The whole world ain't watching

The mainstream media greeted the release of the St. Andrew's Draft of the proposed Anglican Covenant with a yawn. Coverage in the United Kingdom was light, coverage in the United States nonexistant.

The Telegraph and The Bahama Journal, hometown paper of Covenant Design Team leader Archbishop Drexel Gomez, seem to be the only mainstream outlets with stories available through various Web feeds, and the T'graph story runs a whopping 221 words.

The media's lack of interest in the ongoing struggle for control of the Anglican Communion has both an upside and a downside for the Episcopal Church.

The upside is that those attempting to force the Church out of the Communion or undermine its legitimacy depend on maintaining an atmosphere of crisis to justify their actions and achieve their ends. In the absence of a steady drumbeat of stories proclaiming the Church's imminent expulsion from the Communion or destruction through infighting, the claims of crisis begin to lose their legitimacy, as do the actions taken in response to the alleged crisis. Additionally, media reports are often simultaneously predictive as well as descriptive. Reports on a given trend have the potential to accelerate that trend. ("Hey, everybody's going to the Latin Mass now. I better check that out.") When the media stops telling the world that you are on the march, your parade can slow down in a hurry. If you doubt this consider how fiercely surrogates for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama argued to have their candidate declared the "winner" of the dead heat on Super Tuesday.

The downside of the media's loss of interest in Anglican infighting is that reporters may never get around to some necessary self-correction. The Episcopal Church does not face imminent expulsion from the Communion. Rather, all but one of its bishops have been invited to the Lambeth Conference and two of its members serve on the Covenant Design Team. Yet the impression lingers from earlier coverage that our membership in the Communion is tenuous.

The schism that was once predicted to tear the Communion in two now appears of interest to only four or five provinces, two of which are quite small. Yet the impression lingers from earlier coverage that north-south split is in the offing persist from earlier coverage.

Even if every dioceses and every parish that is rumored to be considering leaving the Episcopal Church were to do so, the Church would be unlikely to lose more than a tenth of its current membership. And many of those dioceses and parishes previously rumored to be on their way out the door have recently changed their minds. Yet the impression lingers from earlier coverage that the Church is being torn in half.

Much of the American reporting on the struggle within the Communion assumed that the story would end with either the break-up of the Episcopal Church or its expulsion from the Communion. There is no other way to explain the level attention paid to a Church with only 2.2 million members. The struggle isn't over, but these outcomes are less likely today than they were when the story began. Indeed, those outcomes are less likely than a variety of less newsworthy alternative scenarios--including the possibility that the Communion will muddle on in more or less its current fashion or endure a possibly short-lived Nigerian-led schism that will have limited effect in the United States.

Perhaps, at some point, the media will embrace one of those scenarios as the master narrative and the nature of its coverage will change. Or perhaps the story will simply fade away.

Comments (2)

For more thoughts along these lines see Andrew Gerns,

http://andrewplus.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-if-they-gave-schism.html

Along with Jim's post, it's the kind of thing the media should be reading.

Headline for new Anglican Covenant Draft: "Anglicans discuss ways to discuss ways to discuss ways to discuss their differences. Yes, we really can't blame journalists for passing up a news item like that.
But the new draft is better news for us than the old one, whose headline could have been, "Anglicans give Primates power to kick out TEC." The Commentary to the St. Andrew's Draft shows that the Design Group really has been willing to listen to the responses from around the Communion, and to make real changes based on those responses. These changes appear in topics such as the role of the 39 Articles, the Quadrilateral, reason, and the Instruments of Communion. The changes appear even more prominently in the section on how we handle disagreement.
The most troubling aspect of the Nassau Draft was that it gave the Primates the power to determine who is in the Communion and who is out. The St. Andrew's Draft is an improvement largely because it and its appendix make excluding a Church from the Communion into a process that is more difficult and more complicated. It recognizes that in a decision that affects all the people in the Anglican Communion, we need to hear the voices of laity and clergy, as well as bishops, and we need to hear the voices of women as well as men; therefore the ACC has a significant role. The St. Andrew's draft also offers opportunities for various Instruments of Communion and other groups to determine that instead of excluding a Church we may simply agree to disagree or we may decide to keep talking. So the Design Group has taken some important steps in the right direction: toward relationships and away from schism.
It may be that the Communion is more cautious about avoiding schism now that we have seen how ugly schism looks in places such as San Joachin. It may be that the Communion can see increasingly clearly what Peter Akinola's real goals are. So a complex series of discussions is better than Primates quickly severing relationships. But I hope that in the midst of all our discussions about what's the best system for deciding whether and how and under what circumstances to exclude a Church, the Communion might realize that we don't actually want to exclude a Church. And if we don't want to exclude a Church, then we don't need an Anglian Covenant. We could put our energy into the gospel instead. That would be really good news!

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space