Advertising runs largely on messages created and conveyed much like the story in a Hollywood film: Actors present, and the audience watches. Communities operate more like ‘The Rocky Horror Picture Show,’ involving its audience directly in the experience. Applying this simple analogy to your marketing program offers valuable insights.

For me, the spiritual similarity poses the question: am I a pew-warmer or an active participant in my community?  And not just my church community, but my greater community as a whole.  The article also makes me wonder how the church encourages active participation rather than building faithful followers who don’t do much beyond singing  an off-key hymn on Sunday (maybe the off-key part only refers to me). 

A similar article published in Forrester Research’s 2007 Social Technographics breaks down the average online user into six categories.  Take a look and see where you fit:

Three out of four people online belong in one of the first five categories of active social Web participation. Could the same six categories be applied to those in the church?

The opening tagline reads, “Come as you are. Do what you love.”  It continues,

“Imagine

You have unique experiences, skills and passions—and we believe you can bring them all to Microsoft for a rich, rewarding career and lifestyle that will surprise you with its breadth and potential. Just imagine the excitement and satisfaction of what you can do, where you can go, and the difference you can make with the resources of Microsoft behind you.”

This text alarms me, but at the same time intrigues me.  As a copywriter for a recruitment digital agency, I envy this writer’s knack for compelling a candidate to desire employment at Microsoft with the help of good syntax and a handy Thesaurus.  The text affirms the reader’s unique attributes, invites them to come freely as they are, and promises to open opportunities of satisfaction and excitement, all within a career at Microsoft. Hell, I might even apply.

It alarms me not because I don’t know if Microsoft can deliver on what they promise. I mean it is just marketing, right? People surely don’t believe everything they read. But marketing does sway your opinion, influence your thoughts and feed your emotions. Otherwise I wouldn’t be crying after that Folgers commercial.  It alarms me because Microsoft just made thousands, if not millions of people, feel more welcome to be a part of their corporate workforce than the church has ever made people feel welcome to be a part of their community.

I’m sometimes on the fence about churches actively marketing.  Whether that’s through billboards, pamphlets, the always-stimulating church bulletins, websites, or dare I say that maybe even some churches are Twittering? I realize Jesus is not a brand. But maybe my hesitation in ‘church marketing’ isn’t because I don’t believe in the message we have to share; it’s the way we’ve shared it.  It’s not the what, it’s the how.  Maybe the ‘how’ doesn’t always need to rely on 3-pointed alliteration. (Notice that I’ve utilized this essential church marketing technique in my headline.)

I occasionally read a blog titled ChurchMarketingSucks.  The preface to their mission statement resonates with me:

Something’s wrong with your church. Something’s wrong with the Church. Church marketing efforts and communication in general suck. We’ve got the greatest story ever told, but we don’t know how to tell it. The church has a problem communicating, and it’s time to change.

We love the church, but it needs some help. Typos, cheesy logos, and bad clip art aren’t helping the cause. But snazzy marketing won’t save this ship, either. It’s not about being perfect, but there’s a better way to communicate. It’s authentic, it’s loving, and it knows how to spell.

This isn’t simply about putting butts in pews or selling glossy postcards. It’s about helping the church be the Church, and seeing lives changed as a result. If helping the church communicate better allows one person to finally glimpse the Gospel, then our work has been worthwhile. It may be fuzzy math, but God can worry about that.

 So I’m intrigued by the way Microsoft has shared their story, but what story do they have to tell? 8-5, monetary success, the exciting life of a cubicle dweller? I’ll admit– with a good sound mix, A-list celebrity talent, and a theatrical trailer dubbed by Don LaFontaine there could be an exciting plot line in there somewhere.  But surely themes like love, hope, freedom and redemption would offer more compelling ‘marketing-speak’?  How did the greatest story ever to be told resort to puns on Christian T-shirts? 

The video on YouTube has been viewed over 41 million times.  For me this is where it gets interesting. I’m in marketing- anything that digitally goes “viral” grabs the attention of most marketers, because they want to know ‘why?’ and reproduce the effect for their own product, brand, name, etc.  Not surprisingly, a marketing article in my inbox this morning stated, “It is essentially impossible to predict whether or not something will go ‘viral’. The best we can do is look, carefully, at the videos that get massive, widespread attention and try to learn something from them that we can use.”  Therefore, the writer provides a frame-by-frame analysis of the Susan Boyle video to determine just what makes it so interesting?   Take a look:

0:01-0:03 First Glimpse of Susan

The first time we see the star of the show, she’s sitting with drooped shoulders, putting a bagel (or something) into her mouth. The music starts as well and it is not celebratory at all. It’s the kind of music that you would imagine slow elephants stomping along to.

