Epistemic Bubbles and Echo Chambers

Yesterday I read, “A Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together,” a joint statement signed by both Pope Francis of the Catholic Church and Sheikh Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar. I found it bold, honest, and hopeful – certainly attributes necessary in our world today. It is the product of inter-faith dialogue between one of Christianity’s senior leaders and one of Islam’s senior leaders and is well worth having a look at. Reading the document, I also found myself reflecting on what sometimes feels like a very fragmented Christianity. 

Someone I was talking to recently mentioned that Rotary International is the largest organisation in the world providing and financing humanitarian services around the globe. I commented, “surely the Christian Church provides more humanitarian services than Rotary?” His response; “Perhaps, but the Church isn’t one organisation.” Touché. Jesus declares that it will be by our love for one another that the world will know the Church to be Christ’s disciples, but the Church often feels very divided.

In our Western context (and elsewhere), for better or worse, we’ve a plethora of options in relation to the local church we choose to attend. Seven or eight Great Traditions have evolved over the centuries and a multiplicity of denominations and non-denominational branches exist within each. Even within denominations there is a wide-range of local church expressions with different churches celebrating different cultural values and methodologies of church. Too often, as folk already thoroughly discipled as consumers, our choice to fellowship in a particular church community can subliminally (though irreverently) feel like a consumer choice that is quickly followed by a form of confirmation bias or post-purchase rationalization. This form of rationalization is the tendency to retroactively ascribe positive attributes to the choice we have made for option A (our church), while simultaneously amplifying the negative attributes of option B that we didn’t opt for (the church down the road). There is no need for us to do that. More, when I do that (or you do that), it has the potential to be a form of anti-Christ. It has the potential to go against the way of being in the world that Jesus calls us into. We need to be careful here.
   

Unchecked, post-purchase rationalization within ‘church world’, especially among pastors and leaders can lead to the development of epistemic bubbles and echo chambers, (something I covered over a few pages in my final doctorate project, which if you like, you can read below and find references for). Epistemic bubbles come about when informational networks form but omit certain voices from the conversation. In my doctorate project, which is contextualized to Pentecostalism, the examples I offer in relation to epistemic bubbles focus on the way in which Pentecostalism has tended towards a relational tribalism that, historically, has omitted conversation partners such as the theological academy, the ever evolving historical and theological perspectives of Church history over the centuries, and current and varied ecumenical points of view. More specifically, as Pentecostalism has evolved as a ‘contemporary’ methodology and expression of church, there tends to be a singular set of voices guiding conversations pertinent to faith and practice – that of the various mega-church pastors who lead relational networks and speak at each other’s conferences, seminars, retreats and events. The conversation is thus very one-dimensional with perspectives, practices and opinions continually recycled and re-enforced rather than challenged to adapt and evolve as might be necessary.
   

More insidious than epistemic bubbles, echo chambers are formed when, in addition to relevant voices being disregarded, potential conversation partners are actively discredited. Whereas an epistemic bubble merely omits contrary views, an echo chamber brings its members to actively distrust outside voices. One shouldn’t be naïve in thinking this is not a reality within church contexts or the Christian community more generally. There are many possible scenarios, you’ll be familiar with some no-doubt; Protestants who are anti-Catholic, ‘small’ church folk who are against mega-churches, pastors with no formal theological training pre-supposing that those with theological training should be viewed with suspicion, charismatics who see deeper teaching as cerebral nonsense, exegetical preachers who see Pentecostalism as hocus-pocus. And each of these could be reversed. More damaging than epistemic bubbles, echo chambers have the potential to become cult-like, with members isolated from outside voices that are labelled as malignant and untrustworthy, with the framework of trust being narrowed to exclusively insider voices.

When this shift to a narrow set of voices occurs, the Church ceases to function as a genuine sub-community (an expression of the Kingdom of God) within the wider society. Rather than existing as a community of peculiar discourse with practices of memory, hope, and pain that keep healthy human life available in the face of all the ‘virtual reality’ now on offer in dominant culture, local churches runs the risk of becoming a separated sphere of existence with their own dominant culture, set of beliefs and behaviours that members must submit to in order to belong. The church thus becomes its own empire rather than a subversion of empire and a prophetic sub-community of alternative consciousness.

