Still, despite the difficult situation, there was nothing but optimism and good spirit at ENC. I'm excited that people seem to be on board with the uncertain future. Already great progress has been made to stabilize things at ENC and Trevecca has come in with lots of administrative and technical support. The various educational institutions of the Church of the Nazarene have long been duplicating services - it makes sense to have regional schools serving regional constituencies, but there is a lot of overhead that goes into running a college or university and I'm all for exploring how to do it more efficiently and effectively. If this merger goes well, there may be a few other schools eager to get in.
As I said, I heard nothing but optimism and well wishes for the school and Dr. Boone going forward. Perhaps it's a bit easier for me to understand that things are different, because I went to ENC during a time of transition. Half the professors I had in my first two years weren't there when I graduated and by my five-year reunion there were only two members of the faculty with whom I'd studied. Colleges are on pretty tight cycles; students typically stay only four years and things change quickly. But the spirit of ENC and it's mission seem pretty similar to what I know and love, regardless of the specifics. Outside of the financial issues, the student experience at ENC is ten times what it was when I attended; they've continued to make things better for students and that's one of, if not the most, important measure of success.
The one thing that did seem to be leaving people scratching their heads, though, was the recent move to re-brand ENC as simply "Eastern." As a pastor on the region, I got a letter about this move with a lot of sound thinking. "Nazarene" is a relatively unknown term that can be difficult for recruiting. People either know it as vaguely religious and their ignorance is a turn-off, or they know they're not Nazarene and assume ENC isn't for them. There can be debate about the value of the name (even though the education at ENC is thoroughly Nazarene and, I suspect, will be for at least the near future), but I totally get moving away from it in terms of branding. That makes sense to me.
"Eastern" in and of itself is not all that distinctive. Trevecca or Point Loma - other Nazarene schools that have moved this direction - have much more distinctive and individual names to use. I'll admit there's some level of emotional pushback on my part since I've literally spent my life (probably from the age of eight) correcting people who call it "Eastern," since it is most definitely ENC. I could get over that, though. I don't think I'd have too difficult a time hopping on board for the good of my school simply because they made a decision I didn't agree with (the new mascot comes to mind).
There's another issue, though, more directly related to the health and well-being of the school that's really given me pause. I hesitate to write all this publicly without having talked directly to Dr. Boone - I did see him twice this weekend, but he was busy and it didn't seem the right time - but I do also suspect he's heard this a time or two from other people. It was the most frequent topic of conversation I had at Homecoming and - oddly enough - I rarely brought it up myself.
You see, the reason I spent most of my life correcting people who call ENC "Eastern" (which is how most of the Nazarene world refers to the school) is because there's an Eastern University just outside of Philadelphia. It's also a small, Christian, liberal arts college with a very similar profile to ENC. If you're a Christian kid looking for a Christian school in the Northeast, you're bound to consider both of them. In fact, if you go to eastern.edu, you'll be at their website - something tomorrow's students might do by mistake for ten or twenty minutes before they realize this isn't the school they heard about in a commercial.
I live in the shadow of Eastern University - even with "Nazarene" in the name, the first part of my conversation with any kids who might be potential ENC students is usually to differentiate it from the local "Eastern" they know. I'd love to be wrong about this re-branding, but even if I am, I still don't know that I could ever call it "Eastern" simply for that reason - people in my area already have a small Christian college called "Eastern" in their minds and it's not the one I want them to attend.
You also have Eastern Connecticut State University - a much larger public school in Willimantic, CT. They've branded themselves "Eastern" for a very long time - in fact the "Connecticut State University" was so small on the billboard I almost couldn't read it as I drove by on Sunday. For kids in the New England area who aren't particularly looking for a faith-based component to their college experience, ECSU is a pretty major rival to ENC for enrollment.
I know Dr. Boone well enough to know he's not just some southern guy coming in without any real connection to ENC and making this decision willy-nilly. Although that was the general consensus from the alums I spoke with this week. They're happy to have him and Trevecca's generous support to pull ENC out of the water - so much that this name thing seems like a small price to pay (and maybe it is), but it's difficult to swallow.
If it were just about a name, I'd advocate swallowing it. Names are just names - the spirit will live on - but it seems awfully short sighted for a school already struggling with enrollment to brand itself in a way that could be confused with not one, but two rivals for various constituencies its trying to recruit. I know Dr. Boone expressed frustration at falling short of enrollment goals this year - I share that sorrow - but I'm not sure this particular move is helping any.
