About fifteen years ago, so I would guess, Andre Agassi was doing commercials for someone (I can’t remember) in which he said “Image is everything.” How much does the “image” others have of Christians matter? Both the seeker movement and the emerging movement have had “image” as one of their themes. The seeker movement sought to undo why folks didn’t come to church and the emerging movement, at various venues where I have heard such ideas, have used the negative image of the Church to construct some of its ideas and models of how to do church. Now, David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, under the sponsorship of the Barna Group, have come out with a new book called unChristian
My question for today is a simple one: What role should “image” play in local church ministry? Have you thought about this, about how often it is now used in rhetoric to point out what others think of the church and about how that is shaping some of the things we emphasize? Is “image” moving us in the direction at times of political correctness? How is this idea reshaping what we do?
Gabe Lyons, on the phone with David Kinnaman: “I want to help a new generation of leaders understand the perceptions and images that young people have of Christianity — what people really think of us” (13) and “I want to help start conversations and lead people to start thinking about how to bridge this divide between us and them” (13).
David Kinnaman: “We are not responsible for outsiders’ decisions, but we are accountable when our actions and attitudes — misrepresenting a holy, just, and loving God — have pushed outsiders away” (14).
“It’s not a pretty picture” (15).
The thesis might be this: outsiders think Christians and the Christian faith have become unChristian.
“Every Christ follower bears some degree of responsibility for the image problem …; it is not helpful to assign blame to those who have made mistakes” (16).
So they have conducted research on “outsiders” and what they think of Christians — particularly those Barna studies call “born again” Christians. They looked at 16 to 29 year olds. There are 24 million of these “outsiders” in the USA. They are 40% of the generation that are “outsiders” to Christianity. Their view is not dissimilar to the same age group inside the Church!
A classic Barna mapping of the evidence: How do outsiders perceive Born-again Christians?
1. Know of/aware of Christians (NA), evangelicals (57%), born-again (86%)
2. Bad impression of Christians (38%), evangelicals (49%), born-agains (35%)
3. Neutral impression of Christians (45%), evangelicals (48%), born-agains (55%)
4. Good impression of Christians (16%), evangelicals (3%), born-agains (10%).
Here’s an insert question: Is it worth trying to retain the label “evangelical”/”born again”?
The primary reaction is to the “swagger” of evangelicals/born-agains. When Brian McLaren says this, the grace-grinders come unglued; when the Barna Group says it will the same group believe it? What am I saying? The book says the dominant perception of evangelicals is this: conservative, entrenched in thinking, antigay, antichoice, angry, violent, illogical, empire builders; they want to convert everyone, and can’t live peacefully with others. Christians, this book contends, have become famous for what they oppose.
K-L (Kinnaman-Lyons) know that some of the negative perception is the outcome of a faith that cuts into the kingdom of darkness, but they also know that’s not the whole story. So, if you think you can brush this book aside, they urge you to think again. The solution is not to become soft in commitment. If grace-grinders have an only-holy God, some have an only-love God.
So do perceptions matter? Yes.
1. People respond on the basis of perceptions.
2. These perceptions might make us more objective about ourselves.
3. Perceptions can change.
4. Perceptions are framed most often through personal stories and experiences.
Is Image Everything? 1
October 23, 2007 By 39 Comments
I have heard a lot about this lately, and I concur that it is an issue that needs to be addressed. However, I think that it is a mistake to become too “image conscious.” Every Christian needs to redirect his/her effort to personal change…as Paul said, “Be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom. 12:1-3). Trying to project a pre-fabricated image doesn’t work because people will see right through it. What is more, if I read Jesus’ words in John 15:18-25, the more like Jesus we become, the more the world will hate us.
Surely we are called to be very self-aware and self-conscious, image conscious if you will. The gospel is “an offense,” a stumbling stone, etc. Lord have mercy on us if WE become the offense or stumbling stone. We obscure or hinder the gospel if we do so.
I think about this a lot. This dichotomy is interesting: “If grace-grinders have an only-holy God, some have an only-love God.” To me, holiness IS love (since “God is love”). And to Odgie’s point, I can think of many examples where the world hates love. Jesus’ “image” problem was with those who worshiped power. His love and holiness were attractive to the rest. I do think that the church has an image problem sometimes when what we put forth as “holiness” is really just legalism.
