Anglican Journal has responded to recent news that the Anglican Church of Canada is losing members at an alarming rate. In her editorial, "The story behind the story of church membership", Leanne Larmondin seems to think those who spread the news were sensationalising a non-story.
We would like to offer some clarification for our fellow scribes, many of whom picked up on a December Anglican Journal story that detailed a presentation at last fall's meeting of the house of bishops about declining church membership.
. . .
Mr. [Keith] McKerracher's research, gleaned from the Canadian census, the Anglican Church Directory and from mainline denominations that he contacted, took the form of a PowerPoint presentation to the bishops. Nothing more, nothing less. The few journalists who called the church's national office to request a copy of the "report" were told, quite correctly, there was no such document.
Ironically, Mr. McKerracher declined to provide copies of the presentation to the bishops, the Journal or other media for fear that others might put their own spin or their own interpretation on the data. That is precisely what happened.
. . .
The bishops who heard the original presentation must certainly have been wondering if the media were referring to the same information they had heard.
Sounds like some folks disseminated serious distortions of Mr McKerracher's report study offering submission production sales pitch dog and pony show presentation. (Full disclosure: I discussed the Vancouver Sun article on this blog–and got at least part way up on my high horse whilst so doing.)
Well, then, what was the real story before those beastly spin meisters spun Mr McKerracher's presentation beyond all recognition? Based on reading Ms Larmondin's column, there is no "story behind the story". The real story is the same as the one that got spun out around the globe:
[M]any of the stories repeat[ed] the sensational assertion of presenter Keith McKerracher that given current declining membership trends in Canada, "the last Anglican will leave the church in 2061."
So, he really did say that. Does repeating his words constitute spinning? Ms Larmondin nowhere disputes the content of Mr McKerracher's "sensational assertion". She just seems to think it unseemly that some of the few Anglicans still warming the pews found out about the "sensational assertion" and want to talk about it.
As I read Ms Larmondin's column, I looked for substantive examples of the "spin" she decries; but there aren't any. What, then, are the issues she actually mentions? She objects to Mr McKerracher's PowerPoint presentation being called a report or a study or (horrors!) "The McKerracher Report". And there's this, too:
That image of the last, solitary Anglican was certainly a sad, romantic and attractive one for the media. One conservative Web pundit asserted that the Anglican Church of Canada was so desperate that it had "called in a 'marketing agency'" to figure out why they are losing members. Another well-known writer and former priest used the data as a launch pad for his own views on the church, when asked for comment by a wire service.
So, Ms Larmondin objects to media focus on the sad (and romantic and attractive) thought that there may be only one Anglican left in the church within about fifty years, and that someone mistook retired marketing expert Mr McKerracher for a marketing agency, and that some have suggestions for the church in response to the membership decline.
As far as any substantive differences between the content of Mr McKerracher's presentation and what was stated in the media, however, not a word. She just seems distressed that the story got out.
The church's national office, hoping the story would die a natural death, did not issue a clarification about the nature of the presentation until this month's letters (see the response by Vianney Carriere to the letter entitled Where is leadership).
Honestly, this floors me. Why did the church's national office want this story to "die a natural death"? The Anglican Church of Canada is rapidly withering away, according to Mr McKerracher's uncontradicted presentation, but everyone is supposed to keep quiet about it!
I also see an odd disconnect between Ms Larmondin's assertion that Mr McKerracher did not provide copies of his presentation for fear that others might put their own "'spin' . . . on the data" and the Vancouver Sun news story, where he is quoted as saying:
"My point to the bishops was, 'Hey listen guys, we're declining much faster than any other church. We're losing 12,836 Anglicans a year. That's two per cent a year. If you take that rate of decline and draw a line on the graph, there'll only be one person left in the Anglican Church by 2061.' The church is in crisis. They can't carry on like it's business as usual."
. . .
"The church should do some marketing research to find out why people are fleeing, he says. But I don't think the Anglicans will do anything. They talk things to death. And my impression is that the bishops are not going to go around telling priests to shape up."
Something doesn't add up here. Judging by the quotations he provided to the Vancouver Sun, Mr McKerracher does not sound like a man who wants the bishops to keep this under their mitres. He does not sound like he wants the story to "die a natural death". But pointedly refusing to provide paper copies of his presentation is the one way of assuring that it can be ignored and forgotten. Did anyone actually ask him for copies of his PowerPoint slides?
Be that as it may, as Binks said, if Mr McKerracher wants to be sure that his presentation is not misunderstood, he should write it up for public release and ensure that all interested parties can get a copy.
Ms Larmondin mentions the response by Vianney Carriere to a letter in this month's Anglican Journal. So, let's take a look at that, too.
Mr. McKerracher compiled his figures strictly as an individual pursuing his own interests. There was absolutely nothing "official" about his document. Mr. McKerracher is a member of the Communications Information Resources Committee of the national church and that committee heard the presentation before the bishops did, but it was not asked to endorse the document and did not do so. Neither its methodology nor the analysis was tested in any way.
If the bishops want someone to "test" the methodology and analysis, allow me to offer my services gratis. I do this kind of thing every day. It's my job.
If the bishops' response to Mr. McKerracher's figures seems a bit muted, it may be because the document (which, by the way, was not distributed to them) contained nothing they did not know. The Anglican church has been losing about 2 per cent of its members a year (sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less) for many years. This would be well known to the bishops.
It's old news, so it's no big deal. (And now it's a "document", not just a "presentation"?)
However, far from ignoring Mr. McKerracher's information, the House of Bishops chose to cancel a free evening so that they could share impressions and experiences about how and where the church is growing. From all accounts, the bishops found this session inspiring.
Why do I not find this particularly reassuring?
Back to Leanne Larmondin one last time:
Then, what about the conclusions? Those are best left to the experts, and Mr. McKerracher never claimed that church growth was his field of expertise.
I just happen to have read some words from some real experts in church growth with a track record of proven success. You can read some of what they have to say here and here and here.
Posts
