My first instinct in response to Casey’s sentiment (which, in context, was applicable to all banks with a social media presence) was to be somewhat affronted. After all, the agency I started works hard to help brands establish and maintain their social media presence as a full time occupation. I’d like to believe that all that hard work translates into nothing short of a fundamental transformation in the service culture of those companies.

Casey was right though – few corporate brands achieve a seamless experience between their on-the-ball, client-centric social media profiles and the actual day-to-day touch points between “ordinary” staff and “ordinary” clients.

Michael Jordaan, as the Twitter-savvy CEO of FNB, has gained notoriety (and I dare suggest a few customers) for his candid, sincere engagement on the platform. His pride and passion are contagious – it’s not hard to get excited about a brand whose fearless leader embraces innovation so willingly. After all, that’s what I want from the brands I spend money with – they must do the basics exceptionally well, and delight and surprise me with market-leading innovations. Michael recently elaborated on his fascination with Twitter in a Mail & Guardian article:

(Twitter) encourages and facilitates quick, impulsive conversations with your customers and the public and shatters the traditional hierarchies and channels of ­executive communication…

But social media are changing the way businesses connect with the press and I love being part of a network that tunes me in to the multiple and overlapping conversations that make our society so vital, interesting and dynamic.

Clearly, Michael gets social media engagement, as do many modern executives and business leaders. But surely the true value of their enthusiasm should be measured in the impact of that enthusiasm on the service culture of the organisations they represent?

I recently switched to FNB. The overall experience hasn’t been bad, but straight away the unmistakable characteristics of corporate silos, hierarchies, competition and anti-collaboration have been evident. I was contacted by FNB Premier banking, and met with a consultant, but even though I qualify as a private client I was motivated to join Premier banking because that was what suited the consultant. I relented on the basis that Premier banking would be cheaper, but the truth is I’m fundamentally lazy and would rather enjoy the pleasure of a Private banker than, well, do any banking-related admin at all. I did explain this to the consultant…

As soon as I signed up for Internet banking, the Discovery Credit Card I have had for years reflected on my profile – because of the link between Discovery and FNB. Today I had a query about that card – yes, the same one that is reflected on my profile – and got told by my assigned Premier assistant that they couldn’t help me with my enquiry but that I had to contact the Discovery Credit Card call centre to get the query resolved. I replied – and yes I sounded like a whiny snob but I think I had a case – that if I wanted to contact the Discovery call centre I wouldn’t have switched to FNB Premier banking. Swiftly picking up on my tone the assistant agreed to email Discovery for me to resolve the query. Surely that should have been the default option?

I’m under no illusions as to how hard it is to replicate the service ethic of social media profiles across corporations, but the goal is to try your level best. After all social media is so much more than a bunch of websites that link people together – it is a fundamental shift in the way we connect, communicate and collaborate with each other, with our colleagues and with our customers. It is incumbent upon brands that invest in social media profiles to educate key service staff, every day, about the evolving connected consumer and how to engage with them. The risk for those that don’t is that the blatant dissonance between the online and offline experience of the brand is so off-putting, that it does more damage than if you’d never been there in the first place!

Am I saying that brands shouldn’t be on Twitter, Facebook and others if they can’t pull a Zappos and present a ubiquitous client-centric brand across all touch points? Absolutely not, that would make me a hypocrite. I applaud all brands that make an effort, but would encourage a more concerted effort toward acknowledging that no two customers are the same and that all attempts must be made to establish departments and teams, failing a service ethic that encompasses this truth across the business, that can ensure a consistently good (or even consistently average) experience of the brand for influential customers.

Client-centricity is a misnomer. Today, brands need to focus on identifying and influencing influencers, because there is no better salesperson than a satisfied customer. Satisfied influential customers influence the masses in turn, and that advocacy will motivate a change of heart in even the most stoic dissenters. This is the value we try to add to our clients – strategies and training that fundamentally shift the experience of the brand in line with the social promise of the brand, in the eyes and hearts of its customers.

Are brands on social media simply smearing lipstick on the pig? Yes. Does it need to stop there or can the pig be fundamentally transformed into a, um, non-pig-like thing over time? Yes. Who can teach your corporate pig how to be non-pig-like? Your clients. So listen to them.

I have asked my FNB Premier consultant to advise me on Private banking. We’ll see how that goes :)

I won’t speak much about the game. We played better than I thought we would, could not take our chances and lost by a very narrow margin to a better-ranked team. Sometimes you win the close ones. Sometimes you lose them. That’s test match rugby at the highest level.

