1.  andrew said:

   certainly, if they buy their delicious tuna melt with a debit card, their bank statement will record a purchase at the salvation army...

   11:44 AM

1.  Dave Bond said:

   In my mind our tribe is going through an identity crisis. Back in the day we were known by what we did. Our churches helped people. The fact that we were recognizable helped but that wasn't why we did it. Nor did it make a difference as to how we did it. I wonder if the marketing machine is in full effect because we are trying use those things to be noticed. Shouldn't we be noticed by what we do.

   11:58 AM

1.  Tom Skerritt said:

   My denomination, the United Reformed Churches of NA, have "branding" as such but are pretty strict when it comes to things like subscription to the confessions by all members, etc.
   
   Personally I don't like branding for churches, let alone denominations. For a person who's naturally prejudiced a picture is worth a thousand words. When I see the "Blood and Fire" crest on a church building, frankly the first things that pop into my mind are: Arminianism, sanctification-based preaching, guilt-trips, special music in church and flabby sentimentality. All the things which I, as a member of the "other end" of the Protestant spectrum have been conditioned to think about you, weather or not their actually true of you as an individual or as a church.
   
   But the sword has to cut both ways. Admittedly, the word "Reformed" causes some people to cringe (perhaps this is deserved). To see the word, I imagine, causes people to think of a Gospel which has been relegated to 5 memonically friendly points, barren intellectualism, preaching which requires an MDiv to understand, austere worship and people who are so hard-nosed and ornary that it causes one to wonder if they were beaten as children.
   
   If these sterotype persist there's no way that anyone within the two camps would ever want to talk and arrive at any type of real understanding of eachother. Example: I didn't know, until a few weeks ago, that you were SA. I don't know that if I knew you were I'd continue to read your blog and if I did I would most certianly read your posts through the not-so-charitable lenses which I've been trained to use.
   
   But I'm chaning, gradually.
   
   So...IMHO scrap the branding, go for discussion.

   12:09 PM

1.  headphonaught said:

   My brother... I have a love / hate relationship with the Army and their identity.
   
   I am proud to wear the shield and I regularly wear my alove hoodie with pride... but I'm not a big fan of my uniform ((because I'm too fat for it!!!))
   
   I love what you are doing at the Freeway. You and your posse are pioneers... guiding the Army somewhere new!
   
   I would love for you to... in some small, subtle way... to identify with the Army. Give people another view of what we do.
   
   Thing is though... without my uniform and the shield and all the trappings of the organisation... the brading if you may... I am still Army!
   
   Why? because I believe in heart to God and hand to man and soup. soap. salvation
   
   We all look different... and Pernell[ton], my brother, you look more different than most of the "officers" I know... but the Army is truly a broad church... and the sooner the trad "bandos" realise this... the better!
   
   Love to you and yours... from me and mine in Motherwell, Scotland.

   3:57 PM

1.  bill said:

   i think it's denominational angst... some, especially in leadership, worry about such things. [from a fear that their denomination is too small? this could be a new area for spammers to exploit...] The really creative stuff is never about branding, or promotion, or even thinking about such.
   
   It doesn't matter to God that the odd/eclectic ministry @ knox [my current habitat] is UCC. We were just handy, and, at this time at least, responsive. And so we wander into wonders. But it could have been any group. I think the strategy has to be one of helping those who are anxious let go of their fears. . . and, tho it's my temptation too, being dismissive isn't going to help that. . . but i don't know what might

   4:16 PM

1.  Pernell said:

   Andrew - The tuna melt... delicious.
   
   Dave - We are definitely in identity crisis... have been for a while.
   
   Tom - Great to hear your perspective... "hard-nosed and ornary"?!? No! You're kidding. OK, yeah, you're right. And don't forget sexist :)
   
   Headphonaught - The thing is, I think we do give people another view of what The S.A. is. Love back ya.
   
   Bill - "from a fear that their denomination is too small?" Do you suppose it's a case of size compensation [read "penis envy"]?

   10:28 PM

1.  Jaci said:

   Comments are good so far...interesting discussion. I don't feel the need for Army branding anywhere really. The only time I think we maybe could benefit from it (and this is a big maybe) is if we needed financial support from the community for some reason. Many people know that symbol and are more likely to give to it, but I don't feel it's necessary to plaster everywhere. Like you said, if you read the blogs often enough it comes up, it's talked about in church in a positive manner, it's not hidden. Screw'em.

   5:47 AM

1.  John said:

   Boy, this is a good question, Pernell!
   