0:05-0:15: Susan Speaks

We hear Susan speak for the first time, as well as get a full-body look. She tells us she’s unemployed and 48 years old. Clearly, this is the opposite of the hot celebrity. The elephant music continues.

0:21-0:26 Pebbles

Susan reveals that she has a cat named Pebbles and that she’s not married. But she’s not depressed about it. In fact, she seems to totally able to laugh at herself as well. This is a key element. Susan is being set up as, well…a loser. But no one wants to feel bad about thinking she’s a loser. That she is able to laugh at herself gives us a bit of permission to laugh, because it is with her and not at her. This is picked up once more at 0:37 when she claims she is going to “make that audience rock”. She is nothing if not confident.

What follows are a number of instances where the judges and the various audience members openly sneer at Susan, including:

1:07 Simon Cowell

1:12 The male judge that isn’t Simon Cowell (sorry)

1:13 Cowell again

1:24 Young woman in audience (when Susan says she wants to be a professional singer)

1:35 Woman in audience (when Susan says she wants to be successful)

1:55 On the Brink

The music swells for Susan’s song and the camera cuts to two women in the audience holding their breath. Interesting that they don’t show any men sneering at her. In fact, the two main male characters (beside the judges) in the video are the backstage hosts who are clearly on her side.

1:57 Susan starts to sing

2:00 Cowell’s eyebrows go up

2:01 Audience goes insane

2:07 Backstage host wags his finger at the camera and says, “You didn’t expect that did ya? No!”

What Is There to Learn?

This video is absolutely mesmerizing. To be honest, I can hardly stand this kind of music. Listening to this stuff feels like someone is pouring an unending bottle of maple syrup into my ears. But I keep finding myself drawn back to it. I’m not alone. As of today, the video has been viewed over 41.5 million times. Okay, a bit of perspective: that’s not even half the number of views that that other English sensation, the “Charlie bit my finger” kid got.

But this is a really different sort of a video than Charlie Bit My Finger in that it is not just something oddball or funny. This is an actual story with a beginning, middle, and end. The real charge of watching this video is not so much that you get to see a great performance. Millions of people are good singers and it’s not a big deal. Millions of unknown people are good singers and it’s not a big deal. Millions of (let’s be brutally honest) unattractive people are good singers and it’s not a big deal.

But what the producers of this show got is that they could take this asset — an unattractive and odd person with amazing talent — and make it into a story. The real charge of this video is that you, the viewer, has a front row seat to your own incredible transformation.

Because, really, who among us didn’t have the exact same thought as the woman at 1:24? The producers showed us this reaction because it helped to solidify our own thoughts. And then, at 1:57, just 30 seconds later, we have our whole world view shaken completely.

Why Videos Go Viral

Why some particular bit of content (and others don’t) remains a totally unanswerable question. Very few of us have ever been successful at making something go truly viral. And yet, we are continually drawn in by these things.

Usually, the reason that we give for why something goes viral is that it is absurdly funny or remarkable in some way. But the Susan Boyle video got spread along for an entirely different reason: because of the video’s fundamental effect on you. Now, I’m not claiming that this video has turned around hardened criminals. In fact, I’m not even saying that the effect is lasting in any way. But as a viewer, you go through a real change from beginning to end.

What is shared, then, is not so much the video itself, but rather the feeling. I don’t want you to watch the video nearly as much as I want you to experience the experience. And this just keeps happening. In fact, as I was writing this, I was invited by a friend to become a fan of Susan Boyle on Facebook. Me and 1.5 million others.

So, how do you make something go viral? Well, no one really knows. But maybe Susan Boyle revealed to us that, when we dig deep and try to give people something — instead of just showing them something — we have a greater chance of getting passed along. 

 Amazing! So this marketing expert is telling us that to provide something of value to our clients/customers we have to tell a story, give something rather than just show something. Reminds me of something I heard recently from Donald Miller, the author of “Blue Like Jazz”: ‘Narrative is the most transformational tool there is. Story has the power to change people’s lives.’  When there is a narrative, people can engage.  Miller also says:

If I were to play some sounds of a jackhammer, birds, and a truck backing up, you would say that is noise, not music. But if I were to play Beethoven, you would call that music. They are both noises, vibrations, but what is the difference? I have no idea. There is a difference between random events and story. The mind engages stories, not random information. A story is music. Random information is noise.