We cannot change the past and instead must look to the future of SA rugby. To be honest, I’m incredibly excited – the future is BRIGHT! We have outstanding talent and enviable depth at our disposal – the only question is how we choose to manage that talent in future. That then becomes a conversation about who SARU will select to succeed coach P Divvy.

I am a big fan of Allister Coetzee, the man Jake White believed should have succeeded him. But Allister will need the support of international brains, as Jake White found in Eddie Jones, and local talismen too. The likes of Rassie Erasmus come to mind.

The legends of John Smit, Victor Matfield, Fourie Du Preez, Bryan Habana and co. have likely had their best opportunity to win another World Cup and if our intention is to achieve that in Japan in 2015 we need to say thank you to them and look forward. If it were up to me, and fitness were not a question, I would play the following 22 tomorrow:

1. Beast Mtawarira
2. Bismarck du Plessis
3. Jannie du Plessis
4. Josh Strauss
5. Andries Bekker
6. Heinrich Brussouw
7. Schalk Burger (c)
8. Willem Alberts
9. Francois Hougaard
10. Patrick Lambie
11. Lwazi Mvovo
12. Frans Steyn
13. Jacque Fourie
14. JP Pietersen
15. Gio Aplon

16. Chiliboy Ralapele
17. Gurthro Steenkamp
18. Danie Roussouw
19. Francois Louw
20. Ruan Pienaar
21. Juan de Villiers
22. Juan de Jongh

A mix of youthful talent and experienced campaigners, I think this 22 contains most of the names that, all things being equal, should take us to 2015 with a realistic chance of regaining our crown. That does depend heavily on SARU and the coaching staff they choose though, which as always should be entertaining to watch!

Regardless of what happens I remain a fan to the bitter (or sweet) end.

As a direct result my clients typically freak out when presented with the reality of social media, the tide of conversation around their brands and the idea that whether they like it or not they are going to be spoken about online. They acknowledge the need to engage, and yet are petrified at what might happen when they open up these channels of communication.

This dynamic has forced me to think carefully about why people complain, what a complaint is and what it actually means for a brand. If we strip down complaints to the core, a few key truths are undeniable:

1. There are only two possible outcomes for every complaint

   Recently I crapped all over Kulula because I received an SMS about a delayed flight en route to the airport one Friday morning a few months back. The delayed flight meant I’d miss an important presentation in Durban, and I was livid. I was on Twitter in a flash, ranting and raving and whining about Kulula’s incessant tardiness (or at least my perception of the same).

   Had I read the SMS better I would have realised it referred to another flight to Durban, also with Kulula, but three days later (the following Monday). Awkward. Once I realised my error I quickly hopped back online and apologised profusely. Thankfully Kulula had a laugh with me about my brainfart and all was resolved.

   I realised through this experience that when someone complains online there are only two possible outcomes: either the consumer is wrong, or the company is wrong. Once you’ve realised that, you can start to learn something from the experience (which brings me to my next point…)

2. Social media communities self-regulate

   If, like me in the previous example, the consumer is in the wrong, very often social media communities self-regulate around the brand. This is not always true but thanks to the open, democratic nature of the social web there is more opportunity for this dynamic to play out than any other forum.

   A number of people responded to my Kulula rants saying they agreed and that their experience of Kulula was the same. But an overwhelming majority responded in disagreement, saying they had not had such a negative experience and were in fact massive fans of the brand. The community self-regulated to the positive, normally a clear indication that a brand is doing a pretty good job and that it enjoys a significant measure of positive sentiment online. The converse is true if the community self-regulates the other way.

   time and time again I see the online community rallying around brands when consumers are truly out of line and in some instances we’ll advise our brands to step back and wait for the reaction of the community to a particularly unruly consumer.

   All that said, most often when a customer complains online it’s not them that are wrong but the brand, and when that is the case…

3. Humility and learning

   …learn from it, dammit! Brands are so defensive, and so afraid of appearing human in any way, shape or form. Let’s face it, if someone complains, and they’re not wrong, then…

   YOU’RE DOING A CRAP JOB.

   When the fit hits the shan and it’s clear you failed, surely you’d want to learn from that mistake and ensure it doesn’t happen again? When Jane finds a staple in her burger, complains to the franchise manager and he tells her “tough luck”, surely you’d want to know that so you can prevent it from happening again?

