Does God need a ‘re-brand’? That was the question I recently found on an online forum for marketing executives. In other words, if you think of God as a ‘product’, does he have enough relevance for today’s ‘consumers’ or does he need to be enhanced with a new advertising strategy to make him more popular? That’s what these marketing folks were discussing.

Respondents to the forum had a variety of viewpoints. Some thought God did need a re-brand because of the confusion around him. ‘From the voice of one marketer, he is the father of forgiveness,’ one said. ‘From another he is made responsible for the slaughter of innocents. If ‘God’ is open to this level of diversity in interpretation, then [the brand] lacks validity as a symbol of its product.’

Another said, ‘The problem lies with the marketing staff, not God. The church often misrepresents the product, failing to communicate God’s essence that in itself is relevant and impacting.’

Yet another added, ‘Whether agnostic, atheist or devout, one should be able to identify God, the product, [in the marketplace]. What’s missing?’ This marketer then had a solution: ‘God needs a new and improved logo,’ they said! ‘God the brand needs colour… and sponsorship. The next World Cup may be an optimal event for a brand re-launch… A sleek logo on the backdrop of stadiums, on countless products, as official sponsor of the Cup, and with [his] own website—what more could God want?’

Others on the forum took a different tack. Asking the question of whether God was still relevant, one person suggested, was like ‘asking if the air we breathe is still relevant.’ There’s no question. Another said ‘A re-brand of God is not necessary… In times of tragedy and strife, watch where people go for help. You’ll find many back in the pews.’ Another added, just after September 11, ‘In light of the events that transpired this week, I believe we will find that God is the only product that is resilient.’

Another participant to the forum may have been on the money when he said, ‘The question is not “does God need a re-brand” but “does God exist”? If he doesn’t, what point is there in re-branding a lie? If he does then we should ask “are we branding him accurately?”’

This question got me thinking, and it reminded me of The Last Battle—the final book in CS Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia children’s series. In the story, no-one has seen the Kingly lion Aslan for a long time. But there’s an ape in the outer reaches of the land who finds a lion skin washed down the river, and he hatches a plan. He drapes the lion skin over his friend Puzzle the donkey (who’s not very clever) and passes him off to the other inhabitants of Narnia as Aslan returned to them.

Since no-one knows any better or has seen the real Aslan they’re fooled by the trickery and begin to obey and worship an impostor. Only when the real Aslan returns are the animals set free from the bondage that comes from the false and faulty views they have of their ruler.

A donkey wrapped in a lion skin does not make an Aslan. A re-brand of an imaginary deity will not make a God.

I don’t think God needs a new label, logo or advertising campaign. I want the authentic product, not one shaped to fit consumer demands. And some years ago I joined the ranks of many who have found something authentic in a middle-eastern man who wandered the globe two millennia ago, healing the sick and befriending the outcast—the One who said, ‘If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.’

‘If you’ve found me, you’ve found the authentic God.’