Franchising The Church
In a certain southern California city there is a church with two outlets (as they say in the marketing business). One is called Scott Memorial Baptist Church West. The other is called Scott Memorial Baptist Church East. There are two sets of buildings, but only one set of pastors. The senior pastor and his number-one assistant alternate between the buildings on Sundays to conduct the services. Both branches are doing fine.
I’m convinced that SMBC-West and SMBC-East are just the tip of a new religious iceberg. Soon the Protestant church will not only have branches and outlets but also franchises in the mold of the American Free Enterprise System a la MacDonalds.
I can see it now. A hard-working pastor and his staff build a religious winner in a city. Rather than write books about their success or conduct seminars around the country telling others how to do it, they set up franchises. Orange Grove Community Churches spring up everywhere. (Over 8 billion worshipped.) The corporate symbol becomes an Orange-blossomed Prayer Tower rather than Golden Arches. Spiritual entrepreneurs can get their own franchises for a small capital outlay of $30–50,000. The parent company builds the church (a standard architectural plan is used, featuring large amounts of plastic) after a careful marketing research project in the area. And on a designated Sunday, preceded by an extensive advertising campaign and attractive giveaways, the church opens for business.
Of course, standards would be set by the parent company to maintain quality control. All franchise operators would have to attend Orange Blossom U. Service goals would be established. Each person would be guaranteed communion service in sixty seconds. A deacon would use a stopwatch, and those not served both the bread and the wine in one minute would be given a gift certificate redeemable at the book table. Only certain sermons could be preached, and these would be packaged by the home office. Everyone’s taste would be satisfied; the diet would be bland, offensive to no one.
If attendance dropped, the church could take spot ads on TV or sponsor a night at a professional ball game.
There’s absolutely no telling what could be accomplished with church franchises. If you’re interested in applying, write Eutychus, care of this magazine, and send your qualifications for heading up a franchise in a location near you. There’s no time like the present to serve God creatively.
EUTYCHUS VII
Effective Singleness
Praisealleluia—finally an editorial (“Celebrate Singleness—Marriage May Be Second Best,” May 7) affirming what a significant portion of society already knows; it’s O.K. to be single. Being selected by God to forego marriage for a period or even all of our lives does not mean we are abnormal. Our roles in the Kingdom are simply more effectively performed when not encumbered with marital relationships.
Combatting the prejudice against singles is only part of what we face in coping with aloneness in a couple-oriented culture. Our plea is that the Body of Christ give us support by recognizing and reinforcing our personhood.
LOIS M. OTTAWAY
Wheaton, Ill.
Your editorial seems to me to be the same as burning down the barn to get rid of the rats. Marriage is God’s plan as set forth in the Garden of Eden before sin. What we need to emphasize is God’s plan for marriage and not singleness. It is indeed true that some people would be better off not marrying when they do or for the reasons they do, and we do need to have a de-emphasis upon sexual intercourse as the ultimate utopia. However, we need more to recover a sense of God’s purposes in it all. We need nothing short of a revival in Christian family living. Let’s celebrate Christian marriage. If a person feels it is God’s will for them to be single, fine, but let’s affirm loud and clear that God did not intend singleness to be for most people. Remember it was God who said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make an help meet for him” (Gen. 2:18).
ROBERT L. SHEFFIELD
Congress Avenue Baptist Church
Austin, Tex.
Discipled, Not Exhibited
I heartily agree with Eutychus VII when he laments the exploitation of celebrities who have recently professed their faith in Jesus Christ (Eutychus and His Kin, May 7). Too often new converts with exceptional backgrounds are rushed to the front to titillate us longer-time Christians and thereby help us remember that we are on the winning side. Several years ago Decision magazine ceased publishing the names of prominent inquirers at Billy Graham meetings, a commendable step indeed. Recently I attended a small meeting of pastors where it was announced that Eldridge Cleaver had put his faith in Jesus, but this fact was not to be made public. Obviously the word got out, although I understand Cleaver refuses to permit his new life to be vulgarized by publicity. All new Christians need to be discipled, not exhibited or used like some kind of freak. That wouldn’t be good for the rest of us. And it certainly wouldn’t be good for Cleaver, Christ, or His Church.
ROBERT C. STEVENS
Executive Director
Church Bible Studies
Walnut Creek. Calif.
Thanks to Eutychus for verbalizing my concern regarding the hero-worship which materializes as soon as an infamous transgressor finds the faith.… All one has to mention about anyone with fame, fortune, or felony that “he/she’s a Christian, you know” for that person to … be booked for conventions, banquets, and church services as a speaker who has been “in the world” and will share with us all the grimy details of his sojourn in sin.
It is also very interesting to note that one of the most famous converts of all time, the Apostle Paul, spent three years in the desert before he had the nerve to face his fellow Christians, and even then he was received with some degree of apprehension.
In no way am I doubting the conversions which these famous or infamous people have made, but … God is no respecter of persons, so why should we increasingly gullible Christians insist on making showpieces of those men and women who become Christians after a life which may have been a little more sensational than ours.
KENNETH D. GREENER
Minneapolis, Minn.
Adding Growth
The Refiner’s Fire on “The Gospel and Architecture” by Richard Smits (April 23) was an excellent discussion of some of the concepts church building committees rarely consider. One major point, however, overlooked in the discussion was the concept of growth.… Church buildings today can be designed for construction in phases, so that as the body of believers grows, additional facilities can be provided without costly renovation, remodeling, or relocation. Many evangelical churches today are planning for consistent growth over the next twenty-twenty-five years—and their architecture is a concrete demonstration of their expectation of growth.
NORMAN L. BRYAR, A. I. A.
Church Growth Services
South Bend, Ind.
Why Confusion?
Why did Roger Koskela title his report of the creation-in-the-textbooks movement (News, May 7) “Creating Confusion”? Reading through the report one finds evidence of frustration, yes; justice vs. vested interests, yes; but confusion, no. The wording gives the impression that creationists are causing confusion.
We of the American Scientific Affiliation are also interested in having creation receive “equal time” in science textbooks. Just because we tend to be more concerned with the confrontation at the level of opposing presuppositions while the organizations mentioned by Koskela prefer to debate the issues at the level of the scientific data itself (cf. “Creationist Views of Human Origins,” CHRISTIANITY TODAY, Aug. 8, 1975), does not mean that we do not agree with their major objectives.
JAMES O. BUSWELL, III
Member, Executive Council
American Scientific Affiliation
Elgin, Ill.