The easy call might be to just brand the place as "ENC" - stop saying the name in its entirety. "ENC" can be the passionate, innovative, Christian college option for New England just fine without a focus on what those letter stand for. I mean, it's likely very few of the current students at ENC even know that KFC stands for - it's a bit trite, but there's a business that found parts of its name problematic for sales and went in a different direction. They seem to be doing ok. ENC is what we call it. It's what people know - not to mention it is distinctive and a great way to solve the branding problems while also investing in the history of the school.
Listen, I'm going to be supportive either way. Dr. Boone asked people to give - give more and give more often - this year and we've done it. We'll continue to do it because we believe in the importance of Christian higher education and my experience at ENC, but I'd also like to give ENC the best chance to still exist in the future and while I see how the re-branding will be part of it, I just fail to see how "Eastern" will do anything but hurt.
I got so frustrated by the logic Friday morning, in yet another discussion, that I said, "I wish they'd just start calling it Trevecca already - it would be better than Eastern." Then it hit me - maybe this is all an elaborate ploy. Perhaps we're being asked to call ENC "Eastern" against all logic and common sense (not to mention tradition) so that, in a few years, when it's known as Trevecca East or TNU-Boston or whatever the merged campus will be, we won't feel so bad about losing our name since whatever it turns out to be will be an improvement on "Eastern."
(For the record, I'm not opposed to any of those names or changing to them now - it's the campus and the culture I hope to preserve and changing the name won't harm that - we should just pick a better name, one that's distinctive and not already taken - TWICE!)
This isn't the most important thing in the world. It's probably peripheral to all the other things that have to go on at ENC. But it's not unimportant and while there's been plenty of persuasive communication about why re-branding makes sense, there's been very little communication about why re-branding to a name that can only be confusing to almost everyone is the right choice. It would be good to know why "Eastern" as opposed to "ENC" or even "Trevecca" or some new name that's been focused-grouped like crazy - any of those seems a better choice.
As I've watched the streams of vitriol and defiance cruise by on twitter and facebook today, I've been thinking about how this whole Chik-fil-a thing is playing out.
A comment on my last post about the issue got me thinking. KaylaKaze wrote
No one (well, now one worth listening to) is up in arms about Cathy's opinion. What they're upset about is they financially support hate groups. They're free to have whatever opinions they want, even if they think the KKK is great and Hitler was misunderstood. When they start ACTING on those beliefs and giving money to actively hurt people is when it becomes an issue.
What she's talking about is that the Southern Poverty Law Center has declared the Family Research Council a hate group (like the KKK or the Aryan Nation) because they have repeatedly (in print and on their website) tried to link homosexuality with terrorism and pedophilia. The charitable foundation funded by Chik-fil-a once gave the Family Research Council $1,000.
First of all, I don't think Kayla and I travel in the same circles. There's a lot of people I know and love who are upset about Cathy's opinion - but most importantly I realized that people I know on both "sides" of this issue are completely talking past one another.
Those people I know and love who are swamping Chik-fil-a restaurants around the country and proudly posting their waffle fry pictures are purportedly doing so to defend "href="http://onemorethingblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/religious-freedom.html">religious freedom" and freedom of speech and, I guess, taking a public stand on how they think the country should define marriage. They're not focused on hate speech or hate groups and likely haven't even heard the argument behind Kayla's comment.
As I said before, they're defending a brand - their brand of political ideology currently represented by Chik-fil-a. Most of the Chik-fil-a supporters I know would never intentional flaunt something as serious as hate speech or hate groups in the face of anyone, no matter their opinion on homosexuals or gay marriage. They're not insidious villains.
At the same time, I know a lot of people who would never accept the characterization of the Family Research Council as a hate group, would never consider the Southern Poverty Law Center as an authority to name a ham sandwich, and would at least not directly challenge connections between homosexuals and pedophiles. Basically, none of the rationale expressed would even be considered by most of the intended audience. The only solution is making friends and allowing people to make up their own mind through experience.
This doesn't really change my initial argument - people are substituting chicken sandwiches for relationships. People don't trust each other because they're defining themselves and everyone else by what they buy, use, wear, eat, consume. Only your own actions represent you, not your consumption. Eating or not eating at Chik-fil-a doesn't represent your beliefs on gay marriage. As much as you want it to, it just doesn't.