   Mistakes are the building blocks of innovation. If you never did anything wrong – if you never failed – you’d have no reason to improve as a business, you’d have no reason to invest in your brand. But nobody’s perfect, and you may as well focus on evolving when a chink in your armour is revealed.

   When you do that well, something magical happens:

4. Complaints are testimonials waiting to happen

   Google doesn’t forget – yet another reason our clients panic when they realise they’re getting talked about online. Every compliment and complaint – every engagement with every consumer – leaves an audit trail that other consumers can track, follow and judge you on. As such a paradigm shift is required when it comes to complaints. Every complaint is an opportunity for you to showcase how awesome you are at turning a situation around. Every complaint should be an opportunity for positive PR. Every complaint should be a testimonial.

   As such, approach every jibe and sneer with enthusiasm and vigour knowing that you can completely alter the perception of the brand through every positive engagement online.

   There is a worse sin than not turning a complaint into a compliment though…

5. Missing compliments is an even greater risk

   …and that’s missing the opportunity to engage with a consumer who says something good about you. Our clients are constantly scrambling, panicking about all the negative things people are saying about their brands and sometimes forget that missing an opportunity to thank a fan for their advocacy is an even greater risk. Fans are gold. Failure to acknowledge them is death. It is so much harder to win a true fan than convert an “unbeliever”, so when you have them treasure them.

Complaints are not all that bad. Complaints need to be seen as opportunities. Whether you like it or not, they’re going to happen and how you choose to see them and deal with them could be the difference between you succeeding and failing in your attempts to grow brand equity online.

This is a good thing. Brands tend to forget that platforms like Facebook and Twitter were created for individuals to connect with other individuals, and not as business tools. When creating profiles, responding to and initiating conversations, businesses are constantly challenged with this dynamic and as a result have had to unlearn some of the long-standing principles of traditional marketing to succeed.

But that is only one side of the story. Not enough, in my opinion, is being said about the responsibility consumers have when they interact with each other, and with brands, online. The power of freedom of speech and the open and democratic nature of social platforms tends to encourage behaviour that is incongruent with how individuals might behave in “real life”. Consider the recent example of Ard Matthews‘ well-documented foul up of the South African National Anthem on live television. Angry citizens on Twitter and Facebook hurled violent insults and jibes at him – statements I’d be willing to bet they’d never say to him face to face.

I recently had a public spat with Dale Immerman (who is in fact a rad dude, I just didn’t agree with him in this instance), about a conversation he had with @StandardBankGrp, Standard Bank’s Twitter presence. I felt like Dale was bullying Standard Bank (you can see the whole conversation here – http://bettween.com/mikestopforth/idale), and I had a bit of a go at him as a result. I’m probably hyper-sensitive to this dynamic because of the abuse I witness our clients receiving at the hands of sometimes unreasonable consumers.

Uncle Ben (from Spiderman for the non-geeks out there) told Peter Parker that “great power comes with great responsibility.” To say that the average Twitter user with 200 followers has great power is a bit of a stretch, but it’s an undeniable fact that social media users (who have no access to any other media platforms) have greater reach and influence than what they would have had before they built those profiles, and it cannot be ignored. Surely consumers should be more conscious of their behaviour online? Surely, seeing as businesses are made up of individuals and have Twitter and Facebook profiles run by individuals, they should be treated with a degree of respect too? As much as we as consumers expect brands to use social media to connect with us in revolutionary new ways, we should understand that we are required to do so in an equally respectful manner.

There is a danger that consumers who have gained significant levels of influence use that to manipulate and bully brands online. In my experience, practicing responsible consumerism (I made that up) elicits a more positive responsive from brands.

With that in mind I’d like to propose a Connected Consumer Code of Ethics – a set of ‘rules’ (maybe guidelines is a better word) that I believe consumers should follow when interacting with brands online. We had a debate at the office about this, so feel free once you have read through it to disagree wholeheartedly!

