The Primates and Public Relations
In my final postal service (I hope) on the Primates' gathering, I want to reverberate briefly on what has happened since in terms of public relations. Pete Hobson, Canon Missioner at Leicester Cathedral, commented on Friday terminal calendar week:
So this is the bodily final Communique. A clear and strongly-worded claiming to homophobic violence and prejudice. A call to activeness on climatic change. A challenge to work against global violence and poverty. An encouragement to lively evangelism. And a lot more – fifty-fifty possible understanding on the engagement of Easter!!
Oh yes, and a result for i church that has chosen to human action unilaterally on i issue against the expressed views of the large majority of the residual of the communion, (though clearly non a 'pause').
What fleck of that gets all the headlines and all the intense reactions?
The presenting reason for this was that Anglican Ink had leaked the Statement on TEC and wedlock a day early on, and information technology was decided to confirm merely that, rather than release early the wider communiqué which put the statement in a much wide context. In item, it meant that the statement about relations with TEC came before this important part of the communiqué when information technology was intended to come after:
The Primates condemned homophobic prejudice and violence and resolved to piece of work together to offer pastoral care and loving service irrespective of sexual orientation. This conviction arises out of our discipleship of Jesus Christ. The Primates reaffirmed their rejection of criminal sanctions against same-sexual activity attracted people.
The Primates recognise that the Christian church and within information technology the Anglican Communion take oft acted in a manner towards people on the basis of their sexual orientation that has caused deep hurt. Where this has happened they limited their profound sorrow and affirm again that God'due south honey for every human being is the aforementioned, regardless of their sexuality, and that the church should never by its actions give any other impression.
The order you put things in makes all the difference.
Although the press would take you lot believe that the meeting was tense, and it was all a ability-struggle not much brusk of an ecclesial punch-upwardly (the media dearest to deal in binary disharmonize—it creates a story), the feel of the meeting is captured much amend past other comments. Here are the reflections from Philip Richardson, Archbishop of New Zealand:
In the end, the fourscore journalists and 15 TV crews who gathered for the terminal press conference looked for winners and losers. In reality, though, we were all losers – because we are all the same fractured, cleaved, still inclined to mistrust. But we are committed to staying with each other. Nosotros are committed to walking together, to trying to see through each other's eyes, to stepping into each other's worlds, and to keeping on keeping on until mutual understanding grows. … Nosotros were praying for their life and work and asking for the blessing of God upon them. Nosotros were archbishops from widely different worlds, some with views at extreme ends of a spectrum on various problems, serving and praying for each other.
Would that such humility were a constant in my Church and our world!
The comment from Mouneer Anis, Bishop of Egypt, echoed this profound sense of shared relationship:
Once nosotros decided on the consequences for the deportment of TEC, nosotros started to discuss other issues. The spirit in the room had changed 180 degrees. It was amazing and tremendously encouraging to hear the passionate word most mission and evangelism, the challenge of refugees, religiously motivated violence, and ecology bug. Information technology was a existent joy for me to witness the different Primates sharing on how the Lord is at work in their provinces and how their churches are growing. I felt thatthis is the Anglican Communion I dearest.
Justin Welby's ain reflection also echoes this:
The meeting reached a betoken on Midweek where nosotros chose quite simply to decide on this indicate – do we walk together at a altitude, or walk autonomously? And what happened side by side went beyond everyone'due south expectations. Information technology was Spirit-led. It was a 'God moment'. As leaders of our Anglican Communion, and more importantly every bit Christians, we looked at each other beyond our deep and complex differences – and we recognised those we saw as those with whom we are called to journeying in promise towards the truth and love of Jesus Christ. It was our unanimous decision to walk together and to take responsibility for making that work.
At one level, I am not expecting the general media either to sympathise this or to highlight it. After all, 'understanding breaks out between squeamish Christians' hardly makes a news story. But if you want to see how ill-informed, uncomprehending and downright biased some of the coverage was, and so it is worth watching Channel 4 News from last Friday. The meeting was, in ignorant error, describes equally 'leaders of the Church building of England' and the focus was not on the substance of the communiqué or the press briefing, but on the anger of protesters alone.
Cathy Newman: So, Alex, a pretty acrimonious solar day in Canterbury, then?
Alex Thompson: Yeah, begrudging indeed, and I suspect Justin Welby is a pretty frustrated homo this night. He wants to talk about other issues…only the same one-time consequence, gay relations, gay matrimony, keeps on coming up and grabbing the headlines.
Er, and who, might we inquire, is writing these headlines? Aqueduct 4 News! I was so shocked past the ignorance and bias that I have complained to OFCOM, and if you are able to see the coverage, I would encourage you too every bit well. I take no idea who Channel four'south researchers are, or what kind of briefing they received or had bachelor to them. Merely what followed was fifty-fifty worse. Jayne Ozanne, until recently Chair of Accepting Evangelicals, was in debate with Andrea Minichiello Williams, founder of Christian Concern—and both members of Full general Synod, so deemed in some sense to be representing the C of E.
Jayne made her points clearly, with passion just also with reason, talking of the the suffering of gay and lesbians Christians in Africa, talking of the inadequacy of many 'traditional' approaches to the issue, and talking of her own pain in confronting the issue in her own life. In response, Williams trotted out (non very fluently) a series of hideous platitudes concerning 'what the Bible says'. There was no reference to the Primates' communique, no expression of interest or concern, no concession of practiced points to Jayne. The effect here is not that the 'revisionist' arguments are so much more than convincing, or fifty-fifty PR-friendly, than the 'traditionalist' ones. I retrieve I have demonstrated that it is perfectly possible to defend the Church'due south current teaching on telly and audio reasonable.
So, hither is the hard question for anyone connected with PR in the C of E:What on earth are yous doing allowing Andrea Williams to speak 'on behalf of' the Church?
I can only envisage two possible scenarios.
- The news outlet did not ask for a spokesperson. I think this is relatively unlikely, as they usually need all the help they can get.
- They did ask, only no spokesperson was offered, and then they had to rely on their own inquiry.
If the starting time, why aren't we being proactive in offering potential people to speak? Surely there is a conference canvass with contacts that is given out to media? If the 2nd—what on earth exercise we think is going to happen? I didn't heed to it The Sunday Programme on Radio 4, but I empathise there was 'revisionist' voice later on 'revisionist' vox without any 'traditionalist' response. Now that I think about it, I cannot recall any other voice representing the 'traditional' position in any media discussion.
I approximate many people, including many bishops, experience that talking about this issue is a no-win situation. But if there is never a ameliorate spokesperson that what we have seen, or if there is a simple absenteeism of a voice explaining and speaking upward for the Church building'south education, then it is a guaranteed loser.
The question isn't trivial. There are plenty of hearts and minds out at that place who are wondering what place the Church at present has in civilised social club. And if we cannot offer a reasonable-sounding defence of the Church building's education, we are hastening the twenty-four hour period of decision. The current position is not indefensible—merely information technology is simply not being defended.
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance basis. If you accept valued this postal service, would you considerdonating £i.20 a month to back up the product of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance basis. If you take valued this postal service, you can make a single or echo donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Skillful comments that engage with the content of the mail service, and share in respectful argue, can add real value. Seek first to understand, and so to exist understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view contend every bit a conflict to win; accost the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/the-primates-and-public-relations/
Enviar um comentário for "The Primates and Public Relations"