organizations of modern history, not only in filmmaking but in television, theme parks, merchandising, and so on. Yet now, just a couple of generations after his death, the Disney company seems to have lost its way. It use to be that everyone copied Disney; now it's Disney doing the copying. The torch has passed to Pixar--and Disney either can't, or doesn't have the sense, to hold onto its last available light source.
The Reformation itself, which Luther and Calvin spearheaded, came in response to the deterioration of Christianity. Even Jesus' own great movement had decayed in the centuries since he walked the earth; by the 15th century it was--with rare exceptions--a disgusting farce: rampant with greed, governmentally oppressive, morally debauched, militarily violent. If even Jesus' own movement is doomed to institutional decay, how can any leader hope to found something of lasting value?
This question shivers my bones when I look at contemporary America. Our founding fathers were inspired, and the system they established is still the best the world has seen. It has served us very well these last two hundred years. But are we doomed to follow in the footsteps of the other great powers of world history--Britain, Rome, Greece, Persia, Assyria, Babylon, Egypt? A decaying America seems unthinkable, yet history says it's inevitable.
Why do institutions always decay? I wonder if it has something to do with this idea of regression towards the mean.
It takes a remarkable person to found a new organization or movement. The more remarkable the person, the more remarkable the movement. Yet, the more remarkable the founder, the less likely that is his successors will be as remarkable as he. After his departure, his movement comes to be entrusted to leaders who are quite unlike the founder, and they inevitably drop the ball to a greater or lesser degree.
Why are they inevitably inferior? Because although these leaders may still be outstanding--after all, the remarkable founder selected and trained them--they are still unlike him in that they, necessarily, are exactly the sort of people not to found a remarkable, revolutionary movement. If they were that sort of people, they wouldn't have joined his movement or ridden on his coattails.
A founder is a person who is so unhappy with what is currently going on--and so inspired/driven/confident by his own vision--that he has to found something new. But the people who join his movement, rise up in it, and eventually take the reins are by definition more joiners than founders. Their goals and skills are at least as much to do with sustaining the organization as with breaking new ground.
I heard on the radio, driving home the other night, that Walt Disney was fairly cavalier about money. He was a genius financier, yet he never quenched ambition with niggling practicalities. He trusted that if you were making a bright enough light, no amount of dust would dim it. That's a founder way of thinking. Yet a corporation like Disney Corp, post-Walt, with its stock price and shareholders, its beloved brand to protect, and its prior successes readily available for exploitation, quickly turns its mind to nickels and dimes, to protecting money as well as creating great ideas. It cares about making light, but it also cares about counting motes of dust. Institutions, unlike their founders, have something to lose; they gain a share in the status quo.
Look again at Christianity. Where did Jesus worry about practicalities? "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head." "And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin." "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?" Jesus does not think in terms of practicalities or force--at least not in the way we usually think of it.
Yet by the 15th century, the Popes had one of the most powerful armies on earth. They no longer named themselves after saints, but after Caesars. They were the richest people on the earth. They threw lavish and lewd parties for their courts, and openly kept harems of concubines and stables of illegitimate children.
All institutions decay. See if you can find an exception. (The Illuminati, maybe? -chuckle-) They decay because whatever once made them great becomes harder and harder to sustain, until all that's left is the memory of past glory. You can never point to an institution and say, "They've licked it. They've found the Golden Fleece. They'll just keep getting better and better from now on."
But I'm still hoping Pixar will buck the trend.
|
|
||||||||
What makes me sad is the thought of all the people I know--young Christians, non-Christians, older Christians who are still struggling to find the "abundant life" Jesus promised--who will now have yet another reason to dismiss Christianity. When Jesus started this movement, it was full of miracles and life-change and resurrection and understanding and healing. Now, in this Christian nation, where one in three people call themselves "born again," our brightest stars can't seem to stop themselves from getting drunk, smack-talking the Jews, taking drugs, and playing with other men's penises. What in blazes is going on?
Ted Haggard was one of the leaders at the heart of the evangelical power+money arm. (Power+money all for a good cause, of course.) I've been skeptical of this arm for a long time, and now I'm ready to chew it off like a badger caught in a trap. Remind me again: where did Jesus command or model for us to seek political power? When did He teach us that money was a necessary evil--rather than just an evil?
Christianity has been scheming against God, asking Him for help but assuming He won't, and taking matters--political, military, financial, and otherwise--into our own hands. It reminds me of Jacob, who couldn't make up his mind about God either. Before Jacob met Esau--after having ripped him off--he asked God to help, then assumed He wouldn't. Jacob started scheming how he was going to protect himself from Esau's wrath. It was after that last day of scheming that God showed up in human form and fought with Jacob: literally wrestled--it still makes me laugh. And physically, Jacob won! But when he realized what was happening, God won his heart and renamed him Israel--"he who strives with God."
Are we so different from Israel? We think we're God's chosen, we offer up our milquetoast prayers, yet we don't really lean on Him. We believe God saves our souls, but not our pocketbooks, not our jobs, not our children's eyes and ears, not our happiness. We can't wait around for a miracle; we've got bigger fish to fry than helping the poor; so we form lobbying organizations and political unions, raising millions to Fight the Good (Enough) Fight.
Show me the chapter in the Bible where God said to do this. I think we're wrong, and I think God is sick of our pseudofaith. Now here He comes, showing up with His boxing gloves on. Maybe Ted Haggard's fall is simply the latest divine Right Hook--a body-blow for the Body of Christ.