The Connected Consumer Code of Ethics

• Do some homework. Your insurance company messes up a claim. It’s one thing if you try the website, phone the call centre, go in to your branch, receive no help and then rant and rave on Twitter. But ranting and raving on Twitter because the volume knob comes off the console of your Toyota Auris before taking it into the dealership is unreasonable. Give the brand a fair chance to solve your issue before dragging their name through the dirt.
• Speak as you would expect to be spoken to. If and when you get to the point where ranting and raving on a social platform is your only solution remember there are other human beings behind the social profiles of even the biggest organisations. Profanity and defamation will probably not get you the results you hope for.
• Don’t be a ‘mobster’. Mob mentality kicks in on social platforms, and all too often. One person complains and before you can say “brainless” hundreds more are retweeting and sharing and re-posting the same complaint. If you have an issue with the brand in question, feel free to echo the sentiments of the originator. But if not, why perpetuate negativity? Surely we have enough of that already? (this tip courtesy of Heike.)
• Balance the scales. It’s human nature – it’s so easy to complain when something goes wrong, but so much harder to remember to give kudos when they’re due. Try developing a habit of complimenting brands as often as you slate them.
• Temper your expectations. Even though you as a consumer should not be expected to differentiate between company structures, departments or silos, you should still have a realistic expectation of what a brand is capable of doing online – specific to the limitations of the platform (this tip courtesy of Keenan.)

Perhaps if we are all a little more conscious of and responsible for our actions online, brands will steadily improve their response rates and willingness to take social platforms more seriously as customer service channels. Regardless, I think how you conduct yourself in relation to brands or other users (especially when it’s safe to hide behind a digital mask), says much about your true character. That should be reason enough.

I love film. I actually studied film for a year or so before, ahem, dropping out, but my passion for the medium remains. My favourite past time, when I have the time, is to pop past the Absolutely Fabulous DVD Nouveau store down the road and pick up a classic off their “Must See” shelf. Over the last few months I’ve enjoyed IMDB Top 250 regulars like 12 Angry Men, Goodfellas, Cinema Paradiso and many more.

So you’ll understand that when one of our clients, Turner Broadcasting, presented their “Pop-Up Cinema” concept to us and asked us how we could promote it via their social media channels – you can follow them on Twitter at @TCMAfrica – I was pretty stoked. The Pop-Up Cinema concept is loosely based on Secret Cinema, and is in essence a celebration of classic film in a different location each time, for a select group of individuals that are either invited or who pick up on the event via online channels and the grapevine and RSVP to attend.

The inaugural @TCMAfrica Pop-Up Cinema was held last week at Arts on Main in the middle of Jozi – an awesome venue – and was non-stop fun from start to finish. I arrived to a giggling gaggle of students draped in scarecrow, witch and tin man outfits (no prizes for guessing the movie, and therefore the theme for the night, was The Wizard Of Oz) and once I’d collected my goodie bag, popcorn and sweets, settled down to watch the movie.

Besides the fact that it’s really hard to go wrong with an entertaining classic like Wizard of Oz, the evening was an a chilled one spent with really cool people in a great environment, and I’d highly recommend (because it was a jol, and not just because they’re a client), that you try and attend the next one, even if only for the free popcorn!

A big thank you to @TCMAfrica for the invitation – I can’t wait for the next one!

When he dies messages of condolence and sympathy will flood in. Wreaths will be laid, memorial services will be held and millions, maybe billions of people around the world will mourn one of the greatest men who ever lived. His life – and more specifically the actions that shaped his life – have earned such a send-off.

Last week Friday I was called to Benoni after my gran passed away in the company of the people she loved most. She was 89, and had lived a most remarkable life. This was no more evident than in her funeral on Wednesday – an event that was not clouded by regret, but illuminated by celebration. Her life was such that she had no unfinished business.

She was gracious beyond reason. She faced every challenge that life threw at her – two bouts of cancer, a World War, the loss of her husband after only 7 years of marriage – with admirable strength and resolve, and an unshakeable faith that anchored it all in place.

I see so many parallels in the grace she showed others, and the gratitude she expressed for every moment she had on this earth, to the life of Nelson Mandela. It’s not for their achievements that we hold these special people in such high esteem – it’s for their actions. Actions that fly in the face of what the world tells us is right, or normal. Actions that defy logic. Actions that change the fabric of society.

When Madiba dies… wait, screw that… BEFORE Madiba dies, seek to honour him and those that are like him in this world by not just sending out a compassionate tweet, or updating your Facebook status to “RIP Tata”. Seek to honour him by ACTING abnormally. ACT with grace, compassion and forgiveness:

Write that letter to that person who you need to make peace with.

Smile at strangers.

Give something away – something that is of value to you.

Stop collecting things and start collecting memories.

Love without fear.

I figure if I can do these things, if I can change the way I act and be just a little more like the kind of person Nelson Mandela is, and my gran was, then I am truly honouring them. The minister who officiated my gran’s funeral said, “people only die when we stop talking about them”. The lives of my gran and Nelson Mandela will best be honoured when we try and act like them.