 Maybe the same is true in marketing. If we present a random ad that’s not engaging, it’s noise, it becomes the background to the more engaging material you’re looking at on a website or in a magazine.  But how do you make a static banner ad that has 5 seconds to grab the viewer’s attention tell a story?  When I write copy for a website or an email blast how do I tell a narrative in 100 words or less about a customer service position opening at Citigroup? 

 I love that the power of story can positively impact my job, but I also want to know that the story of my life is something grand and interesting. I agree with Miller, “If you are working in order to fund a better story, that’s great. But if your working is your story, then I’m not sure that will be very satisfying.” So what if there was a frame-by-frame analysis of your life to determine what made it just so interesting? Would your story be viral? Here are some other things I’ve learned from Donald Miller to make your story better:

• Story in its most basic form: A character who wants something and is willing to overcome conflict in order to get it.
• A character is what they do, not what they feel or think or want to be.
• Imagine a documentary film crew making a reality show about you. What would the theme of that show be?
• If you want to take your kids fishing, it’s different than taking them fishing.
• In a good story, a hero can’t think more of himself than he does of others. If he does, then he ceases being the hero.
• In a good story, the character always wants something. But a movie is not very satisfying if what he/she wants isn’t very impressive (like a car). The same is true of your life. If it’s not interesting in a movie, it also won’t be very interesting in your life.
• The best stories are when the character wants something, and if he doesn’t get it, people might die.
• Very seldom are humans happy. They only look back on a moment and think they were happy, even though there weren’t. They also look forward and think they’ll be happy when they get something or do something. Humans are happiest in the past or future but rarely in the present.
• A good test for your story is this: If you were to die, what would happen in the world?
• The times in your life when you say, “I don’t know if I’m going to make it” — that is when the story is getting good.
• I think the reason that God made it difficult for men and women to communicate is because he wanted to introduce conflict in the story. Because when it works, it is a beautiful thing.
• The only way to change a characters character is through pain.
• I think you would agree: The times you’ve changed for the better is through pain.
• God doesn’t ever stop at the end of a story and give the moral of the story. He doesn’t. He just tells another story.
•  believe the main way we consume story is through engaging each other.
• What would it be like for Christians to silently tell better stories through their lives?

Go here for Donald Miller’s full “Power of Story” discussion: http://www.jakebouma.com/2007/11/17/donald-miller-story/

The journalist then exchanged his find to a graphologist who, after reviewing the doodles, determined that the prime minister was clearly, “struggling to maintain control in a confusing world”, “not rooted”, and “not a natural leader, but more of a spiritual person, like a vicar.”

A thorough investigation was conducted into the matter, and determined that the doodles were in fact not made by then-Prime Minster Blair, but Bill Gates.

So I actually share something in common with multi-billionaire Bill Gates: I too am a doodler. Apparently many others share this trait, according to the interesting story I heard on NPR this morning, and from my own observations during work meetings.  But why do we doodle?  Here’s the explanation provided on NPR:

To understand where the compulsion to doodle comes from, the first thing you need to do is look more closely at what happens to the brain when it becomes bored. According to Jackie Andrade, a professor of psychology at the University of Plymouth, though many people assume that the brain is inactive when they’re bored, the reverse is actually true.

“If you look at people’s brain function when they’re bored, we find that they are using a lot of energy — their brains are very active,” Andrade says. The reason, she explains, is that the brain is designed to constantly process information. But when the brain finds an environment barren of stimulating information, it’s a problem.

“You wouldn’t want the brain to just switch off, because a bear might walk up behind you and attack you; you need to be on the lookout for something happening,” Andrade says.

So when the brain lacks sufficient stimulation, it essentially goes on the prowl and scavenges for something to think about. Typically what happens in this situation is that the brain ends up manufacturing its own material. This brings us back to doodling. The function of doodling, according to Andrade, who recently published a study on doodling in Applied Cognitive Psychology, is to provide just enough cognitive stimulation during an otherwise boring task to prevent the mind from taking the more radical step of totally opting out of the situation and running off into a fantasy world.

Andrade tested her theory by playing a lengthy and boring tape of a telephone message to a collection of people, only half of whom had been given a doodling task. After the tape ended she quizzed them on what they had retained and found that the doodlers remembered much more than the nondoodlers. “They remembered about 29 percent more information from the tape than the people who were just listening to the tape,” Andrade says.  In other words, doodling doesn’t detract from concentration; it can help by diminishing the need to resort to daydreams.