   Forgive this stream of consciousness response. Hope it makes some kind of sense:
   
   I guess my Church (some folks would even baulk at that description)is at almost the other end of the spectrum to The Freeway. We're pretty traditional Western World Sally Army with all the usual trappings of uniform, brass bands, crests, flags & the whole deal. However, a slow positive change is happening, where I realistic perspective on the value of these various elements is being revised for our current time & place without compromising on the message. I would argue that the things I list above are NOT the fundamentals of who we are, what we do & why we do it.
   
   From a personal point of view, for your situation, I'd say you have it pretty much right, and I agree with Thomas (H'naught) that you are leading the field in terms of where certain SA expressions will be heading. One thing I'm really encouraged about with The Salvation Army right now is its huge & rich diversity, which I think is really healthy and a sign of some maturity. Even in my lifetime, things have changed immeasurably, and I think in a positive way.
   
   One thing I do worry with about the SA's branding and the message it conveys is what the broader world - most particularly in North America – seems now to understand about our movement. From here, what I see is a huge imbalance which seems to have the general public seeing us as some kind of social service agency that has taken a lurch to the political right. The big corporate picture isn’t really reflective of what we are internationally. Recently I've been reading some secular blogs which have really saddened me and made me want to jump in and say "that's not the Sally Army I recognize or belong to!" Maybe we have to look at ourselves more closely, right some wrongs if they are there and find ways of graciously & lovingly reaching out to those who have such a low opinion of us. Maybe we can only really do that on the ground.
   
   Keep on keepin’ on, Pernell. You continue to inspire.
   
   Peace & Blessings my brother!
   
   J 

   8:18 AM

1.  Jamie Arpin-Ricci said:

   I think that, should a brand or identifying logo become something is so important that people would have issue with it not being central enough, it is likely being taken too far.
   
   These logos/brands can be helpful in many ways, icons even to communicate in an instant a general idea about your community and the larger community of which yours in a part.
   
   Of course, this is becoming far more complicated. With our YWAM logo, we are far too big and diverse now for it to represent one expression of who we are, so while we still use it, we do so carefully and intentionally.
   
   All this to say, I think you are fine with what you are doing. Keep it up.
   
   Peace,
   Jamie

   9:08 AM

1.  Scott said:

   speaking as someone who didn't allow the denominational head to speak at my church, never publically identified with the denom and rarely if ever associated myself with the same, i have done some soul searching in this area since hitting the real world and planting a non-denom clubchurch.
   it is a difficult balancing act but one aspect that continues to haunt me is the fact that the church is the only organization that i am aware of that would let you even entertain such an idea. what other organization would support you financially,adopt you publically, pay your salary oftimes, sign on your building that they finance and then let you give them the bird whenever the hell you felt like it? It's a corporation so lets stop pretending it isn't and if we are willing to take their money, accept their credentials, use their building and their theology, it behooves me to understand why i would not owe them anything? (i really don't even know what behooves really means)
   
   i do not have this worked out but i can certainly see why your/my old denomination is mildly put out when their investment appears embarrassed of them.
   
   and as to whether people who come to your place "usually know" it's salvation army... ya when i met you pernell i was immediately thinking, "ya this guy reeks of the sally ann"...ha

   12:09 PM

1.  Tom Skerritt said:

   I suppose the sexist label could apply to Reformed churches, at least in the main. However it would have to therefore apply to pretty much all of the church before 1959, at least from my reading of church history (this is intended only to be a witty and mildly humourous retort to the accusation of sexism not that anyone actually accused me of such).
   
   I think that being attached to a larger church body with a history and tradition within the Christian church is helpful, in not nessessary for churches, esp. those churches which have just been planted. Church planters tend to be innovators, those who want to change things (I won't specify what things). Being accountable to a church body which will hold the leadership of a church plant in check, and insure that what they're doing still falls under the pale of orthodoxy is needed.
   
   Personally were I to plant a church on my own, I don't think I would trust myself to do so charitably and lovingly, but would probably seek to re-create worship "back in the day" when Calvin was the cheif pastor of Geneva, and would go squirrly being the type of sexist, hard-nosed, frozen-chosen Calvinst that people just flock to be around (note the sarcasm and hyperbole).
   
   Moreover, if you're going to plant a church under the unbrella of a specific church body, it denotes not only agreement in doctrinal and practical issues, but also denotes committment to the relationships made within the denomination. For example, at the moment I have a relationship with my minister and church and they are helping me disern my own calling to ministry, specifically church planting. If I were to use them for their insight, knowledge and cash so that the moment the well dries up I can cut and run with my congregation and be free of their accountability and confessional subscription it'd be the worst possible narrsisism imaginable. Hardly the New Testament experience.
   
