In the Christian community in North America we have all seen it done and if we are in communications for the church we've likely done it. I've done it myself in the past. There's a hit TV show, a catch-phrase, a cultural phenomenon, and we decide to latch on to it, lift the concept, and apply it to our next sermon series or church program. We end up with a plethora of familiar names and looks, all in the hope of "connecting more" with an audience or potential guests.

The tough questions looking at this practice: Is this really creative? Is this really useful? Is this really connecting? I'm certain many ministry creatives are going to disagree with me on this one, but I believe the answers here are all no. Let me break it down a little:

Is this really creative? Frankly, I just don't support copyright theft, even of a friendly nature. No monetary harm is being done here, and the owners of these copyrights aren't complaining, but I don't think anyone would condone stealing outright something that belonged to someone else, even though that's really the heart of what is being done here--regardless of the motive. To those who would steal (and use the word "borrow from") these copyrighted works: it is stealing, it is sinful and it is wrong.

A creative team, church or otherwise, needs to actually be creative. That means original work from original ideas. This kind of plagiarism is just plain lazy. I wholeheartedly believe that God, being creative (world, universe, etc.) and having created us in His image, has endowed His body, the church, with enough creative capacity to do something completely original, every time such material needs to be generated.

Is this really useful? Though the thinking involved in these themeing most often to grab attention from a potential audience, what is really being done is to align the church's ministries and teachings with elements of the secular culture. I have an iPod just like everyone else, but seeing "iPray", "iCulture", "iLive" and "iServe" at different churches doesn't remind me at all of those ministries--it reminds me of Apple Inc.

It points to a common misunderstanding of these branding elements actually work--brands cannot be "lifted" or "repurposed". Instead of the idea being an "entry point" where the worshiper or student begins to align the secular theme with what they are learning in the Bible, they instead align the Word to the secular theme. This is because the secular brand began with the stronger perception in their mind, prior to being exposed to a supposed biblical application. We grab these themes thinking we can make people associate the theme with our teaching. But, because the theme has a stronger image in their minds from the start, they associate with the theme first, and not with our teaching.

For instance, let's take a series I saw a while ago on sexuality in the Bible called "Bringing Sexy Back" that a church somewhere in the United States was promoting. Obviously the thinking here was to give the series a cool name, based on a popular Justin Timberlake song. The mistake is that people's initial perception of the information is going to be based on their perception of the song, not the Word. The church wanted the song name to get people's attention, but the song brand carries its baggage into the thinking of the audience. Have you listened to the lyrics of "Bringing Sexy Back?" I would not play it in my church at any point--but use of the theme constitutes an endorsement of the message and brand of the song.

I think some folks would try to argue this as a harmless cultural reference. The reality is, any cultural reference is going to carry some level of perception with it, and strong brands carry strong perceptions. There is simply no such thing as a harmless cultural reference. If you are not completely aligned with that cultural reference, then it's best to leave it outside the church entirely.

What if you put a picture of, say, Donald Trump, on a wall in your worship center. You never talked about it, never made a direct reference to Trump or his TV show "The Apprentice". Instead you taught about biblical values with respect to finances and work, and were consistent in calling people to service and sacrifice with respect to their relationship with Christ. But there on the wall sits Donald. Is it safe to assume people are going to ask questions? What does the picture really mean? Why is it there? Do we endorse The Donald? Exactly the same thing happens when we reference secular culture in our themeing. Every cultural reference brings baggage with it.

Is this really connecting? Perhaps the broader question here is, what are we trying to accomplish by stealing from cultural themes? Do we somehow believe that this makes the church "more attractive" or "more inviting" to a guest? If the theme attacks a major common issue, there may be some element of interest generated. But is "iPray" any more effective than a series called "How to Talk to God?" I think you'd be hard-pressed to make that argument. We have so bought in to the lie that we have to impress our audience with our cultural prowess to even get the opportunity to share the Word with them. It just is not so. God's Word does not return void--the Word is enough, and God is enough of a draw in and of Himself. If we don't believe that then we have much bigger issues than bad themeing.

Then there's just the "cheese" factor of this. C'mon, are we ourselves not looking at these things thinking, "Is that the best we can do?" If we are thinking that, then our audience is too. Frankly, if I'm doing a prayer series, I don't want worshipers at my church thinking or linking Apple Inc. to our teaching on prayer by name association with "iPray". I want them coming and expecting a word from God and leaving with their attention focused on prayer. The very fact that we are copying, and everyone knows we are copying, diminishes people's perception of the value of our own teaching, and that we think it unimportant enough to be creatively lazy.

Stolen cultural themes do not help people connect. They turn them off more than anything. Thankfully what I see more and more today are original ideas in the church. They are just as creative--more-so, really, because they are grounded in the Word first, and communicate their intent without trying to rest on the good vibrations of a hit television show, song, celebrity or other marketplace element. I am preaching to myself here too because I've stolen some themed elements from the culture in the past--and besides being wrong, I can honestly say looking back that they simply were not impactful. Certainly less-so than those areas where I chose to do the work of being completely original.

My God is worthy of all glory, honor and praise. He is the Creator, Sustainer, Author and Finisher. His very presence binds the universe together, His thoughts keep the earth moving, the stars in place, my very life and breath in motion. The thought of God brings awe, fear and reverence to my mind now, and more-so each day as I learn just a little bit more about His character, His Word and His plan. He deserves nothing less from me, from His church, and from our creative efforts than something worthy of His name.

  

The New Inductive Study Bible (International Inductive Study Series)

The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World

Knowing God

> Click for more books and periodicals on aligning (intention).

About the Author. Eugene L. Mason has more than two decades of experience in ministry communications and technologies. More...