No two brands are exactly the same. Every brand has a different message, culture, strategy and even audience. There’s no arguing that Twitter offers brands a unique opportunity to reach and converse with a captive audience in a relatively personal space – not only to sell but also to learn – but not without a handful of strategic challenges that must be navigated early on. This series of posts will hopefully highlight, and give clues to overcoming, these headaches.

The first challenge you’ll face when venturing into the Twittersphere is exactly how to present your brand. Twitter is after all a space that was designed for individuals and brands have had to adapt to that environment. I’ve been asked, “do we use a persona?”, “should the CEO be tweeting?”, “should multiple people tweet from one account?” etc. The truth is none of these are right or wrong, it’s just that certain options are better suited to some brands than others.

As I see it brands have four (broadly) possible options when deciding on their identity Twitter. Here they are in no particular order, I’ve picked examples for each option that were correct at the time of publishing:

1. As a brand

e.g. Huggies, Woolworths

Companies can choose to present themselves as a logo with a voice. This voice can be authored by an individual, a team of individuals or even an agency. Regardless, the individual / consumer on Twitter is never introduced to the origin of the voice.

On the plus side, this approach allows you to build a team behind the Twitter profile and spread the responsibility of publishing and interacting across a number of individuals. It also will be the option most closely aligned to your CI, and ensure that your brand logo is seen, literally, every time you tweet.

On the negative side this approach is rather impersonal, and gives the average Twitter user the feeling they are speaking to a big grey building rather than an individual, or group of individuals, who genuinely care about them and their concerns.

2. As a team behind a brand

e.g. Ford

In this case a brand will choose to present themselves as a logo but use the Twitter bio or background, or the tweets themselves, to introduce the individual team members behind the content and interactions. The bio from Ford’s Twitter account does this very nicely:

Drive One. This account is run by @ScottMonty (^SM) Digital Communications & @AHall32 (^AH) Technology Communications, with occasional help from our agency team

Tweets end with either ^SM or ^AH to indicate who authored them. This adds a personability and approachability to the account while maintaining the brand identity through the constant appearance of the logo. At Cerebra we highly recommend this strategy, as a change in personnel behind the account is less disruptive. Some of our team accounts have up to 7 or 8 people working on them at one time, using tools like hootsuite to co-ordinate efforts between them.

3. As a (real) individual

e.g. Comcast (Bill Gerth)

Some brands elect to present themselves to the Twittersphere through a single person in the business, often from the marketing or executive teams. Everyone who follows the account is followed in return and engagement is often encouraged to be offline (Bill will ask people with complaints to DM him directly, thereby taking the conversation out of public scrutiny.) This ‘offline’ approach is not unique to these kinds of profiles though, often employed by teams or brands too.

The major disadvantage with this approach, provided of course that Bill is actually a real person sitting behind a desk at Comcast, is what happens the day he decides to leave the company. That personality he’s spent so much time building up at Comcast is suddenly rendered useless. I guess a team or individual could pick up the account and run with it behind the scenes but that would just be odd.

So what you gain in personability and approachability using this approach you lose on the risks of having your brand associated with one person’s name. Even if it’s the CEO, it’s a risk.

4. As a (not so real) individual, persona or character

e.g. FNB (R. B. Jacobs)

In South Africa we have an exceptional example of the fourth approach to Twitter branding – the persona. FNB, a local bank, uses an identity known as @RBJacobs, who is touted as an individual and speaks as an individual even though he is clearly not real (R. B. Jacobs is the generic name printed on credit cards in FNB advertising).

This account is managed by a number of people behind the scenes but we are never introduced to them, nor are we aware at any point in time which of those people we are engaging with. This is not a bard approach as one can be quite creative with the creation of a persona, and can have a team working on it.

The disadvantage is that it is clearly not a real person, which is sometimes a drawback for certain users on Twitter – a bit like telling the Ronald McDonald statue that your burger is off.

Once again it’s important to note that none of these approaches is right or wrong. Which direction you take as a brand will depend entirely on the resources available to you and your willingness to be vulnerable and open in social media.

Regardless of what you decide make sure there is a workflow and strategy for addressing issues brought to the attention of your Twitter profile so that you can deliver on the ‘immediacy’ expectation so characterised by these channels. Users will expect you to react as though you’re sitting glued to the screen all day, with nothing better to do than solve their problems. Good luck!