   For this reason I'll endure the stereotypes that people have of Reformed people and still have their labels and branding on me until there's a legitimate reason not to do so anymore.

   12:33 PM

1.  Anonymous said:

   Shouldn't we be ultimately be striving for people to see Jesus? That is the "brand" that should be promoted.

   1:54 PM

1.  headphonaught said:

   what I dislike about our tribe is their / our need for "exclusivity" - was at a committee meeting recently where some for argued against the officers using the word church in a mission statement thing.
   
   Oh my goodness!!!
   
   When our brand means more to us than it does to anyone else in the world... then that's a bad thing... and verging on idolatory.
   
   Truth is you are Army... and I know you are. Thing is... do others? Do other people who are tired of what the Army they know stands for?
   
   You represent the future. You are our Luke Skywalker
   
   Thing is... Luke identified with being a Jedi!

   3:25 PM

1.  bill said:

   one good thing about the salvation army brand, tho, is really helped with selling your knives. I really love those S.A. knives, especially the little scissors, and the tweezers, great tweezers. . . .

   3:30 PM

1.  Pernell said:

   Jaci - I am slightly surprised at your opinion on this. My bad for presuming I knew what you would think.
   
   John - Great thoughts. "...Right some wrongs" caught my attention. If we were honest, we have some corporate repentance we need to be involved in, so that the curse can be broken... likely all denominations do. We need to be about THE kingdom, not ours. That repentance likely needs to start with me and you. You know?
   
   Jamie - I agree.
   
   Scott - I hear you... but I doubt putting up a logo is what we "owe them". And I would say in this case, The SA knows we are not embarrassed of them. In fact, the powers that be are not the ones questioning our lack of branding, but fellow, local Salvation Army-ites are. Our regional and national leadership seem to love what we're about... and feel we're a valuable part of the team. You asked "what other organization..." well, hopefully we do a lot of things differently than other organizations.
   
   Tom - Good thoughts. And I will endure the stereotypes as well.
   
   Headphonaught - You represent the future as well, buddy.
   Bill - Ah yes, the tweezers are good... very convenient.
   
   Peace, everybody.

   11:22 PM

1.  J9 said:

   OK, I gotta put my 2 cents in here.
   
   I can identify with those who either are against, or really don't care about "branding". However, I can also see the point of those who are complaining about the lack of public acknowledgement of your denominational background.
   
   I'm a 5th generation Sally Ann in Toronto, and we've had 2 church plants out here go the non-branded route. All references to the SA have been removed from everything to do with these churches. This is actually quite hurtful to the corps who are now struggling to regain what they lost when the new churches were planted. I guess I would compare it to the feeling a parent would have if their child completely disowned them, and tried to pretend they were never related. I think when you have Sally Anners complaining about the lack of "branding", it's more a case of them acting out of hurt feelings than anything.
   
   I'm not saying you should plaster your building with army shields or anything, I just think people in the army need to know that you do appreciate what has been done for you. Keeping the SA visible in The Freeway might soothe some of those who have some knots in their shorts.
   
   On another note, it might be the most honest route to take, to have something Army visible(I don't know what), to let new people know that you are associated with the SA. Some people might get upset if they are coming for a while, and all of a sudden, find out you're army. They might start to wonder if you're trying to hide something from them....
   
   Just my 2-cents worth......
   
   J9

   6:14 PM

1.  Anonymous said:

   I would have been inclined not to bother checking the frwy out if it was "in your face" branded: which is how the red shield hits me. sorry. I know it means other things to other people and have heard personal stories of such while volunteering to help with kettles. regardless, that's how it hits me. And it's interesting that no one ever told me how much the red shield meant to them - the story was always about how the s.a. helped them and asked for nothing in return. to me, the branding is about asking for something in return: recognition.
   
   The frwy is the last stop for a lot of us who might not go anywhere if it were not for this community. It took me a long time to believe this wasn't a front for a machine designed to slowly pickle me (or sweeten me) into an s.a. member. Irrational I'm sure but this discussion resurrects those sick-in-the-pit-of-my-stomach feelings.
   
   sc

   10:43 AM

1.  JourneyWild said:

   Hello,
   
   You've asked some good questions in your post. It is definitely a challenge that modern and/or emergent churches face.
   
   I am anti-branding. I've read several comments where your readers explain how knowing you are SA might affect them for or against. The bottom line is, the logo causes people to form pre-conceived ideas which may be completely different than what your group is about.
   
