Responding to feedback on ‘Four reasons I’m disappointed…’

I have received a mixed response to what I wrote last night in ‘Four reasons I’m disappointed with the start of Jesus: All About Life‘. Some people have been very upset and discouraged. Others (both Christians and non-Christians) have told me that they are confused and disappointed (and some embarrassed) with the campaign.

I’d like to respond to some of the feedback I’ve received, to clarify a few things, to apologise, and suggest a way forward.

  • First of all, some people are making connections between what I have said, and what my church might think about the campaign. I want to make very clear, I was speaking personally, about my own reflections on the campaign – these have nothing to do with my church’s involvement. Please avoid making any connections – there are none.
  • I want to reiterate and again make very clear also that I am very passionate about this campaign being a success and Jesus being honoured and glorified through it. I am entirely supportive of this campaign! Offering critique isn’t an indication of lack of support. I wholeheartedly desire that this campaign be a great wake-up call to Australians, and the means by which many come to know Jesus. This is what our city, our nation and our world so desperately needs. And this is why I am so passionate about doing things well, and why I have felt so sad with how the campaign has been implemented thus far (i.e. phase 1), because the implementation affects perceptions and peoples’ engagement with it. I was nearly in tears on the phone to a friend this morning, grieving what I have seen as lost opportunities.
  • I want to apologise to the people who I have discouraged by sharing the critique. In critiquing the campaign, I wasn’t in any way seeking to discourage you (although I can see how I did this). You are all working (and praying) very hard, and I am as desperate as you for this campaign to work. My intention with the critique was a) to demonstrate that whilst Christians agree on the purpose of the campaign and other outreach activities (i.e. making Jesus known), we don’t necessarily agree on the method (nor, I don’t think do we need to); and b) to identify opportunities for improvement so this campaign can have the maximum possible impact.
  • Some people have suggested to me that if I had an issue with the campaign, I should have raised it with the Bible Society/JAAL organisers privately, rather than posting about it online. The general principle that seems to be suggested here is Matthew 18 – “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.” Obviously, the people running this campaign haven’t sinned against me, but I can see what these people are saying and the benefits of this. Perhaps I should have done this. By offering the critique publicly, I was hoping to encourage Christians to offer their (constructive) critiques, to get involved in doing what they can to improve and make the most of the campaign, and to show that as Christians we are open to robust critique and discussion, for the purpose of improvement. Whilst some people who aren’t yet Christians might read the post, I think (and I hope not naively), that they will appreciate the fact that Christians can disagree, and whilst we agree on the glorious message, can differ on the method. At least from one comment I’ve received from a non-Christian friend, he seems to appreciate the fact that some of the flaws of this campaign haven’t gone unnoticed, and that there’s opportunity for improvement (i.e. we know there are issues and we want to get it right).

In offering critique in the previous post, I realise I could have been more explicit in offering suggestions of where to go next. Here are my thoughts on how we can make the most of the campaign. Perhaps you have some to add – all for the purpose of making this campaign a success for Jesus’ name.

