Branding, schism, “realignment”
This article in the Tennessean has set several blogs, mostly in the Anglican world, a twitter (TitusOneNine, Think Christian and all the rest). The fact that it involves an Episcopal parish now affiliates with Anglicans in Uganda. The shift is presented as honestly theological: the clergy and laity in the parish moved on due to up front differences. Not a problem.
It’s an interesting trend to witness. The comparison to “brands” seems at first surprisingly casual. From the article:
Once reserved for consumer products like Coca Cola or Doritos, branding has become increasingly important in the God business. Churches, old and new, are using branding to define their theology, attract newcomers and get their message out.
…
Wilson said he realized the power of branding while watching Supersize Me, Morgan Spurlock’s documentary about McDonald’s. During the film, Spurlock showed children a series of pictures of famous people like Jesus and George Washington and asked the kids to identify them. “These kids didn’t know who any of these people were,” Wilson said. “But Ronald McDonald … boom, every one of the kids knew exactly who it was.”
The shift from The Episcopal Church to the Anglican Church of Uganda seems at once far more significant than choosing between Coke and Pepsi. At the same time, brands are far larger than individual preference and association. The article is right: when one buys and iPod instead of a Microsoft Zune, a bigger decision has been made than picking a white or black colored case.
The connection of branding and religious identity is not unexplored. Doug Atkin’s book “The Culting of Brands” looked at this phenomenon from the perspective of Saturn, Apple, Snapple and JetBlue to name a few.
The free association of one brand over another leaves a lot of room for personal agency. This kind of agency is readily available in the commercial world but has for long been unavailable in the Anglican world.
Now that it’s here, what do we do? Fight it? Support aging hierarchical structures committed to Nicene geographic episcopates über alles?
Or, we can seize the opportunity for flexibility and growth. We could recognize that rigid structures, especially those rooted in sixteenth-century concepts of the nation-state and theological confession, just aren’t working anymore. As I’ve been recently reminded, Christian unity is found in Christ and not in administrative structures, national confines or in blog affiliations.
January 18, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Hello, Father! Just found you again through my counter – lost touch after you shut down at Blogger and joined the mass migration to WordPress (which I’ve not done – I like being able to customise my template all I want without doing my own hosting). My WordPress page linked here is only a place-holder so I can use a fun avatar when leaving comments at WordPress blogs.
Just added you to my blogroll again – thanks for continuing to include A conservative blog for peace.
Brands still matter but you can’t take them at face value – for example there are still many ’70s-bred things calling themselves Roman Catholic that aren’t Catholic but a non-Anglo-Saxon, proudly proletarian (reverse-snobbish) version of liberal Protestantism. (Still the mode of much of the Roman Church in the US though there’s been a conservative restoration under way for 15 years, led by the young and given a boost by Pope Benedict.)
So branding for church in the sense of ‘as long as it’s a Wal-Mart’ hasn’t worked for some time including for the conservative and high-church (what I call Catholic).
It’s long been the mode among mainliners to choose a church because they like the congregation and minister not the theology or the brand label.
As for Anglicanism the current row is confusing as long as the Episcopal Church and the conservative overseas churches setting up parishes and dioceses in America are still members of the same communion. (I understand and appreciate the liberals’ objection to incursion.) I’ve long suspected that most Americans including some in Episcopal churches don’t know or care what Anglicanism is (and vaguely if that know what Episcopalianism is).
The current Controversial Issues™ (the latest being the gay thing) are IMO on top of the heap of issues separating Catholics from Protestants.
(I like to remind liberal Anglicans who preach that ’schism is evil’ of an unfortunate series of events that began on a certain island in November of 1534… when shall the cardinal come round to collect the keys of all the old churches?)
That said sooner or later the Anglicans will have to take sides. Either the Episcopal Church or the conservative new arrangements started by foreign churches (which represent the views of most Anglicans outside America and England) will be the official Anglican church in America; it can’t be both!
There are only a few inevitables in this, whichever way it goes: a few parishes will be split, a few others squashed and the Episcopal Church being kicked out of the Anglican Communion (IMO the logical outcome – sorry, Father) wouldn’t (and in a free society shouldn’t) affect most Episcopalians (no-one can or ought to shut you down – I’m not about trying to sue people out of buildings). Life would go on as if nothing happened, except the bishop wouldn’t go on a special trip to England every 10 years any more.
Another is Anglo-Catholicism has no future in your church (so IMO the Diocese of San Joaquin’s move makes sense) but its future as part of the Protestant Global South is iffy. (Or ‘the Elizabethan compromise didn’t work so let’s do it over and watch it fall apart again’.)
That’s all for now.