All of this being a long-winded preamble from which to note; to the extent that the Church and the Christian community fails to cultivate unity within her own diversity – putting aside such artificial dualisms as faith versus reason, science versus Scripture, intellect verses heart, spiritual verses material, Catholic verse Protestant, contemporary versus traditional, worship versus Word, my local church versus the other church down the road, and a thousand and one other such possibilities – it will also fail to be known by its love for one another. Further, if love for one another is problematic, you can be sure that love of neighbour will be difficult and love of enemy neigh on impossible. Though hoping to exist as a catalyst of healing and a broker of peace in the world, the Church – inappropriately divided rather than beautifully diverse – will likely perpetuate as much brokenness as what it does restoration.

Colossians 3:12-17
¹² Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. ¹³ Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.¹⁴ And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. ¹⁵ Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. ¹⁶ Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. ¹⁷ And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

_______________________________

Below is a ‘cut & paste’ from my final doctorate paper, a couple of pages on epistemic bubbles and echo chambers. It may not make total sense disconnected from the rest of the project, but at the same time, might be of interest.

_______________________________

The Fruit and Consequences of Relational Tribalism

In the early days of Pentecostalism, relational tribalism was enacted via the voluntary association of faith missions and outreach projects – breakaways from established church structures and traditions. In the current contemporary context, tribalism is evidenced in the voluntary association of various leadership networks that associate around shared cultural values, modes of worship and methodologies of church – creating further insular subsets within and across Pentecostal denominational structures. It is not uncommon for pastors and churches to prefer participation in network events run by the mega-church ministries they aspire to become like, rather than gatherings organized by the official denomination or movement to which they belong.

In terms of fruitfulness, the tendency towards relational tribalism strengthened Pentecostal conviction and focus as the movement emerged and institutionalized in the first half of the twentieth century. Where other traditions viewed Pentecostalism with suspicion, like-minded cohorts allowed Pentecostalism to develop in its own identity while hedging against contrary voices. In a sense relational tribalism allowed Pentecostalism to find its sense of identity.

It must also be acknowledged, however, that relational tribalism is a strong contributing factor to the negative consequences of each of the other defining markers discussed in this paper [you’d have to read the whole paper for this to make sense]. A greater degree of ecumenical association and engagement with the varying perspectives of other Christian traditions in matters of theology and doxology throughout Pentecostalism’s history may have tempered or mitigated these negative outcomes. Foremost among the undesirable characteristics of relational tribalism is a narrow and even insular perspective on matters of faith and praxis that can lead to both arrogance and ignorance.

Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles

In his essay Escape the Echo Chamber, philosopher C. Thi Nguyen suggests two specific ways in which communities wrap themselves within impenetrable networks of intellectual like-mindedness that are ultimately unhealthy: via epistemic bubbles and through the creation of echo chambers.[1] Nguyen defines epistemic bubbles as “informational network[s] from which relevant voices have been excluded by omission.”[2] Within Pentecostalism, relational tribalism fosters an epistemic bubble in which discussions of theology, doxology, ecclesiology, and the like, tend to exclude other relevant and wise voices. Broadly speaking, the theological simplicity inherent in Pentecostalism excludes such conversation partners as the theological academy, evolving historical perspectives of church history and varied ecumenical points of view. More specifically, within the relational networks of contemporary Pentecostalism, there tends to be a singular set of voices guiding conversations pertinent to faith and practice – that of the various mega-church pastors who lead these networks and speak at each other’s conferences, seminars, retreats and events.[3] [The conversation is therefore very one-dimensional].

More insidious than epistemic bubbles, echo chambers are formed when, in addition to relevant voices being disregarded, other conversation partners are actively discredited: “where an epistemic bubble merely omits contrary views, an echo chamber brings its members to actively distrust outsiders.”[4] In their book Echo Chamber, Kathleen Jamieson and Joseph Cappella describe an echo chamber as cult-like, with members isolated from outside voices that are labelled as malignant and untrustworthy, with the framework of trust being narrowed to exclusively insider voices.[5] While Pentecostalism has at times given rise to cult-like movements, it is not the intention of this paper to portray contemporary Pentecostalism as a cult. It should be noted however that, given the need for control embedded within pragmatic methodologies, the general lack of deeper reflection that comes with a bent toward theological simplicity and the propensity towards epistemic bubbles found in relational tribalism [again, you’d need to read the rest of this paper for that to totally make sense], Pentecostalism should be aware of the potential of echo chambers developing and the dangers inherent to such chambers. When the perspective of the mega-church pastor begins to function as the voice shaping faith and practice within contemporary Pentecostalism, it is only a matter of time before other voices begin to be disempowered and discredited to the detriment of Pentecostalism.

When this shift to a narrow set of voices occurs, the church ceases to function as a genuine sub-community (an expression of the Kingdom of God) within the wider society. Rather than existing as “a community of peculiar discourse with practices of memory, hope, and pain that keep healthy human life available in the face of all the ‘virtual reality’ now on offer in dominant culture,”[6] the church runs the risk of becoming a separated sphere of existence with its own dominant culture, set of beliefs and behaviours that members must submit to in order to belong.

In The Prophetic Imagination, Walter Brueggemann likens this establishment of a dominant culture requiring submission, to Israel’s movement away from the radically alternate way of being in the world that had been established under Moses and as a return to the pre-Mosaic imperial paradigm [Egypt], as reinstated under the kings of Israel.[7] This shift began under David but is more clearly evidenced in the life of Solomon: “the entire program of Solomon now appears to have been a self-serving achievement with the sole purpose being the self-securing of the king and dynasty… a program of state-sponsored syncretism, which if course means the steady abandonment of the radicalness of the Mosaic vision.”[8]

Brueggemann refers to this embrace of syncretism as the paganization of Israel, though in the context of a discussion about contemporary Pentecostalism, the metaphor serves to describe the potential for a secularization of the church.[9] In this instance, the size, reach and affluence of a large contemporary church, the culture and routinization of the church (which congregants are expected to buy into),[10] and the manner in which senior leaders are seen as God’s elected officials, serve to create a “controlled static religion in which God and his temple have become part of the royal landscape, in which the sovereignty of God is fully subordinated to the purpose of the king.”[11] The church thus becomes its own empire rather than a subversion of empire and a prophetic sub-community of alternative consciousness.

When the church becomes an empire, the less desirable traits inherent in relational tribalism tend to surface and flourish: theological errancy, ignorance, deception, blind-spots, self-righteousness, over-demanding expectations within the church, defensiveness, divisiveness, and a suspicion of any other opinion of, or expression within, the Body of Christ. All-in-all this amounts to a failure to reflect Christ’s wish in John 17 that his followers would be known by their love for one another. Thus, a re-imagined Pentecostalism needs to be mindful of the paradox that the church is called to difference – to be a peculiar people – at the macro level (i.e. in relation to the empire and the systems of the world) but not to tribalism at the micro level (i.e. within the Body of Christ).

---

[1] See “Essays,” on Aeon website, C. Thi Nguyen, “Escape the Echo Chamber” https://aeon.co/essays/why-its-as-hard-to-escape-an-echo-chamber-as-it-is-to-flee-a-cult (accessed July 30, 2018).

[2] Ibid.

[3] This tendency is seen in the work of contemporary Pentecostal pastor Paul de Yong, the pastor of LIFE church in Auckland, New Zealand. His latest book, God, Money and Me, includes ten endorsements of the book, its aims, perspectives, and conclusions. However, they all come from fellow mega-church pastors who are regular speakers at de Yong’s conferences (and him at theirs). There are no endorsements of support from recognized theologians or trained economists. See; Paul de Yong, God, Money and Me, (Auckland, NZ: Life Resource International, 2017), 3-6.

[4] See “Essays,” on Aeon website, C. Thi Nguyen, “Escape the Echo Chamber” https://aeon.co/essays/why-its-as-hard-to-escape-an-echo-chamber-as-it-is-to-flee-a-cult (accessed July 30, 2018).

[5] C. Thi Nguyen, “Escape the Echo Chamber,” refereeing to Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph N. Cappella¸ Echo Chamber; Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).

[6] Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001), xvii.

[7] Ibid., 24-25.

[8] Ibid., 23.

[9] Ibid., 24.

[10] See discussion in chapter three, Pragmatic Methodologies, in relation to this.

[11] Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination, 28.