I wonder how much the media has shaped the youth’s perception of Evangelicals/Born-again vs. actual negative experiences with those in that group? I am NOT saying those in that group are perfect but I do know they do more good than bad and overall are undeserving of the caricatures painted of them by individuals and the media.
Personal story…
I know my sister-in-law had the same “negative” view of evangelical Christians and after hours of discussions with her and her “atheist” husband came to the conclusion they had very little ground to base their feelings on. However, they fed themselves and their (at the time) 8 year old daughter on a steady diet of South Park(?-sp), Simpson’s, and even thought the movie “Saved” was something everyone should see. I found their remarks incredible and largely ungrounded because they 1) never hung out with those in that group 2) had no personal negative experiences to share and 3) was fed and had their utilities and rent paid for on numerous occasions by someone in that group (me! and a few times my church pitched in).
I am sure people have negative experiences with evangelicals but I wonder if the experience(s) themselves justify the responses in this poll? I personally believe (nothing hardcore to back it up but conversations with those outside of my group) that it boils down to their hatred of Jesus’ exclusive claims to salvation. In today’s pluralistic society, the only cardinal sin of thought is making a claim to absolute truth which Jesus did and his followers repeat.
“Christians, this book contends, have become famous for what they oppose.”
Wow, that hurts, but sadly I believe it to more true than we want to hear. When I listen to the radio it is as if I’m more often called to defend my faith “rights”, than to live my faith rightly!
It is high time to be followers of Christ; living our lives as he has called us to. Funny how I remember Him reaching out to sinners, not lobbying the political process for a way of life and belief system. He called us to carry our crosses, not our petitions!
Perhaps this is why a new emphasis on image, since perhaps we’ve strayed from being who we ought to be, we now need to be concerned over what we may appear as.
At my last workplace, many of my twenty-something coworkers had a phrase: HIgh school never ends. How true in my experience, and for that reason image and perception are unfortunately very important. I had a 60-something (note her age) say to me: I believe in Jesus but I won’t call myself a Christian unless their image changes because I don’t want to be identified as one of “them.” (Read homophobe, theocracy builder, sexually repressed hater). A friend of mine just came back from hearing Brian McLaren speak and had the thought, maybe I can, possibly, it might OK … to say I’m a Christian. That was because he though Brian was cool. (40somethingmale said this). As Kevin noted too, there is a strong negative reaction to claims of exclusive salvation through Jesus. I heard this over and over as an attack on Christianity when I spoke to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and cultural Christians without faith. It’s a huge stumbling block. So yes, high school should end, people should die to self … but they don’t until (maybe) AFTER they find Jesus … and if we are passionately believers in the joy of the Christ-centered life, we need to address these barriers and also the barrier of seeming like a religion of hate that condemns non-believers to hellfire. I would love so much for my non-Christian friends to experience the joy I have felt and the new perspective and every part of this experience … it’s human nature to want that, just as you would want to point out a beautiful meteor crossing the sky … and I get frustrated that the faith won’t address image issues more.
Even if “evangelicals and born agains” are too judgmental etc, they are less judgmental than they were 20 years ago. Why then do they now have an image problem when they are getting better not worse?
The increased bad image is largely the creation of the media. It would be interesting to do research on media stories about the church and see how many are positive and how many are negative. Will all the Thanksgiving and Christmas stories about helping the poor point out how much of that is done by “evangelicals and born agains?” However, if the story is negative about a church it will certainly describe it as “evangelical or born again.” I think the negative image of evangelicals is especially media driven. Although “born again” has been talked about since the 70s “evangelical” entered the popular discussion only as it was used by the media to explain presidential election politics. The “evangelicals” elected Bush. When nearly half of the country voted against Bush that means that half of the country will be mad at “evangelicals.”