I don’t really need to feel guilty when I’m doodling during team meetings after all!  Even the leaders of our very fine nation doodle.  Take a look at the images below and see if you can guess which president doodled which picture (hint: your choices are: Ronald Regan, Richard Nixon, Ronald Regan, Benjamin Harrison, Richard Nixon, Barack Obama, and Lyndon Johnson).  For an analysis of your own doodles, check out this site: http://www.annakoren.com/doodles.html 

Back to Dave’s story- While we gathered on a snowy Christmas day to play a family game, both little Petersohn (Dave) and big Papa Petersohn (Rich) grew increasingly frustrated.  For male Petersohns this frustration triggers many reactions, the first being a severe time delay in decision-making abilities. An average 2 minute decision increases to a 10 minute strategic brainstorming before any move is made, and that’s just during Go Fish. With any game requiring higher level thinking then I’m probably safe to leave the room, make a sandwich and eat it before it’s my next turn.  (For this very reason, I’ve invoked a no Euchre or Scrabble after 5pm in our house rule; the game would not end until midnight. It’s kind of like the no swimming until 20 minutes after you eat rule, it’s just not safe) . 

During our Christmas game playing festivities, the tension increased, other players (me) started grumbling about the need to issue time restrictions. I saw the look on Dave’s face that could only mean the second reaction to frustration was triggered: the need to swear like a cartoon character.  Just as Dave opened his mouth, at that exact moment dear Reader, a little Christmas miracle occurred. Out of his own aggravation at the game, Big Papa Petersohn yelled “Gazooks!” instead. I looked at Dave; he looked at me. His worst fear was confirmed.  Not only did he realize how  ridiculous it sounded to hear someone yell that word besides Yosemite Sam, but he also recognized his undeniable similarity to Papa Petersohn.   I haven’t heard the word since in our home.  And everytime Dave puts on his mocassin slippers at night, shuffles around the house, and falls asleep on the couch by 8pm -exactly like you know who- I don’t say a word.

It’s funny how similar we are to our parents even when we deny it or try to overcome it.  I’m glad that Dave and I have the kind of parents where the things we try to avoid in similarity are silly.  But we also battle generational struggles that aren’t so silly either.  They are deeper, more engrained, and more painful.  I grimace when I recognize something in myself that I didn’t think would be there, and ache when I pass on a wound that I know has been passed to me. That’s why I like my little Christmas miracle.  It is one of the funnier moments when I am reminded to be thankful for the many good things passed on to me through my heritage.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m sick with anticipation over this movie, despite my fears that disappointment is the only possible outcome awaiting me. But that anticipation only began to grow once there was a movie to anticipate. Up until then, I would blissfully read the comics again every two years or so, confident in the knowledge that they were telling me a story as well as a story could be told.

See, there’s an assumption — a big one — that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. And it’s this: Watchmen won’t be a fully-realized piece of entertainment, of literature, of pop-culture, or of art, until it happens on a movie screen. Film, the argument seems to go, is the natural apex of storytelling.

Do I need to mention that that’s nonsense? Or that it reveals an astonishing lack of respect for Watchmen itself? We’re supposed to act as though Watchmen is finally achieving its full potential, when the beauty of Watchmen, and the reason I love it so much, is that it’s fully realized already. In fact, that’s the precise problem that it’s faced on the road to the multiplex. Anybody who’s been waiting anxiously for someone to make it into a movie has sort of missed the point.”

I totally agree with the writer’s point that film is not the final culmination of every piece of art. (Don’t get me wrong: I look forward to movie releases with great anticipation-just ask my husband about my feverish countdown to The Dark Knight, or my post-Cloverfield research obsession, or my LOTR premier costume ).

The reviewer’s point, however, may have put into words part of my frustration while reading the wildly popular Christian fiction book “The Shack.” Please tell me you’ve heard of this book? If not, catch up through my favorite side-hugging blogger: http://stufffchristianslike.blogspot.com/2008/07/remix-92-shack.html

I’m currently reading through “The Shack” for the second time. My first read of William Young’s tale of a man’s encounter with God was several months ago, and honestly- I hated the book. Perhaps this makes me, cue the Paula Abdul music, a cold-hearted snake. Even Kathy Lee Gifford endorses the book on the back cover! The creator of America’s favorite child-labored clothesline was spiritually moved and challenged by this book, and I wasn’t. Even Smitty (Michael W. Smith to those who weren’t raised on “Go West Young Man”) gives the book two very holy thumbs up. I refuse to be spiritually outdone by Kathy Lee Gifford, so I’m reading through “The Shack” again. More accurately, my small group decided to read the book, and I begrudgingly gave it a second chance.