Here's the deal:
LGBT friends - those at Chik-fil-a today don't care about your life or your relationships. Yes, maybe in some existential/salvific sense - they don't really want you to end up in hell (which is at least well meaning). But they don't care who you're with or what you do, not really. What they believe, for some reason, is that the government should be an arbiter or Christian morality. Granted, they generally want this only as it applies to homosexuals and fetuses and less so as it applies to war, life, death, taxes, interdependence, generosity, the environment and national identity, but it's not really about you. It's about power and control and how terribly frightened we are when things seem to be changing and we find ourselves on the "losing" end.
Conservative Christian friends - those people attacking your beloved Chikin restaurant, they don't care about you or your religion. Sure, everyone would like to be accepted and no one really enjoys people disapproving of something so central to one's identity. But they're not out to destroy religion or make your church, or its doctrines, illegal. What they want is to be accepted by society. Remember, these are people who spent large portions of life being told they were broken or deficient or somehow lesser human beings than the rest of us. You have to ask yourself, who are you protecting and at what cost? Marriage, in the government's eyes, is essentially a contract between two consenting adults to share property, receive benefits, and file joint tax returns. We've had "no fault" divorce for more than 50 years. What's in any way Christian about marriage in our society?
If it was up to me, the government would just get out of the marriage business altogether. Call it a Civil Union, call it a legal partnership, call it a Taco Grande - just don't call it marriage.
Marriages would be reserved for religious institutions, who they could discriminate in any way their conscious demands or allows (presuming they stick to legal requirements for age and consent). As a Christian minister, I'd welcome the added ability to understand marriage in light of Christ without having a watered down civil definition clouding people's judgment.
While we're at it, if it were up to me, Chik-fil-a would serve only naturally fed, free range, hormone free chicken (as God intended) and it would cost five cents per sandwich.
In short: listen more, talk less, prioritize relationships, freely give the benefit of the doubt, and don't leave your political statements to fast food chains. Also, if someone tells you to be scared of something, don't listen - they are only tryingto manipulate you.
Dan Cathy, owner of Chik-fil-a, made some comments about his support (and the financial support of his company's charitable foundation) for "the biblical definition of the family unit." A lot of this money goes to supporting strong nuclear families; some of it goes to prevent or defeat gay marriage initiatives around the country and a small amount of it goes to mis-information campaigns that attempt to make people scared of homosexuals.
Within hours the twitterverse was up in arms. I even saw the Chik-fil-a cows holding "God hates fags" signs instead of their typical slogan. On the other hand, there were lots of supporters reminding everyone that Chik-fil-a doesn't discriminate, but serves everyone - that Cathy was sharing personal views, not those of the company.
In either case, what we had, incredibly quickly, was people lining up behind a brand. Either you were a chik-fil-a hater, or a chik-fil-a lover. Your opinion on a fast-food chicken chain became determinant of your support or opposition to gay marriage.
If that's not out-of-whack identity, I don't know what is.
On the one hand, Chik-fil-a has always been an unabashedly conservative evangelical organization. They play Jesus music in the stores and close on Sundays. If anyone was surprised by this announcement, shame on them for being so utterly clueless to reality. There's also the little matter of connecting Dan Cathy's comments to Fred Phelps; there's a bit of a logical jump required.
On the other hand, well, why wouldn't people be upset that a company they love doesn't agree with them on a major cultural and political issue? After all, as Michael Jordan famously said while refusing to endorse a political candidate, "Republicans buy shoes, too." Apparently, Democrats buy chicken sandwiches - although very few. Latest projections show Chik-fil-a may lose about 2% of its business when all is said and done. (And we all know Americans are notoriously lazy - how many principled boycotters will cave when they're hungry and it's convenient?)
No one would be on Chik-fil-a's side if the comments were negative towards interracial marriage and positive towards the KKK. Whether you agree with the analogy or not, it's exactly the way a lot of people view the issue. You're surprised they're upset?
In the end, though, it's a chicken sandwich. It has nothing to do with Christian values or gay rights. We just live in a culture so obsessed by defining ourselves through what we consume that we're illogically and outrageously livid when one of "our" brands doesn't represent us the way we thought they did.
