An old friend once talked about a terrible motel room he slept in. It smelled so bad that he slept with the soap from the bathroom tucked under his nose as a deodorizer. The next time he went to a motel, he looked for a "Great Western" sign.
The "Great Western" sign meant something.
It was a brand, and brands say things. "Great Western" says "inexpensive, clean, and well-maintained."
An even better example is Apple, Google, and Microsoft.
In the long run, Microsoft cannot win its battles with Apple and Google because of brand. "Microsoft" means rich, greedy, glitches, and updates that are not improvements. Apple means innovative and reliable. Google adds "free" to innovative and reliable.
So how does this apply to Christianity?
Brands of Christianity
I saw an excellent post called Let Them Eat Cake! today. It was on brands of Christianity. It is an innovative, stinging commentary on the brand of "Sola," an obvious reference to the Protestant Reformation solas—sola gratia, sola scriptura, and sola fide.
It does an excellent job of pointing out the shortcomings of sola scriptura (Scripture only).
It falls short in the most important area, though. If sola scriptura is not producing "brand recognition" of the original faith, then what does?
They don’t address this. I’m supposing that we’re to assume they’re referring to tradition-based Christianity such as Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy.
The problem is, Roman Catholic tradition and Orthodoxy do produce a brand you can recognize.
That’s not a brand I intend to be loyal to, nor make the first purchase from.
My Take on Properly Branded Christianity
I’m just cutting and pasting the comment I made on their blog …