SJW Marketing Failure: The Church

As many of my readers know, I regularly point out the many and varied ways in which “Social Justice Marketing fails every single time.”

Usually, I’m pointing this out in reference to things like celebrity brands, video game companies, or the Democratic Party.

However, the Christian Church is no exception to this rule.

In fact, the ONLY exception to this rule is Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, since progressivism has been part of their shtick from day one and they won’t lose any customers from their base for openly supporting SJW “activism.”


In a certain sense, the Church is a brand. It has a message. It has an audience.

And just like with every other brand, when those things don’t match up…disaster strikes.

In an article I’ve archived because I’m not sending traffic to the Washington Post, this study here demonstrates exactly the phenomenon I keep pointing out.

According to a study by the Pew Research Center, American churches are losing about one million members every year.

Further, the conclusion of the study can be summarized by this quote from the article: “Conservative Protestant theology, with its more literal view of the Bible, is a significant predictor of church growth while liberal theology leads to decline.

I’m not sure how this can come as a surprise to anyone, and yet, it appears to be exactly that.

If your religion is founded on certain moral virtues and understandings of the nature of men and women, then turning your back on those foundational teachings is bound to lead to a decline in that religion’s membership.

This logic is so simple to understand that I wouldn’t put it past a 10 year old to grasp…so perhaps unsurprisingly, it flies right over the heads of “progressive” adults.

Now, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I don’t believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

I have many bones to pick with its logical inconsistencies, since my mind insists on thinking critically about whatever I hear and read.

But despite said inconsistencies and the textual criticism of how the Bible has been changed over time, I still believe in its core tenets.

The article continues, “…we found 93 percent of clergy members and 83 percent of worshipers from growing churches agreed with the statement ‘Jesus rose from the dead with a real flesh-and-blood body leaving behind an empty tomb.’ This compared with 67 percent of worshipers and 56 percent of clergy members from declining churches.

Did you catch that?

56% of clergy members in (dying) liberal churches don’t believe in the core event of the entire Gospel. 

Why would you ever expect to maintain your audience’s interest if you’ve openly disavowed the very belief they hold most near and dear to their heart?

If that isn’t insane enough, “…the growing church clergy members in our study took Jesus’ command to ‘Go make disciples’ literallyhalf the clergy members at the declining churches held the opposite conviction, believing it is not desirable to convert non-Christians.”

Apparently, liberal clergy aren’t even smart enough to make the connection between converting new members…and having more members. I’d say I am surprised by the depth of this stupidity, but I’m really not.

Now, here is the real kicker.

When studies like this come out–and people like me point it out over and over again–one would only expect that those whose brands (or churches) are failing would wise up and change their ways, right?

Wouldn’t you reasonably assume that, the problem with their brands having been isolated and identified, they would make the extremely easy choice to do the opposite of whatever’s causing them to fail?

This, my friend, is the problem with expecting reason from unreasonable people.

Instead of wising up to how not to destroy their own brand, I just saw today that even the “fundamentalist” Southern Baptist Church has updated the Bible with “gender-inclusive” language.

That’s right, folks.

They changed what they believe is the “inerrant word of God” to reflect the feelings and whims of mortal people.

And make no mistake–there is no virtue in this. It’s raw, unfiltered cowardice.

It’s most likely the result of weak, beta male pastors being bossed around by the women in their churches. If I had to guess, I’d say they’re hoping it will win them Brownie points with the ladies.

In other words, they are allowing the women to run the church, which is exactly the opposite of how the Bible says they should be run.

And yet, I guarantee they will not learn from this easily-avoidable mistake.

I predict things like this will continue to happen across the liberal Churches of North America, as spineless liberal “pastors” ignore their declining membership in the hopes of getting laid.


If You Enjoyed This Content, Please Donate Below So I Can Make More Of It – Thank You!

2 thoughts on “SJW Marketing Failure: The Church

  1. How do you feel about the contrast between invoking the Bible, and stating that you don’t believe it is an infallible book? How far does that stance go? What reasoning do you use?

    1. Hey James, thanks for the question. There are certain things the Bible is consistent on from start to finish, most importantly its stances on morality and moral behavior (though of course the Old Testament makes constant exceptions for genocide when “God” commands people to wipe out entire villages, including women and children.)

      There are other things the Bible is very inconsistent on–these include the existence of an afterlife, what it takes to get there, whether the Old Testament matters at all, whether God has a physical body, whether Heaven is spiritual or material (as I outlined in by article “Babel And The Demiurge”), whether anything matters at all or you should just enjoy your life (Ecclesiastes), how Judas died, who the risen Christ appeared to first, whether works and deeds make a difference (“yes” according to Jesus and James, “no” according to Paul) and many others.

      Thus, my reasoning is that anything clear from start-to-finish should probably be considered more concrete than those details which seem to change constantly as different authors had different things to say on the topic. Hope that makes sense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *