Relative Objectivity?

It seems to be a common phenomena that two people can agree on the Bible as the supreme source of truth and yet come to opposite conclusions on a wide variety of issues. Some examples are:

• Age of the earth/Genesis flood
• Modern application of the Old Testament laws
• Moral issues such as alcohol, abortion, gambling, dancing
• The correct content for a Gospel presentation
• Role of women in the Church
• Speaking in tongues
• Style and content of corporate worship
• Method of observing Christian "Holidays"
• Mode of baptism
• End times events and timing
• The ultimate hope of the Christian
• And much, much more...

Pose these questions to 10 well-read Christians (people who are not Biblically illiterate) and I'm sure there will be anywhere from 2-10 different answers. What's more, in many cases, there will be bitter animosity and suspicion towards those who hold opposing views.

In response, the counsel I hear most often from respected Leaders is:

In Christianity, there are essential and non-essential beliefs. In the spirit of unity, we should not divide over non-essentials.

So the essentials are undeniable, right? Well, most mainstream Christian Churches express generally similar beliefs about the Trinity, Resurrection, Bible, and Eternity, but even here there is some variation (Grace, BBC, Saddleback) and a lot of subjects are not addressed.

But assuming that the essentials are basically similar, the net effect is that almost all of Christian faith and practice is defined by the individual. This isn't quite relativism (because Christians generally that truth is objective), but for all practical purposes, it is very wishy-washy. At the end of the day, it seems that everyone is pretty much on their own.

There have been selected times in the past when believers were more unified, but perhaps, this is the way things are meant to be at this time. Each person is accountable to God for their actions. Yet, the chaos seems to be somewhat unsatisfying.

Brands

This week I heard a great presentation about an interesting topic:
What is a Brand?

First of all, these are not brands:






These are logos - graphical representations of a company's name. They reinforce a brand, but they are not themselves brands.

So what is a brand? A brand is:

• A collective set of memories
• An expectation of experience
• A product personality

When someone sees one of the logos above, that person experiences an emotional response based on the interactions that person has had with the company. Every advertisement, product, communication from the company contributes to the brand, for better or worse.
Why is this important? Well, it helps explain why people will pay a premium for what seems to be a simple label. Why is a shirt bearing the "Abercrombie" label $50 and a similar shirt with an unknown label only $15? An MP3 player bearing a certain logo sets record sales, while others are struggling to keep up. Logos instantly bring to mind a set of collective memories that have been built over time. Logos represent brands and people buy products in large part based on their brands.

It is also interesting to note that everyone and every entity has a brand. Companies have brands, Churches have brands, Cities have brands, Individuals have brands. They way they look, talk, act, etc. together create a brand. Think of these examples: Redwood Chapel, Saddleback, New York, Miami, Brittney Spears, Billy Graham, Apple Computer, Starbucks. The response these names evoke is their brand. Its almost magical.