  • as the first phase is being implemented via electronic media, we need to get onto the forums where people are discussing the campaign and respond to what people are saying. Implementation musn’t be the first and last step – genuine engagement using the designated media must follow.
  • we need to help Christians, like me, know how to respond to the big issues people are raising in forums (and in general conversation) about pain and suffering. We need to equip Christians to answer the difficult questions that are raised about whether we should just be thanking Jesus for the good things in life, and what is His role in the bad. I understand the next phases of the campaign might address some of these issues, but people are struggling with them now. By the time the next phases are launched, some credibility or ‘listening capital’ might have been lost. This is a great opportunity to share the gospel – let’s make the most of it.
  • we need to use Twitter and Facebook as best as possible – equipping Christians to creatively use these media to engage with their friends. This might include prayer updates, links to media reporting, testimonies, videos, tips for answering questions, images people can use on their Facebook/Twitter profile, discussion forums that engage with the questions people are asking, and more. I’d be happy to sit down and help brainstorm these ideas.
  • we need to provide clear links to good quality resources about Christianity, the gospel, apologetics material, and even material such as testimonies of people who know Jesus. This page is a good start (Who is Jesus?), but other pages (such as Order the Gospel of Mark) could be more inspiring and informative, providing more information targeted at people who don’t know Jesus. Lots of people will be thinking about Jesus, and whilst I know we want to encourage them to churches and church events, the online medium allows people to anonymously explore these questions for themselves. I’m sure there are lots of people who would be willing to compile resources and write copy to this effect (myself included).
  • we need to fix the allaboutlife.com.au website. It’s slow, some of the links are broken, and, because our levels of concentration and patience with new media are so low, it doesn’t take much to turn people away from a website. If the developers need help to fix the site and optimise the speeds, again, I’m sure there are lots of Christians out there who would be willing to assist.
  • for each of the above, there is a wealth of Christian talent that can be harnessed to great effect. For example, God has gifted many Christians in PR, website development, social media usage, search engine optimisation, website usability, etc. There is an ‘army’ (for lack of a better term!) of Christians who I’m sure would do whatever it takes to increase the impact of this campaign to be the most memorable campaign this city has ever seen and that bring many into the kingdom.

To all working on this campaign – you are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I love you, I’m praying for you and I am sorry for any discouragement I have caused. Please let me and others know, how we can help you to make Jesus name known through this campaign.

  • http://st-eutychus.com Nathan

    Steve,

    I thought your critique was fairly balanced – and as your website is about helping people “Communicate Jesus” better I don’t really see a problem with you voicing your opinion here as to how the campaign could have been better thought through.

    From what I’ve read the firm behind this campaign aren’t amateurs – they seem to be hoping to fill a bit of a gap in the Christian marketing marketplace. If they want that to be the case then they should be excited to read well thought out critique – the suggestions you’ve provided here are helpful, but the gracious rebuke in the previous post seemed to me to be a fair offering of your gifts and experience to the conversation.

    Lets face it – if the people at churchmarketingsucks had written the same review you had it would have been more stinging simply because of the name of their website.

    As someone with a professional interest in PR and marketing who’s heading down the path of full time ministry I think your site is an incredibly useful resource. It would lose that if you weren’t giving thoughtful responses to the biggest Christian marketing push since the Billy Graham crusades.

  • http://life.mumak.net Jonathan Lange

    Steve,

    Regarding your second point, I know you support it, and that your critique was in many ways an expression of your support and desire for the campaign to succeed. This is great.

    However, it’s perfectly acceptable to be a gospel-hearted Christian in Australia and, for example, to think that the whole thing isn’t a very good idea.

    jml

  • shane

    Hey Steve
    good on you for thinking critically. it surprises me that others have been pretty silent on what I think is a weak campaign.
    it is actually refreshing to read a blog that has an opinion – that is the nature of blogging isn’t it?
    to not think critically about this campaign or any other ( and speak graciously) may mean biting into the ecumenical apple where false unity can trump truth.

    my chief concern is that the vast emphasis of thanksgiving in the New Testament is for the person and redeeming work of Jesus Christ, and much less so for God’s providential grace in creation ( like monkeys and back hair etc). Interestingly Rove was the only person who voiced what I thought was an appropriate critique- it all seems a bit trite ( no matter what conversations might flow from that) .

    blog boldly.
    enjoy his grace.
    Shane.

  • shane

    p.s. I have had a conversation with 2 atheists recently where the “too brained washed to read the bible” advertising was mentioned. they both thought it was rude and demeaning of atheists who have read the bible and come to the objections and convictions they have.
    it got into a conversation about marketing, and again both said that the best marketing the church could employ was viral word of mouth relational marketing and works of mercy rather than naff ads and rude signs.

    it is possible that ad campaigns can open up conversation, but a conversation where their is a higher suspicion of motive.

  • Matt Pettett

    Shane I agree. When I first read that ‘too brainwashed’ sign I thought “non-Christians will feel threatened and patronised”
    I get riled up when people accuse Christians of brain washing people.
    is it really that hard to consider how others might take the same criticism?

    What I am concerned about with the JAAL campaign is the same thing. Have the promoters researched and considered how the community will see these signs?
    If I see a sign thanking Jesus for birds with pants on I either think Christians are weirdo’s or I think they don’t take their beliefs seriously. Same with the chairs. And who cares about hair when I don’t understand the biblical reference.

    It seems that we try so hard to communicate Jesus in the ways that we think will get through. How hard have we tried to understand people first, and then communicate Jesus?

  • Steven Kryger

    In regards to research Matt, I just came across a document on the JAAL website (it’s on http://www.jesusallaboutlife.com.au/campaigns/sydney.html and the download link says ‘tester’, near the bottom of the page), and a summary of the research behind the campaign is provided. It explains (and sorry, the formatting below will be a bit messy):

    “The research revealed that Christianity is widely rejected by most non-Christians as an anachronistic and undesirably rigid set of doctrines, while the Church is widely regarded as an old-fashioned organisation that is guilty of failing to live up to its own ideals of tolerance, forgiveness and humility.

    While we may wish to present Christian faith in God as a distinct and intrinsically good idea, it is practically impossible to make any reference to Christian faith, Christ’s teachings or the Bible without immediately eliciting negative associations surrounding the Christian Church and its doctrines.

    Most non-Christians believe that they already live in accordance with essential Christian values, and do not need either to accept articles of Christian faith or participate in Christian worship to fulfill the basic requirement that qualify someone as being ‘a good person’, such as ‘do unto others’ and ‘love thy neighbour’.

    The commonly and often unwittingly accepted principle of secular humanism is that individuals need to look inwards in search of personal meaning and fulfillment, a never-ending search directed towards realising your full potential, rather than a process that leads to some final, ‘ideal’ state of consciousness.

    At a more fundamental level, non-Christians tend to reject the idea of ‘one truth’ as a divisive concept that is to blame for much of the conflict in the world today, and that clashes with the secular humanist ideal of taking personal responsibility for lifestyle choices and interpersonal values.

    Against this background of attitudes and beliefs, the response to ‘born-again’ Christian testimonials tends to be overwhelmingly negative

    • to accept Christ as the only way to find meaning in life represent a failure to accept personal responsibility or realise self-awareness
    • to accept Christian beliefs as the ultimate truth is to reject contemporary ideals of multicultural tolerance and openness to new ideas

    (Angus Kinnard – Futurebrand)”

    Our research shows that sharing the Gospel in the Australian community needs to be done thoughtfully and carefully, connecting with people and stirring them to consider the message. It is not about pandering to them or watering down the message or humanising the gospel, it is about being thoughtful in how we communicate.

  • Matt Pettett

    Thanks for posting that Steve. I’m encouraged to read about the research that was done for the campaign.
    There’s still some questions, in my mind at least, as to whether the posters themselves communicate well to the community described.

  • Wayne

    Thanks Steve.
    I though (hoped) the Jesus all about life website might have been a temporary one till the campaign started, but it looks like it is the real one.

    Any chance you can talk to them and offer to fix it up? It seems a waste to spend so much on TV advertising which points to a website, that is a dud.

    I mean it’s even very clunky to find a local church event from the website.

    You could work up something pretty quickly I’d think that would be much better.

    Give them a ring! Let us know how you go.

    Wayne

  • Wayne

    Steve maybe this site is just a placeholder site till the campaign starts. It still has stuff about ordering banners etc.

    And the company who designed it – http://www.webedy.com/ actually have some really nice looking stuff they’ve done.

    So maybe there’s something good coming!

    Wayne

  • Chloe

    Thanks Steve,

    And why is the home page of the JAAL site a bunch of unscreened postcards, with poor quality images, as well as copyright images stolen and uploaded? Can we not respect intellectual property?

    And shouldnt the JAAL facebook profile picture viral media campaign at least provide a logo in a square, so we are not reading “esu” everywhere…?