The interesting thing is that we’ve built our friendship, and I dare say common respect for each other, despite the fact that there is a glaring difference between us; I am a Christian – a follower of Jesus – and he’s a “militant atheist” (to quote Rich himself). Rich is not shy to express his opinion(s) either – and he always makes a compelling argument. This post is a response to a recent debate that started on Twitter after I retweeted the following Phillip Yancey (I have no explanation for his hairstyle) quote: “I left the church because I found so little grace there. I came back because I found grace nowhere else.”

I retweeted it specifically because I identified with Yancey’s experience of the church, and also because having read some of his literature, I understand the definition of grace in the context that Yancey uses it. Rich took exception to the quote, saying “how sad for you (and Yancey). I find grace all over the place. Open your eyes/mind”. And so a debate ensued.

In the interest of not clouding Twitter with our argument, I decided to explain what I meant here. Rich felt that I was making a sweeping statement about the “un-churched” (by which I presume he means people that don’t go to a church), implying that if you don’t go to church you’re unable to display grace. This was certainly not my intention at all.

There are three things about the quote I want to pick up on that will hopefully paint a clearer picture of what I was saying. Firstly, the quote does not state that “people find grace nowhere else”, it spoke specifically of Yancey’s personal experience. I shared his sentiments, having worked in the church and belonged to churches for many years and being surprised at just how ungracious a place the ‘body of Christ’ can be in reality. This was not an attempt at educating anyone, pointing fingers at anyone or even making a general statement about anyone – it was simply a quote that stood out to me as representative of my journey. That’s my first point, Rich – this was not at all meant to be a statement in general, and I apologise if it was taken as so.

Secondly I want to talk about the definitions of ‘grace’ and ‘church’. How you react to this particular quote revolves primarily around how you understand these terms. Rich was unimpressed when I said that our definitions may be different, as he believes that “Grace is grace… good will, caring, compassion. All those things exist everywhere.” I couldn’t agree more on that point Rich – I’ve experienced goodwill, caring and compassion everywhere and on a daily basis. But I said GRACE for a reason – because although grace incorporates things like goodwill, caring and compassion on one layer, for me it has a far deeper meaning and implication. Without wanting to get too theological, my very simple explanation for my definition of grace is something like unconditional love. Or, to use one of the definitions in the list that Rich provided, “the freely given, unmerited favor and love of god.” That’s my definition of grace, and I don’t expect it to be Rich’s, I simply expect him to understand that that is the context I used the word in.

On a personal note my entire Christian journey has been characterised by a struggle (and now I’m really sharing) to understand the concept of grace. For some reason it is very difficult to understand why God would love me without me earning that love. This struggle plays out in my relationship with God and with others – I always feel that I need to do something, or be someone, to be loved outright. In my relationship with God and in community with people who share my beliefs I have at times tasted just a small sample of that grace, and it is the reason I still believe what I do. It has been asked of me more than once, “why does someone as smart as you believe in God?”… My response is, because I have experienced his gracious love in an undeniably tangible way. That is my reality, and I cannot escape it.

Then, I mentioned that I wanted to explain my understanding of the word ‘church’ too. Church, as I understand it, is not a building. It’s not a set of rules, dogma and legalism arranged into various denominations either. I could care less for religion – its laws, its institutions, its rules. I believe that ‘church’ is a community of people who believe what you believe and want to share, learn, grow and worship with you in that belief. And ideally in a state of grace. So church can be me and two mates at Tashas over a cup of coffee, if need be. It can also be Rhema. And everything in between. But I make a big distinction between Church and Religion. Religion is fraught with powerful individuals trying to prove they are right and everyone else is wrong. I don’t subscribe to that, not one bit. I’d like to believe that my friends have never experienced me as the kind of Christian who forces his beliefs on others, but at the same time as someone that is not afraid to call himself Christian.

I simply meant to say, by retweeting Yancey’s quote, that the church still has relevance in my faith journey because I experience some of God’s unconditional love through the community of believers I worship with. I haven’t experienced that unconditional love outside of that environment. Maybe I have been blind or naive, and I apologise if I come across short-sighted, but I have not. I have no doubt Rich and I will agree to disagree on this one, and I’m ok with that, what I am not ok with is him thinking that I am implying there is nothing good outside of the church. Rich, dude, that is just not true, and that is just not me.

Let the flaming commence… ;)

Update:

John van de Laar (@sacredise), who originally tweeted the Yancey quote I mentioned above, posted his response to the debate / conversation here – you may find it interesting.