Another factor that is overlooked is the change in those expressing the negative opinions. The general population is different now from what it was 20 years ago. The moral code of those inside and outside the church was closer in the past.. As the moral code gap has widened, it is inevitable that there will be increasing conflict and accusation of judgmentalism toward those that have a narrower code. The increased negative image is the result of the general population becoming less moral even as the church is actually becoming less judgmental. As the general population says that sex outside of marriage is okay and the church continues to say it isn’t, the church will be seen as judgmental even as the church extends more grace and acceptance to those that have done so. This widening of the moral code gap is not only between those inside and outside the church but between many in the church and the teaching of Scripture. Thus, “evangelicals and born agains” can call others “evangelicals and born agains” judgmental because they are now less committed to Biblical morality and want their churches to be less committed to it too.
The image of the church as being judgmental is further perpetuated by those Christians and churches that want to define themselves in opposition to the stereotype. “We are not your father’s or mother’s church. We are not judgmental like they are. Let me tell you how bad other churches and Christians are so you can see how good we are.” To market themselves as the better church (anti-church?) they highlighting and even exaggerate the bad in the church.
Yes. There is an image problem but it is my fear the solutions will be worse than the problem.
My brother (a self-proclaimed atheist) maligns my sister and I for our evangelical beliefs. Yet he has known nothing but goodness from us and other Christian tribes. His image of us is based on the image he sees in the media (he has bought into Dawkins’ delusion). The experiential evidence tells him there is much goodness in Christians. The image tells him, they are deluded. He chooses to believe we are deluded. Often he asks me “how much have you raked in at church today?” Often I explain how church finances work, but he chooses to believe the all too frequent image of the tele-evangelist asking for money. If he were to participate in the Barna research, he is going to answer based on the stronger image from television watching than from his experience of us. He has limited spiritual discernment.
Over time, his image of us is beginning to change (we practiced Jesus Creed theology with him). The Barna research may point out a moment in time image or up to now image by some group’s experiences of evangelical Christians. But experience is ongoing and perceptions do change.
Lord, help us to grow in favor with man!
Is it our job to worry about image?
Regardless of what we do, what will the enemy try to do to our image?
Is there anything we are going to do to be popularly accepted? Didn’t Jesus say that the way to everlasting life was narrow and few there are that find it?
Should our focus be on society and the way they look at us or should our focus be on Jesus, his will and his desire?
The challenge of a discussion about image is that many of us tend to use image as a shorthand way of conndecting with people and groups. Many allow negative stereotypes (a form of image/brand), for example, to become their way of understanding a particular ethnic or racial group.
I’ve met a few people who’ve told me I’m the first Jewish person they’ve known. Because I am a Christian, more than one of these folks have felt a peculiar freedom to tell me what they *think* of Jewish people – as though my faith cancels my ethnicity. And what I hear is almost inevitably a negative, patronizing, anti-Semitic broad brush stereotype. They’re simply (and in some casas, cheerfully) buying the image that others have passed on to them.
Evangelicals as a group have earned the image Kinnaman & Lyons capture in their excellent book. We’ve gone out of our way to create these stereotypes! I can’t imagine in my lifetime that we’ll be able to truly shed the baggage of these negative stereotypes, especially when they’re contained in the very DNA of the way we’ve presented ourselves to others.
But again and again in the book, the authors tell stories (and encourage readers) to become people who are evangelical Christian iconoclasts – not by attempting to craft a new, better branding of evangelicalism, but by patiently subverting the negative images with authentic expressions of faith.
Of course image isn’t everything. Good image without substance is worthless. But -
The current image hurts. Occasionally the image of Christian as rigid, intolerant, hypocritical that crops up – especially on issues of sexuality, but most people seem to know some Christians and this tempers the belief in the image.
Among my peers more important is the ingrained image of Christian, especially evangelical or conservative protestant Christian, as ignorant and anti-intellectual that hurts. Few know or know of Christian thinkers who they respect and thus accept the image that “Christian thinker” is an oxymoron. We do little to dispell this image.
In the last part of an evangelism class I led for our church I emphasized the importance of being aware that the impression we make on some one with the gospel isn’t a first impression, often times they’ve been de-evangelized by others or even possibly de-churched.
In my opinion the image question is a fare one to raise, not so we can live our lives as a community trying to please everyone elses expectations of us, but rather so we can ask questions like, “Are we being unChristian, unlike Christ to those around us? Have other Christians before us ruined this persons perceptions of Jesus and what does that mean for our presentation of him?”