I’ll admit: I’m enjoying it. The dialogue created within our small group because of the book is enjoyable and thought provoking. My frustration is partly explained by the aforementioned Watchmen movie review. Are we expecting “The Shack” to be the apex of God’s story? Is God’s redeeming work not fully realized by our culture until it happens in a book or on a movie screen? Wasn’t God’s story amazing before The Passion of the Christ was ever released? The complexity, symbolism, beauty, and mystery of God’s work in the Bible, on the Earth, and in my life is amazing on it’s own. I appreciate that other mediums can better explain or illustrate God’s nature to our human understanding, and I don’t think the author of The Shack intended for his fictional tale to supersede the story of Christ redeeming history. But I do think some people have allowed the book to do so.

The NPR movie reviewer reminded his audience that The Watchmen was first created as a graphic novel, and therefore the story is fully realized in this form already. It doesn’t need a movie to bring the story to its climax. This is why the reviewer concludes, “Anybody who’s been waiting anxiously for someone to make it into a movie has sort of missed the point.” Maybe the same can be said for those anxiously waiting for a book, or a movie, or a certain event, or person, or thing to bring Christ’s work to completion? Perhaps we’ve missed the point?

Or maybe I’ve missed the point, and have spent far too much time being frustrated by a book that is probably doing a lot of good for a lot of people. But that is why I’ve entitled this post “How I’ve learned to stop worrying and love “The Shack” (‘love’ is still a bit too strong). I’ve also always wanted to combine my love for Dr. Strangelove and Jesus into one post. Tomorrow I’ll interweave the analogy of my strange earlobe phobia with they mystery of the Holy Spirit.

For instance, our community library has a program called Paws to Read, which is described as, “Children who may be reluctant readers are invited to read to Marley, a trained therapy poodle. The activity can help young ones improve their reading skills and self-confidence.”  Reading about this program leads me to thinking about the person who trains Marley the therapy poodle to sit and listen to “Goodnight Moon”  or “If you give a Mouse a Cookie” twenty times a day.  This is someone’s job, maybe not their full-time job, but part of their occupation includes creating a useful poodle (which is actually a pretty difficult task when I think about). 

Or consider Felix Batista, an employee highlighted on NPR this morning who makes a living as a kidnapping consultant. How does one get into this field? (Although, apprently he didn’t perform his job very well, today’s CNN article about this fellow headlined: Anti-kidnapping consultant kidnapped in Mexico).  Or Nathan Sawaya, who earns six figures annually as a lego brick artist.  For an excellent read, check out this McSweeney’s article featuring interviews with people who have interesting and unusual jobs.  It ranges from a cruise ship pianist, a snowmaker, a marijuana lobbyist, a crayon pigment factory worker, a movie extra, a sperm bank donor worker, a bingo caller, a research coordinator studying how people fall in order to prevent falls in older people, (daily job consisting of: recruiting subjects, and then knocking people over), and many more colorful career choices.

I believe my consistent job searching displays my curiosity, rather than a lack of satisfaction in my current setting (the nagging ”the grass is always greener” syndrome).  I have a variety of interests and skills, and because of this I’m  inquisivitive about the different job settings where these skills could be used.  In high school our senior class participated in the SAT job assessment survey, to evaluate what occupation best fit our abilities and interests. After the individual appraisal each student received a numbered outcome that correlated to a specific profession. I received the number “999″, this number matched to the livelihood “Other”.  Other??  The test proctor informed me my job interests and skills were so varied that I was relegated to a lifetime of employment in the world of “other”.  I didn’t receive much direction from my guidance counselor either.  Since I was valedictorian of my class it was assumed I would do well in whatever field I chose to occupy myself.  I had interests in several disciplines, and without clear direction, my “other” classification led to the ambiguous land feared by all parents called “undeclared major.”

