Categories: uncategorized
Date: 02 July 2012 12:02:53
Last week Changing Attitude tweeted a link to their blog - sharing an enquiry from a television producer who is looking for participants in a programme they are putting together on couples getting married/ civilled which involve a transgender person. For reasons which will be familiar to regular readers it made me stop and think. A further post from Christina Beardsley on the same blog and same project made my mind start doing even more gymnastics. A conversation with TOH, who had phoned for more detail, got me thinking even further. This post is me addressing the issues the advert has raised in my mind about mission, media and "pew fodder" and the responsibility of laity who have "authorised" responsibilities and the relationship between thinking about where we are now and where we are in the future - rather than a discussion of possible involvement in the project itself, (although I will be working through my thinking through this).
My starting point is thinking through about how and where we share our testimony. This blog is one way I do so - and has been for nearly 8 years now. Within it I have shared quite openly about some personal issues - but always with an awareness that I don't know who will read what I have written. I know some of those who will read, and those are primarily the people I write for - but there is always that knowledge others can and sometimes do access the content. In what I write I seek to be honest that being a Christian in 'the real world' isn't easy and that sometimes difficult ethical issues do arise which need to be wrestled with. The key of what I think I am called to do with this blog is to journey alongside others who are engaging with what has been labelled as 'messy Christianity' by others and some who are dechurched, (as well as some who are unchurched), in a large part by sharing my story. I hope that the end of result is God is somehow glorified in my sharing.
In her post Beardsley talks of the way pre-conceptions can be overturned and prejudices can be broken down. Part of evangelism for me involves overcoming pre-conceptions and overturning prejudice - as well as trying to work to help heal the impact that previous prejudice has had. That is where I think involvement in projects like this can be both wonderful and potentially quite problematic. On one hand the media does present us with opportunities to engage in what Beardsley talks about but they can also lead to more misunderstanding and sometimes give a picture of the church which is to some element unfair. By this I mean many of us who remain within the church are on a journey with the institution in its widest and more specific sense which is slow, delicate and complex. Elements of this journey, when misunderstood (and sometimes when not), can reinforce rather than remove prejudice.
To give an example of what I mean - regular readers will know that I prefer using the word "ceremony of commitment" regarding what our civil partnership is. This is because it is going to be "a marriage" but some I know and respect find that term too difficult for them to acknowledge and use. I know I disagree with other Christians (both straight and gay on this) and my apparent refusal to use the word marriage in a straight forward way causes difficulty to some. For those who are not deeply embedded in the church and seeking to move forward in fellowship with evangelical friends/ brothers and sisters there is a view that what we are doing is endorsing prejudice - it is difficult to see that we are actually acting like the suffragists rather than suffragettes in our working towards equality and full inclusion.
Another problem in transmitting things to those outside the church - particularly if it is via mass media rather than on an individual basis - is explaining the processes which the denominations and church operate on and through. Another example, using the project linked to earlier, would be that the current rules of the church state that any blessing of a civil partnership cannot be on church premises and that it has to be private. This means anybody who is participating in a programme where what the production company wants is denied on the basis of church order needs to be able to articulate why this is the case. Again it may be something which is understood by those who are part of the church or denomination but the question is how would this be transmitted to the wider audience? Indeed can our processes - which are complex - ever be transmitted in the soundbite way which these type of tv documentaries require?
The next point that I want to raise regarding this is the way that media knowledge and literacy is transmitted to people. Some will be attracted to involvement in projects because of wanting their 15 minutes of fame. It can be difficult to think through the negative as well as positive side of taking part in media projects if you know nothing. There needs to be clear signposting for people available on how and where they can get advice on engaging in such projects. This includes helping individuals, (who may be on limited incomes), see how this type of thing can be positive or negative way of sharing their testimony. It also means helping people understand the terms involved - what difference does it make if a programme has been commissioned or not? What does the way participants are being chosen tell us about the type of programme it is likely to be? And so I could go on.....The point here is that the media is a technical industry whose processes are alien to outsiders. Being seduced by the "look mum I'm on the telly" is not a Christian approach as far as I can see. How do we use the media properly but move away from that mindset? How do we also use the media for good, whilst understanding that however reputable producers will often have different - secular agendas?
This links into the responsibilities we have as people, and sometimes as lay members of churches with "authorised" or "active" involvement. When you start as a local preacher on note it is impressed upon you the need not to do anything to bring the church into disrepute. We need to be careful to understand how, inadvertently, involvement with the media could do that - if we are not aware of the issues involved.
There is also the issue of what impact does something you engage in with the media now impact your future and decisions others will make about your future? Having gone through candidating over the last year I am very aware of how conflicting aspects can emerge. On one hand the question has to be asked are you suitable to be a public representative and on the other the individual has to identify who they are being called to minister amongst (and sometimes there is an awkward fit between the answers). What do you do if your engagement in the communities you are called to minister amongst necessitates doing or saying something which could be problematic for the church in other spheres and amongst other audiences? Again these are complex moral issues.
I know I am raising alot of questions without many answers but what I think I am trying to say is that this whole issue is difficult and in an increasingly media orientated age all of us need some kind of training, not just church leaders. We need people and places to refer to for guidance - who are outside those domains whom we may wish to approach for advice later in the process if we are thinking about engaging with the media. By this I mean that whilst enquiring and not being asked to commit to anything one may want advice, but you may not wish to approach your church or denomination media liaison expert...because you don't want to be "officially" broaching the subject. So an external media advisor people could contact may be useful.
I know a long post - but as you can probably tell a sorting my head out one in many ways.