I wonder if this isn't part of the problem Christians face in theological and political discourse. If I define myself as a Christian (or an American - too often analogous in evangelical circles), but other people who claim the same brand disagree with me - then how to people know who I am? I don't want to be associated with those fundamentalists/heretics/communists/fascists over there. I must defeat them, convert them, or eliminate them and reclaim my brand!
Ed Helms was gobsmacked to discover that his favorite chicken joint didn't agree with his politics.
Only in America is this an existential crisis.
Mike Huckabee wants those who agree with Dan Cathy's political philosophy to eat at Chik-fil-a on August 1st. There's some implication that this action proves your loyalty to the conservative company line on gay marriage.
Guess what? It doesn't.
Eating at Chik-fil-a says nothing about you or your beliefs - not any more than shopping at the mall is an act of patriotism.
It means you like your chicken sandwich to come with a pickle.
If you want to make a statement about marriage: spend your life faithfully and selflessly devoted to one person.
The chapter I read this morning talked about brand loyalty. Beginning with a look at the history of corporations in the US and the way they gained personhood shortly after the Civil War, he traces the movement of our lives from relationships with people to experiences managed by corporations. We don't have tailors, doctors, grocers, etc anymore - we've got Old Navy, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Costco, etc. We no longer interact with people in relationships, but with corporations who have personified themselves in logos and brands. Image has become essential to our understanding of interaction in all aspects of life.
I tend to be very brand loyal. I blame it on my OCD tendencies. We remained with T-mobile for the two years we lived in NJ even though we couldn't get a cell signal inside our house. I feel guilty when I tell people I abandoned Apple just when it was getting popular. We own two Hyundai Elantras.
I remember (maybe its still current) the big wars between Chevy and Ford truck owners in the 90's - arguing over what amounted to near identical vehicles. GAP, Inc has an ingenious plan - they open a new "discount" chain every few years, where people can get trendy clothes on the cheap. First it was GAP, then Banana Republic, then Old Navy. People get tied to the brand and remain loyal even as the prices go up and its no longer trendy or discount.
As Jethani says, "Starbucks doesn't want you to buy coffee, they want you to buy their coffee."
I got to thinking about this idea of depersonalization and corporate branding in light of some of the discussions happening in my own denomination. The Church of the Nazarene has seen rapid growth in the past thirty years mostly by bending over backwards to welcome people in. We've done a great job of branding ourselves as a warm, welcoming place to seek after God. Not a bad idea. The problem is, we've now got several dozen different regional, social, political, and theological understandings of exactly what that brand means.
We get into heated debates and petty arguments over doctrine, scriptural interpretation, social norms, charitable work, political engagement, and the like, each claiming a deep connection to being "real Nazarenes." Like that old parable - everyone is looking at a different part of the elephant - and we'd rather rip it limb from limb than give ground to somebody else.
I wonder if Jethani hit on a simple solution. If the branding problem really arose because we've replaced personal connection with impersonal logos, brands, and institutions - then isn't the solution to bring people together? If we're really dealing with people, with each other, rather than nameless, faceless ideas - brands, whose feelings can't be hurt and who are incapable of nuance, then perhaps we can begin to reclaim some of our essence.
I frequent the local hardware store, driving by both Lowe's and Home Depot to get there. We buy produce from a farm down the street. Why? Not because its cheaper or more convenient. It's because there's real people there - and so often we yearn for a deeper connection. In the simplicity and efficiency of modern life, we lack something intrinsic to ourselves as human beings. I want to know the name of my bank teller and my mail carrier. I want to get beyond labels and stereotypes. I don't want every shopping experience to be the same - any more than I want to be treated exactly the same as every other customer.
If our world becomes a series of brands to which we're loyal, upon which we base, at least in part, our own identity, then we can never really know each other as people - only as competition. We cannot be friends, but rivals - or at best, potential converts.
I'll be honest, it's difficult for me to define myself in some way that doesn't involve branding. It's easier to say, "I'm the kind of guy who watches skiing all winter and cycling all summer; I care more about the EPL than the NFL; I've been known to wear a fauxhawk, actually distress my clothes through wear, enjoy humor without laughing, and correct other people's grammar." All of those things represent some brand in society - and it might be easier for you to understand me through those images than through a real relationship.
It could be a challenge, for my generation of brand-slaves, to envision a different way of relating to each other and the world. Then again, it could be a challenge.
