The editorial made me think about several things relative to the worship experience. My first thought was that religious leaders have always used showmanship to, as I like to describe it, "draw and awe" the congregants. Off the top of my head I can think of many techniques for doing so.
Gory animal or human sacrifices, using natural light in moonlight/sunrise/sunset rituals, chants and songs, group recitations, fire, water, special foods and drinks, grand architecture, art works, instrumental music, burning incense and other things, adding or removing clothing, rising, kneeling, prostrating, handshaking, reading aloud, dancing, call and response speaking and singing, bathing, cutting skin, walking, climbing and descending stairs or a steep incline, decorating with colored gems or glass, using precious metals and stones. These multisensory experiences serve to evoke particular emotions that the leader wants participants to feel while they are being led through religious events and teachings.
I have observed that most churches develop a sense of identity and come to a point where they want to be known for one thing or another. You could call it branding, as the author does, but I think it happens naturally in most churches. A church's claim to fame usually results from some sort of charismatic leadership.
My church, for example, is known for excellent music. That's a direct result of one very talented, long-term music minister, backed by solid support of the senior minister who was also there a long time. Although those two people are now gone, the congregants still want and demand excellent music. They selected the new senior minister and music minister with that in mind, and are willing to pay for the staff and resources such a program requires.
Our worship music is extravagant, it draws new people, and its explicit purpose is to inspire awe while worshiping God. Other than the lyrics, the music program doesn't have anything to do with serving the poor, feeding the hungry, or loving the unlovable. Its role in my church might be tangential to Jesus's message, yet is central to the act of worship, especially in our traditional services. Some people may feel put off by that and choose to attend a simpler service. Many, however, feel inspired and empowered by the music, and credit it for helping them feel closer to Christ.
In thinking about how a church decides to sell its strengths or prioritize a particular value for its congregants--whether that's music, a comfortable atmosphere, or whatever---I disagree somewhat with the other author. He makes a good point, that sharing Jesus's message should be the main purpose for doing church. But I think he judges newer techniques to be "shallow" compared to older ones, when the techniques are simply ways of implementing the same old strategies churches always had. What's inherently worse about projecting text on a screen compared to reading it from a hymnal? What's bad about coffee shops and couches, compared to picnics on the lawn for old-fashioned church socials? I would argue nothing is wrong with these newer techniques. They are probably more appropriate for churches that have ten times the number of members (or more) of typical churches a few decades ago.
I agree with his view that a church which operates just to be popular and profitable is a sham. This is something people have always had to watch out for, and Jesus was certainly critical of those hypocrisies in his own community. Overturning the money-changers' tables was one of his crystal-clear messages on that subject. I just don't think the modern "draw and awe" techniques are in themselves evidence of that pitfall.