During that same time in high school, a television program aired on NBC titled “The Pretender”.  It featured Jarod, a child prodigy, who was abducted and raised by a think tank called The Centre.  Jarod’s abductors trained him to be a “Pretender”, someone who could integrate himself into any walk of life.  As an adult, Jarod escaped The Center and disguised himself in each new episode by taking on a different occupation.  One week he was a doctor, the next he was a coffee barista, and during sweeps week he worked as a magician while also tracking down a vampire serial killer (I never said the show was practical). From my unconstructive vocational vantage point, I watched with jealousy as Jarod unrealistically lived out the ideal lifestyle to an “999-Other” like myself .  As an adult, I’ve carved out a somewhat similar professional lifestyle.  Since graduating, I’ve occupied myself as a wilderness trip leader, a case manager in social services, a nanny, and now a marketing coordinator at a digital ad agency.  

After graduating from Taylor University I was frustrated  that I didn’t know what I wanted “to do”– as in, pick an occupation and devote myself to it for life.  There’s only one thing more sinful than leaving TU without an MRS degree, and that’s not specifying your God-given “calling”.  I was a psychology major, but I would love to be anything from a cake decorator (seriously) to a police officer.   My frustration led to sincere panic that I was the only 21-year-old college graduate with no specified job path and confusion about my future.  From my now oh-so-knowledgable 26-year-old viewpoint, my predicament was not so surprising or unusual.  I represent one of many Agent 999s, the “Others” of my generation, the misunderstood job seekers to all Baby Boomers who have devoted their entire lives to one profession.

I enjoy learning the niche skills that are required with career changes.  With emerging technologies and ever-changing employment  industries, new skill sets will constantly need to be acquired by future job-seekers. As to what I should take on next: hmmm, maybe a professional shoe throwing bodyguard??

I didn’t really grow out of this habit. At home, buffets, and the ever-wonderful potlucks, I make sure to arrange my plate with some flair.  My greatest culinary artistic work occured while Dave and I were in college.  During lunch, he worked as a dishwasher in the university cafeteria.  To display love at its greatest depths, I created a vegetable masterpiece for him on my lunch tray.  My love for Dave was spelled out in baby carrots, celery sticks, cauliflower, tomatoes, green peppers, and broccoli. Oh, and there may have been a little Ranch involved too.  I discarded my tray on the conveyor belt and watched as it made it’s way back to my dishwasher cutie.  Unfortunately, what men appreciate most in a relationship is not words of affection spelled out with vital nutrients.  I can not report that Dave was overwhelmed with satisfaction at my loving, artistic yet also nutritious feat.

His lack of excitement was probably because I attempted to be the vegetable Van Gogh or the Don Juan of lunch tray love more for myself.  I am the type of person who would love to receive a vegetable medley of devotion, Dave is not.  Silly as the incident was, I did learn that this is how I usually show care to others- in the way that I would want to receive care.  It takes more effort and sacrifice to show love in a way that the recipient would appreciate and understand best.  Fellow readers, this might be why Dave presented me with a bouquet of flowers one day–made entirely out of fruit.  He’s sacrificial like that; I’m still learning.

I wonder if the Monet of grocery clerks was declaring his love to someone through his Super Mario Brother canned food magnum opus?  Well done sir, well done.

This made me wonder what my song would sound like?  The actions I take on a consistent basis, or my habits, become a place or a comfort zone that I inhabit daily.  To inhabit a place means that I dwell there, my habitat.  My habitat is my own little “city” that someone could create a song from. But what kind of song would it be?  If someone were to follow my life over the course of several months, taking sound bites of the ins-and-outs of my everyday life and compile them into my song, then what kind of song would come out of it?  And how would each person’s song differ from another? Would someone that’s more laid-back and complacent produce a song that emits the same style?

Perhaps even more interesting would be if the same technique could be applied outside of music, and a visual representation of my life was created in one art piece.  Would it reflect any of the things I say that I believe? Or would it reveal something quite different?  It could be similiar to The Picture of Dorian Gray, where the artwork displays my true form, something quite scary.

Perhaps the song or artwork of my little city, the place I dwell,  would be much better off if someone else dwelled in it besides myself.  It would have to be somebody pretty cool so that my life’s song didn’t sound like something from ABBA or Michael W. Smith.  What if I chose God? If He was the one living in my “city”, then His life’s song would probably create a masterpiece. I try to choose Him every day as the person who inhabits my city, so that perhaps my daily actions, words, and habits create sound bites and images that are much more beautiful than what I produce on my own.  Through Christ I’m being built together to ” become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit”  (Ephesians 2:22).  Awesome, so maybe my song could be a little less disco and a little more rock n’ roll.