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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment