Part of my job as a marketing communications professional is working with companies through sticky PR situations. As such, I’ve been very interested in following the church’s response to the Ordain Women movement from a PR perspective as well as a spiritual/religious one.

In the age of social media, PR is largely about community building: creating a “tribe” of loyal followers who are invested in your brand. It’s about giving them opportunities to interact with each other and with you—to share feedback about your products and services. In today’s PR landscape, reputations are built and destroyed based not only on how well you interface with the press, but on how well you interface with the end users—the consumers.

Every brand faces PR challenges. It’s part of existing in the marketplace. In the industry, a few key principles have emerged with regard to handling PR problems in a social media-driven world. Among them are…

1) Be transparent.

2) Be responsive.

3) Own mistakes quickly.

4) Reinforce the importance of the community.

5) Stay on-message.

I confess that I’m a huge fan of this approach. Not only is it more effective from a purely pragmatic standpoint, but from my perspective as a disciple of Christ, it seems to better reflect Jesus’ teachings than the closed-down, unidirectional PR practices of the past. It’s more honest, vulnerable, accountable, humble, and engaged.

It always surprises me that, for as brand-conscious and PR-savvy as the LDS church is (not to mention that they’re, you know, A CHURCH), to a large extent they haven’t seemed to adopt these kinds of PR practices. I often think about what the church might be like if it began to operate more this way. Follow me as I do a little thought experiment of an alternate PR response the church might have considered to the Ordain Women action.

(NOTE: for the purposes of this thought experiment, I am maintaining the church’s position on ordination—that is, it’s not on the table right now and it’s not going to be on the table any time soon. It also doesn’t give an inch in terms of making the priesthood session primarily and especially for men/priesthood holders. Though I am in favor of women’s ordination, I’ve done this to demonstrate that this is an approach they could take *right now* without changing their fundamental stance one iota; it is purely a different tactical approach.)

What if, instead of setting themselves up in an adversarial position to OW, the LDS church had responded thusly…?

Dear Sisters, Thank you for reaching out to us with your request for tickets to the General Priesthood Session. As you know, the General Priesthood Session is for priesthood holders primarily; as such, we regret to say that we can’t give you advance tickets. Many priesthood holders show up on the day of the session for stand-by tickets, and we want to give them every opportunity to attend a meeting designed specifically for them. Having said that, you are, of course, always welcome on Temple Square. If there are empty seats, we’d be happy to admit you after the meeting has started; if not, we’ll be broadcasting the meeting over the speakers on the temple grounds and you are welcome to sit and listen, as anyone is. We look forward to seeing you there. Warmest regards,

SUCH AND SUCH PR PERSON

LDS Church

Let’s compare this response to the principles I shared above…

1) It’s transparent. It provides a very understandable reason WHY the sisters can’t receive advance tickets.

2) It’s responsive. It acknowledges the needs and desires of OW and responds directly to them.

3) It reinforces the importance of community. It says, you are one of us and you are welcome. It doesn’t seek to alienate OW or set up adversarial relationships among the membership.

4) It remains on-message. By this I mean it reiterates BOTH the message of preserving the Priesthood Session as a special meeting for men, AND the greater message of Christ’s welcoming hand of fellowship to all.

What are the risks of an approach like this? A couple of things. First, the church would lose the appearance of aloofness and control. The way they have positioned themselves now, they are clearly trying to paint OW as a mere nuisance, a fly on their butts to be swatted away as the church rolls forward doing Very Important Church Things. In the process, they end up looking fairly insensitive. Call me crazy, but is that really the image they want to portray?

Second, it would give OW a chance to claim a PR “victory.” Again, from their perspective, who cares? OW already gets to claim a PR victory, and arguably a larger one, by being cast now as David to the church’s Goliath. Besides, isn’t the more fundamental message that we are all brothers and sisters? Is it about scoring points and claiming victories? Or is it about finding fellowship and building Zion by learning to love each other despite our differences? Some PR “losses” are worth taking in favor of maintaining the larger brand image.

Finally, strategy aside, it’s just the right thing to do. Christ’s message wasn’t one of displays of power and boundary maintenance, but of expanding the borders of the Kingdom of God, becoming humble, showing vulnerability, and embracing the dream of radical inclusion. Where the least of us, the outcasts, the disenfranchised, the broken, are welcomed and given a place of honor at the table.

The real irony here (and of course this is the beauty of the path of Jesus) is that if they had chosen a gracious, generous, and hospitable response, not only would they have better lived up to their core principles, but they would have kept better control of their PR image AND the situation.

Heck, if they really wanted to be bold, they would serve OW refreshments and juice and go out of their way to thank them for making the effort to come. That’s a PR move that would play well. Oh, and, you know, follow that Jesus guy at the same time.

So there you have it. How I’d handle OW if I worked for the church’s PR department. Church, if you’re paying attention, I’m available. You have my number. Heck, you have my age, anniversary, children’s birthdays, and some unfortunate teenage confessions on file. We’re family. CALL ME. 🙂