KICC LEAFLETTING

[leenewham]

The KICC are a brand.

I see no difference in planning rules between stopping and excessive amount of supermarkets/chicken places/hairdressers etc to the benefit of the local community.

CP is an area with 10 branded churches in the immediate vicinity and no cinema.

The vast majority of locals want a cinema (over 97% in a poll on Virtual Norwood and over 5000 signatures in a petition).

The people who will use the KICC brand will come from the other side of London and will have to be bused in or travel from elsewhere which could use up all the parking spaces and be a serious issues for local business.

If the KICC brand really want somewhere for their congregation, there are thousands and thousands of empty properties in London alone (100,000 according to a homeless peoples charity). Out of all of these there must be one closer to their congregation that has planning and is suitable for their uses. They have the money and the spending power to buy pretty much anything it would seem so that wouldn't be an issue.

If the KICC brand of church coming to CP was to be a boost for local business, then why are the other 10 existing church brands not providing this elusive boost for the local economy already? Why will one more make a difference?

Would you prefer a tax paying business that local people want or a non tax paying business that local people don't want.

It's a brainer isn't it?

[Robin Orton]

Thanks, Duke. You've obviously researched KICC thoroughly and I have to accept on the basis of what you say that the KICC does in fact seem to be in the 'prosperity Gospel' business.

Not that that's really relevant to the planning issue at 25 Church Road. Nor, I guess, is the feeble protest I feel obliged to register to Lee's assumption that the differences between churches are merely differences of 'brand' and that it's therefore immaterial whether the church at the end of your road is Anglican, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Ruthenian Orthodox, KICC or whatever, and that so long as you've got some sort of church to go to, what you complaining about?

Churches are not service industries, they're not businesses selling things, they're not there to boost the local economy.

However, not for this thread perhaps...

[leenewham]

Hi Robin,

I believe the difference between churches are a difference of brand. Most have the same god. Christianity was one of the first brands, most large businesses and brands have copied them. Christianity had a (brilliant) logo, uniforms, unique and identifiable buildings, even the songs, and sounds they made were unique. They were (are) extremely concerned with image. I'm not using the word 'brand' to criticize religion, charities and not for profit companies are brands too. A brand is just something that exists because it want's people to believe in it's values or product. One reason why I set up my company, to do work I believed in for companies that did good. I don't know if one brand of religion is better than another, but the brands do, otherwise there would be only one.

That's my issue with religion and why I think of them as brands. They aren't that different from one another and if more people realized that I think the world would be a friendlier place.

[Robin Orton]

'Brand', as I understand it, is a marketing term, Lee. Churches generally do not see themselves as being in a 'market', although I accept that some churches may sometimes give that impression. They are not here to project a good image of themselves or of their 'product' - indeed, they haven't got a product. Their understanding of themselves and of what they're here for is radically different from that of a business, a voluntary organisation or a charity.

[leenewham]

I don't see the difference. I'm not criticising churches, but they market themselves in the same way 'brands' do, they employ branding agencies, marketing agencies, PR agencies etc.

Marketing agencies that work specifically for church brands:
http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/

http://www.churchmarketing.com/

http://vimeo.com/7718793

Branding for the Anglican Church created by a branding agency:
http://www.anglicanchurch.org.uk/

Literature design by a branding agency for a church:
http://rareformbranding.com/work/case-studies/coe.html

Church of England markets Christian Easter egg for supermarkets:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -warm.html

It's just that they don't pay tax. So perhaps they have more in common with Top Shop than they think!

[Robin Orton]

OK, Lee, I concede some churches may choose to use 'branding' or other techniques drawn from the world of commercial marketing in order to help get their message over and attract people to consider joining them. For all I know, KICC may well be one of them.

But I deny that most churches are 'extremely concerned with their image'. If they are, they are demonstrating the most staggering incompetence, as the 'images' of most if not all mainstream denominations (particularly the Roman Catholic Church) have suffered major setbacks over recent years or indeed decades.

Underlying your comments seems to be the thought that all religions are basically the same, and that they should therefore be cooperating not competing. I do not myself believe that all religions are basically the same; to take just the so-called 'Abrahamic' religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, they each have very different ideas about God and the way s/he relates to the universe and to the human race. Nevertheless, I agree that religions should cooperate with each other and try to identify and develop the elements they have in common.

So far as Christian churches are concerned, I agree with you totally; their mutual divisions are a scandal and I believe it should be a high priority for all individual Christians (including those in KICC) to do what they can (which may not, in the greater scheme of things, be very much) to bring then to an end.

[Duke of Clarence]

I have heard that the protest this Saturday 12.30pm-2pm at the land bedside the bus garage is against KICC's intended plans for 25 CR and not to their right to have a service in the park. It is important to send a clear message to Bromley council and the Charities Commission that KICC's presence in this community is already having a serious impact on social cohesion.

The plans that they have unveiled for 25 Church Road are to use it much more extensivley for increased capacity audiences. At the same time they have acknowledged the damage those uses will have on the surrounding areas but it is more important that they serve their members. KICC rely on the availability of parking on the surrounding residential roads and shoppers' carpark to facilitate their use of 25 Church Road, thus displacing local residents, traders and patrons of the town centre.

Then there's the very serious concerns about the levels of bigotry that are peddled against the LGBT community. The leader of KICC has signed an open letter to government demanding the Equaltiies Law is changed to exclude sexual orientation. The letter begins by denying homophobic attacks ever take place claiming that the government's only evidence of this is newspaper coverage, it goes on to say that they refuse to recognise equality between hetero and homosexuals and it ends on a militant note accusing the government of Christianophobia.

I find it hard to believe a religious charity would insist on ploughing ahead with hugely unpopular plans for a community within which they have no history or connections.
I find it hard to believe that a religious charity having accepted their intended plans will have a negative impact upon that community but are intent on ploughing ahead with them regardless.
I find it hard to believe that a religious charity peddles bigoted views that stigmatise and marginlise a minority group.
I find it hard to believe that a religious charity does all of the above in the name of Christianity.

It all seems very inward looking, selfish and extremist to me but maybe that is the Christian way and I need to alter my expectations.

[Robin Orton]

I find it hard to believe that a religious charity peddles bigoted views that stigmatise and marginlise a minority group.[...] but maybe that is the Christian way and I need to alter my expectations.

Maybe, maybe not. Many Christians would not dream of signing such a letter (which can be read at http://www.evangelicals.org/news.asp?id=466.) I notice that a high proportion of the signatories appear to be of African origin. As is well known, traditional cultures (including Christian cultures) in some parts of Africa are extremely uncomfortable about European attitudes to homosexuality.