Perceptions can change, but its going to take the evangelical/born-again community as a ‘community’ to change them. They’re going to have work their skeletons in the closet (such as biblical literalism; personal rather than kingdom focus; colonial rather than globalistic values; etc.). I don’t think the rubric needs to be discarded but it is another issue for those who self-apply it to have to wade through – particularly in political discussions…
Odgie #1 and John Lunt #9 thanks for your thoughts, question – “How do we know when its the cross of Christ offending someone, or when its our own sin or unChristian behavior?”
I think Scot’s question provides provides a clue: the term “local”. As some of the comments so far has shown, relationship is the best way to counter this “image” issue. We need to show ourselves to be authentic followers of Christ in our local relationships.
This involves: 1) being authentic. real. honest in our faith and struggles, 2) not being ashamed of being a follower of Christ. be true to Him. don’t hide your faith, 3) really relying on Him so that we actually reflect Him. be transformed, 4) being missional minded, including in heart, soul, and mind, 5) be theologically minded (per Dan Kimball), 6) having the local church assist/train in points 1-5.
With many reflecting Christ locally, the image problem (self inflicted and misperception) will be impacted on a wider scale.
SmartChristian.com » Blog Archive »
[...] Scot McKnight asks an important question, “What role should “image” play in local church ministry?” [...]
According to the authors, part of the problem is that many Christians are viewed as being conservative, antigay, antichoice (antiabortion?), among other things. I’m assuming the perception also includes a view that Christians are too restrictive on sexual matters in general.
Here’s what I’m wondering this morning: what can really be done to change this? Surely the answer is not for Christians to suddenly declare themselves liberal, pro-gay, pro-abortion, and entirely accepting of all sexual expression regardless of context. Furthermore, as some have pointed out, no matter how loving and service-oriented Christians are (although many of us, myself included, are often not nearly as loving and service-oriented as we ought to be), being conservative and anti anything will immediately give them a bad “image” for no other reason than that they are not for libertinism.
I’m sure there is a wise and thoughtful answer to this problem, but it’s eluding me this morning. Not enough java in my system, I guess.
Diane (#6)
Thanks for vocalizing what I have been feeling for some time! I am 27 year old pastor and when people my age first meet me, a typical response is ‘I didn’t expect a guy like you to be a pastor- I can relate to you’. But inevitably, they end up finding out that I have a deep concern for the neglect of the elderly in our society. Suddenly they cannot relate to me anymore and I become uncool.
How much of the ‘unChristian crisis’ has nothing to do with Christians and non-Christians and more to do with the fact that we (Americans) have got to be the most superficial people in the world that will back off from engaging others the second they do not fit into our priorities?
“K-L know that some of the negative perception is the outcome of a faith that cuts into the kingdom of darkness…”
Of course, the question is which of these issues is due to what.
For example, evangelicals are characterized as “anti-gay.” In modern society, there are those who will characterize anyone as anti-gay who doesn’t think that the homosexual lifestyle is the best thing since sliced bread.
Again — antichoice? Well, we are, and for good reason. Angry? Well, this one’s a problem. Empire builders? Ditto. “Want to convert everyone?” Guilty as charged and don’t plan to change.
We also have to be aware of those issues where the perception is a misperception — perhaps based on media more than reality. For istance, evangelicals are often accused of not being interested in taking care of the poor — far from reality, even if the reality is imperfect.
I do think perception is important, but we have to be cautious to only change what needs to be changed. As the old saying goes, the gospel is offensive enough; we don’t need to add to the offense.
I would have to see exactly what “know of/aware of” means in the initial question. On the one hand, it could be convicting that Christians should be making themselves better known in more organic and communal ways to more people. On the other hand, this category (“know of/aware of”) could be influenced by several factors, which might not include a flesh-and-blood person (influenced by other factors like media).
Second, the overall impression of Christians being “conservative, entrenched in thinking, antigay, antichoice, angry, violent, illogical, empire builders” is definitely a mixed bag. Some of its factors should indeed be retained, though others are certainly an indictment.
Pointing your attention to an upcoming interview I’m doing with Scot McKnight – should be out tomorrow or the next day on my site « ‘Conn’-versation
[...] UPDATE: SCOT BEGAN HIS SERIES ON IT TODAY, HERE’S PART 1: [...]