   My emergent group went through something similar when we first became official. We wanted to call ourselves "Emerge Community", as we consider ourselves a community of believers and searchers rather than a church. It took a certain amount of explanation and convincing before we were allowed to drop "Church" from our title, but we were required to include our denimination name "Foursquare". In my mind, you may as well shout WE ARE A CHURCH to the skies. Having the denomination name brands us as a church as much as if we'd included 'church' in our title. And I believe it did affect who chose to visit us.
   
   I don't advocate abanding all ties with your denomination. I just think that visitors need a chance to see who YOU are first, without preconceived ideas.
   
   Thanks!

   11:56 AM

1.  bill said:

   pernell
   just met an uncle-in-law of yours at a funeral yesterday [Amelia's husband]and another SA officer - and we got into a quick interesting discussion about branding - vis a vis Grace hospital in Wpg - how much branding is needed there. same dynamics. interesting

   2:45 PM

1.  Jen said:

   As someone who is part of the freeway and also works in the public relations office for The Salvation Army I have been watching this conversation with fascination. Good discussion all around - often I find myself sandwiched whenever people talk about this and end up being defensive on both sides. It's great to see people exploring this. (note that my PR side has kicked in and I have refrained from giving my opinion one way or another)

   12:01 PM

1.  Robbymac said:

   I'm all for identification, in subtle non-flag-waving ways, but more for being an influence from WITHIN the denom (or mission organization, in my case -- YWAM).
   
   Branding as a symbol of loyalty or being a "team player" doesn't sit so well with me.
   
   I've enjoyed hearing misinformed folk comment to me that the Army is antiquated and living in the past, and with great glee I get to tell them about Freeway and point them to this blog and the Frwy.ca website (guilty pleasure, I guess).

   8:16 PM

1.  Les said:

   Aha, see now, robbymac got to what I've been thinking.
   If there's one thing I've heard over the past 10-15 years (since I was old enought to be 'cognant' as my brother would say)it's that the army is stuck in the past. No one identifies or respects the uniform. No one appreciates band music anymore. We need to let go of our traditional trappings and embark on a fresh, new adventure, breaking new ground like ol' Billy would do if he was still around.
   And so here we have a part of the SA who's done precisely that...but a good many people don't even realize it. I know that I had to have someone tell me that the frwy was army---had no idea.
   On the other hand, red shields popping up all over the building does seem completely out of place (but I betcha Krista could do something cool with photography...or Monica could write a song...). It just reminds me of that cheesy camp song...'they'll know we are christians by our love'. If the frwy truly reflects the army history of reaching out to the needy in a physical way, perhaps in that reflection, people will see the common ground.

   10:44 PM

1.  HCJoel said:

   Denominations are, ultimately, shit. Who cares if you're Baptist, Pentecostals, Brethren in Christ, Sally Ann or Methodist? It's immature, at some level. Are you following Jesus? That's the key and the only thing that matters. Some non-Christians are turned off Jesus because there are so many divisions within the Body. Why highlight it and continue that nonsense?
   It's like people who donate money and hold a press conference or put their name on a building or organization. That makes me angry (especially when it's a "Christian" organization - how can the ministry be named after you when you're nothing but a tool [get it?]).

   10:09 PM

1.  Anonymous said:

   I rarely read blogs, but I was checking the FRWY site and this caught my attention. Pernell, good conversation, and everyone participating, well though comments, rather than arguments. I like! My feelings, as a SA bandsman, grown up armybarmy...is that the only branding we should have is that of the Cross. Only then can we start to move from SA to Protestant to Christian Church part of the worldwide movement to save souls. I love the Crest, I never want to see it die, but I don't know if the church God intended will ever come to fruition with so many different brands. I am a Christian first, that goes to a Salvation Army Corps.
   
   There must have been a reason why I read this post, cause I never post, and rarely read blogs, so I pray God uses this discussion and the FRWY.
   
   God Bless,
   Adam Pearson

   11:23 AM

1.  Anonymous said:

   i agree with the above anon. and believe denominations themselves are a pile of man-made hogwash. what denomination did Jesus belong to? or his apostles? in fact, didn't Jesus tell the pharisees (of different 'denominational groups') off? we're all one body, and what needs to happen is all denominations to stop thinking of themselves as such, and start truly seeing themselves as Christ's body. One body - not two or three, or little parts scattered all over the place. I say screw denominations and just follow Jesus and what he says in his word. :)
   
   p.s. realize i'm just using the first words that came to mind, and i totally respect the good that each denomination as done, i just see them all as christians, whatever their particular group may be...

   3:56 AM

Leave A Comment