As I read this discussion I was reminded of this statement by Rebecca Manley Pippert:
Jesus always seemed to be doing two things: asking questions and telling stories. Christians always seem to be doing two other things: giving answers and “preaching.”
All four are necessary — at the right time and in the right place. But we tend to forget that the God of the Bible was an extraordinary communicator; we ignore Jesus’ example of how to start conversation, and we jump in prematurely with answers and sermonettes before the listener’s curiosity is aroused.
Rebecca Manley Pippert
“Fresh Air Evangelism Training,” The Magnetic Fellowship, Larry K. Weeden, ed. Waco: Word Books, 1988 (Leadership Library XV), p. 63.
Image and reality can be different, but image is the reality to most people.
http://www.matthewsblog.waynesborochurchofchrist.org
When have Christians not had an “image” problem? If you read some church history it seems that every part of Christendom has struggled with its image. Crusades. Corrupt popes. Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant splintering. Further Protestant splintering. Catholic and Protestant fighting in places like Ireland. Corrupt Evangelicals. The list goes on.
I don’t think this is anything new. We tend to look at our day as the only day. The church has always had an image problem. As long as the church is comprised of “cracked Eikons” who are in the process of being put back together (some faster and more effectively than others) we are always going to have image problems.
It would be a mistake to just focust on image. Image is the symptom and not the cause. The cause is sin. And as long as people are sinful (can I see those hands?), then Christians will do things that adversely affect our image.
as long as sanctification is used as an excuse for radically identifying with the destitute, christianity will continue to have an image problem. jesus identified with humanity to the point of being indistinguishable (isaiah tells us that if he was distinguished at all, jesus was the MOST undistinguished.) jesus identified with the destitute without any reservation based on the perservation of a morally upright image. the real question is not whether christians should be pro-choice or pro-gay, but why we are terrified to be mistaken as such.
Two things:
1. Image is everything in the Christian life if we take Gen 1:26-28 seriously, along with 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15; Col 3:9-10 and especially Romans 8:29! Kinnaman and Lyons in their prickly book *UnChristian* report how badly evangelicalism has distorted the image of God and Christ in the world. Their worry is that what the world thinks about Christians is what the world will think about Jesus. Why are only emerging types taking this worry seriously. Establishment evangelicals seem to have the attitude, “It’s not really our fault. Let the world go to hell!”
2.Blaming the bad image on the media is a straw man. The non-Christians polled in this book had at least 5 Christian friends. The bad image of Christianity was drawn out of real personal relationships, not Hollywood (and other media) portrayals.
hi all, good post, good discussion. I especially liked the last two comments by Bryne and John. Lord help us!
j
1. Yes, there will always be opposition and Jesus haters. BUT, the point is, do we increase or decrease these numbers through how we present ourselves? I don’t think we can just ditch all responsibility and say “oh well, that’s life, we’re going to be hated, nothing we can do, we’re the elect and they’re the unwashed.” We’re told not to tie a millstone around people’s necks and I think our image does do that sometimes.
2. John, I agree that the media can be a strawman but they also can unwittingly contribute to the problem with an unconscious prejudice against religion. One newspaper: an article about how healthy it is for nuns and priests to marry rather than be pursing a “lonely” calling to God: flip to the next section and there’s an article praising unmarried women for “devotion” to climbing the career ladder and their clarity and focus. And nobody will see the contradiction … but the media is basically, without meaning to, saying a life devoted to God is unhealthy, a life to devoted to career is strong minded and focused. It happens all the time …
3. I am focusing on image. I don’t think that has anything to do with content. I don’t think anybody is arguing (I hope) that the content of the faith needs to change, just how it is presented. If it is better presented, Christianity’s true content will shine forth and that will be good.
4. I have certainly borne many withering and hurtful comments in intellectual circles (so called) in which people immediately patronize me or feel free to attack me if they find out I’m a Christian. I’m bothered by the implicit message when the atheists want to call themselves the Brights. I think we could do some image work here, because the reality is that there are plenty of “bright” Christians around, hard as that may be to believe.
FYI the commercial was for Canon EOS cameras so image is referring to what the camera does. Not relevant to your discussion but just thought I’d mention it.
I don’t know; used to be and perhaps still is in some circles that christians should not be seen in taverns/pubs because if a nonchristian sees them there, will be a reason to not be a christian. I’m not sure what you’ve blogged here about the book is much different than that, only the setting has changed. Yes, persistent unloving things are a reason for nonchristians to think badly of christianity. Yet on the other hand we must allow room for being imperfect on all fronts, and I think nonchristians use seeing the imperfection as an excuse to push away God. Underline excuse. On the other hand, as I said, if there is consistent unloving things coming from a community of believers then yes, there is reason to turn one’s back on christianity.
The general tone and content of the comment thread saddens me. I spent my first thirty years of life more outside any sort of Christian context than inside, and I had some of the Christian vitriol directed at me personally during that period. It took a lot of different Christians, many years of personal love to undo the equally personal rejection sufficiently for me to even consider Christianity again. And some of the key players in that drama were not friends. They were people who had no personal reason to act out the love they directed to me and my family. I still hear with an ear shaped more by that context than by my Christian context of the past decade-plus.
And I often cringe at the things my fellow Christian say publicly and privately. I now know many of them and know in many cases there is not an ounce of malice in the way they speak. I don’t believe they have any idea how it sounds or how it comes across. We constantly reinforce that image with our words and plenty of negative actions to reinforce it. Much of the time when Christians speak they are heard to be speaking condemnation and rejection. Unless that is what you intend to communicate, then perhaps it is worth the effort to learn how to say it differently? Or maybe practice more silence? Maybe accompanied by listening?
The gospel was offensive because they were proclaiming a crucified Lord in a culture where crucifixion was shameful. And they bore suffering that was considered shameful. (This is according to the ancient Greco-Roman honor system, which is not the same as the western medieval honor system.) When Paul gives his “curriculum vitae” in 2 Corinthians, everything on that list is shameful in the culture to which he was writing.
As a community, Christians were generally liked and well-thought of. Scripture mentions that more than once. And it continued throughout the persecution. In fact, we have reports and letters from Roman governors that illustrate this tension. The religion was banned for its refusal to participate in the emperor cult, yet these people were good citizens and cared for people nobody else would care for — whether they were in their community or not.
In my more cynical moments, I think it might actually be good for churched Christianity in the US to go the way it has gone in England, Scandinavia, and much of Western Europe. That would at least clear the landscape for something different. And frankly, I’m not the slightest bit wedded to the idea that that something else needs to or even should flow from the Protestant tradition. Umpteen thousand mini-Christianities become less appealing every day.
When questions such as K-L pose come up, I can’t help thinking back to how Christians were in the first couple of
hundred years, when to be a Christian could get you hauled to the nearest coliseum for lion fodder… Yet it seems that a large number of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire became Christians in spite of its illegal status. What were Christians in that day known for?
They had their uncharitable moments, as Ramsay MacMullen has documented (“Christianizing the Roman Empire A.D. 100-400″). In a few instances, they actually persecuted pagans; but for the most part, they were ignored or misunderstood by many of their neighbors. They were thought to be stupid, and sometimes were accused of actual cannibalization because they gathered to “eat the flesh and drink the blood” of their god. So I think in some ways they probably had a worse “image problem” than we do today.
And yet… so many came to confess Jesus. (Surely some were motivated to do so by some perceived advantage to being a Christian other than sincere devotion to Jesus.) However, I am not aware of early Christians having an “evangelism program” in the sense of our understanding of either word… When Christian thinkers did have something “apolagetically” to say, it was very simple (Epistle to Diognetus 5). They worshiped only Jesus as God; they pretty much kept to themselves and did not foment citizen unrest; they held one another in regard; they had a high sexual ethic but did not impose that ethic on those outside.
In addition, they cared for abandoned infants (mostly girls and children with birth defects); they nursed people who were not related to them when plagues struck; when they prayed, there were many times miracles of healing and deliverance from evil spirits which authenticated their claims that Jesus was divine.
All that is the kind of behavior (but not limited to those things alone) I wish Christians today were known for. It speaks of a different attitude and motivation than the kind of superior attitude and agenda motivated only by “saving souls for heaven” we’re accused of, and sometimes demonstrate. I’d be happy to put up with the misunderstandings and even hostility, if we were misunderstood and maligned for the “right reasons”.
Dana
Dana #30,
Thanks, you said what I am thinking. It is one thing to hated for the right reasons but completely different to be hated for the wrong reasons. We need to look at the perception people have of Christians and then examine ourselves to see if maybe, just maybe, we are doing some wrong things or not doing some right things. I think Ghandi said “I like your Christ, its your Christians I don’t like.
I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.
Image is of ultimate importance…we Eikons are created in the image of God…and we Christians (“little Christs”) are to be continually transformed into the image of Jesus Christ–through the power of the Holy Spirit at work in and among us.
When we worry about any other image, we’re getting into trouble…imo
God have mercy…
Is it worth trying to retain the label “evangelical”/”born again”?
A label, for its own sake, if it stands in the way of the gospel has to go. But getting rid of it for the wrong reasons is just one more piece of conforming to the culture instead of trying to transform it.
As mentioned by Scripture Zealot in #27, Agassi had a deal w/Canon. Here’s a commercial which sums up an era: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5eEKS_nh_Q and I remember outreaches which had this image.
Amen to Peggy in #33, we are to be the image of Christ.
I do not believe in Christian perfectionism as an individual, a local assembly, or the visible representation of the Body of Christ on earth. The wheat are mixed among the tares in the Imperfect Church (related article http://www.wscal.edu/faculty/wscwritings/07.09.php) as much as they are in my own life.
Yes, followers of Christ are to be known by their transformed lives as individuals and a people, so when it appears that the faith shapes human beings into ugly, rude creatures I’m disappointed, even angered. In response, we are called to pray, to teach the Scriptures in a manner leading to godly living, to share our concern and when necessary as part of a community, exercise appropriate discipline. At times, God may even be calling us issue a prophetic challenge.
But we must not forget that human beings begin as ugly, rude creatures; American culture/values do shape Christians in the United States (e.g., low tipping is familiar to me as one with German-American roots and who finds it necessary to carefully watch his family’s limited resources); and most importantly, our concern is in what direction one is traveling in the continuum of drawing closer to God given form in a humble understanding of ourselves and a life of blessing toward others and the creation.
Lord willing the seed brings forth not only a tree with leaves, but good fruit. I don’t have a problem, when a tree is dead to cut it down and throw it in a fire, even if it had brought forth fruit in the past. Along these lines, good to read of Willow Creek repenting of its failures, http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2007/10/willow_creek_re.html
“The thesis might be this: outsiders think Christians and the Christian faith have become unChristian.”
How would an outsider be able to tell what Christianity is really all about until they take the step of following Christ, i.e. becoming an insider? How would an outsider know?
I actually think asking what outsiders think about Christ, the Church and Christians can be quite helpful and we can learn much. But ultimately we must rely on the Word of God and the Holy Spirit to shape us like Christ, to define us. Shouldn’t we trust the Word, the Holy Spirit and the Church to lead us into Christ likeness?
It’s sometimes helpful to ask others how I, or a group I’m part of, is coming across to other people. Feedback can be helpful, regardless of ‘why’ people think what they do. If humility is a primary trait of the Christ-centered life, and many people perceive Christians as self-righteous, which is not a Christian trait, then that’s enough for me to wonder, not about whether we have an image problem, but whether we have a character problem.
Barna, Barna, Barna… oh, our precious Barna.
What would we do without him?
Now… that’d be a post.
What does “image” mean in terms of this book? If it’s that we’ve earned a bad image b/c of bad behavior, and calls Christians to repentance and faith, to go back and practice love to neighbor and enemy, then I’m all for it. (My sense is that this is the kind of image the book is talking about.) If we’ve misrepresented Christ whom we are called to image, then yes, let’s work on our imaging. If it’s simply listening and hearing where we’ve miscommunicated and clarifying what we’ve meant, that’s good too.
I’d rather Christians practice love and kindness and forgiveness and look silly or tacky doing it than that we simply present our same old selves in a shallowly more appealing way, the kind of image forged by focus groups and test marketing. Part of the problem that’s come up in this thread is that “image” language itself has a bad image! There’s a suspicion that packaging ourselves in a forced unnatural way might supplant a focus on being authentically Christian.