Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
As a different approach to recommended readings, I (David) would like to put two pieces into dialogue with each other: a recent blog post by Tom Lambrecht entitled "Lifestyle Evangelism" and a somewhat older blog post by Robert A. Hunt entitled "Moral Convictions - the Wrong Start in Human Relations."
Lambrecht's piece draws on the book The Patient Ferment of the Early Church by Alan Kreider to argue that the growth of the early church "was not primarily due to missions or evangelism" but was instead due to early Christians' "distinctive, lived-out faith that becomes attractive over time to people unfulfilled by the world’s pleasures and possessions." In illustrating what that practice of faith looked like, Lambrecht cites a variety of what might be termed moral practices by both the early church and early Methodism: business integrity, sexual purity, respect for life, inclusion of all peoples, care for the poor, etc. Lambrecht concludes:
"Evangelism programs and missional strategies are good and helpful. But people will not buy what we are selling unless they see that it works in making our lives different and more fulfilling than theirs. Otherwise, why make the sacrifices that being a Christian entails?"
Lambrecht's article helpfully questions the value of top-down initiatives to grow the church, and his emphasis on living out one's faith in practical ways that impact one's treatment of others represents an important and central affirmation of Methodist theology.
As I read Lambrecht's piece, though, I thought about the challenges that cultural diversity and cultural polarization represent to the type of lifestyle evangelism Lambrecht commends. While morality is not the entirety of lifestyle evangelism, it is centrally connected. For Christians' lifestyle to be attractive involves, on some level, non-Christians being able to see the attractiveness of the moral system lived out by Christians or at least the outcomes thereof, as Lambrecht's examples suggest.
Yet, in our culture today, understandings of morality are deeply polarized, at least on some issues. While people from all background generally agree that stealing and murder are bad, some of our country's most deeply polarizing topics have been framed not just as political or social issues, but as moral issues. Thus, the treatment of LGBTQ+ persons, responses to racism, views of the police, climate change, treatment of national symbols, and more are debated in moral language. Each side sees its approach to these issues as moral and the other side's approach as immoral.
This raises a question for the practice of lifestyle evangelism: Can it only be effective among those within the same politico-cultural sphere? Can Christians in the 21st century United States practice lifestyle evangelism in a way that is genuine attractive to those on the other side of the country's polarizing issues? And if not, if morality is so tied to politico-cultural identity, will non-Christians attribute Christians' practice of morality to their faith or to their political views? If their morality is seen as a function of their political views, then a lifestyle lived in accordance with that system of morality will not be seen as a testament to Christianity.
Here is where Robert Hunt's piece is useful. Hunt raises a strong caution about morality as a starting point for Christians' engagement with the world. He argues that "[t]he traditional church has imbued us with a set of moral convictions, and indeed a moral order, that only grudgingly makes way for genuine diversity and inclusion" and because of that "a diversity of cultures and customs is all too quickly mapped onto the distinction between the righteous and the unrighteous." Thus, if we as the church are too focused on morality, then we run the risk of shunning rather than attracting those who disagree with us on moral issues (whichever side we are on), and some must inevitably disagree with us in contemporary American society.
For Hunt, the solution is to focus on Jesus as "the one who leads us into the questioning of our own moral convictions" and the one who presents a new law of love. We must practice love for our neighbor "not merely when, but particularly because he or she is puncturing our posture of moral confidence." This is especially important in "a time of deep divisions, exclusion, and hatred."
This juxtaposition of Lambrecht's and Hunt's articles is not meant as a refutation of Lambrecht's piece. I am sure that Lambrecht would affirm that an evangelistic lifestyle is one that involves love of one's neighbor, and love of neighbor is present in the examples Lambrecht gives of what such a lifestyle looks like.
My intention is, instead, to encourage us as we are reflecting on Lambrecht's piece to think of those attractive aspects of the Christian as stemming from love, not from a system of morality. It is love that has the ability to reach across divisions, polarization, and boundaries, because love respects the integrity of the other. Love incarnated in our actions is what makes Christianity both credible and attractive.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Showing posts with label polarization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label polarization. Show all posts
Monday, August 16, 2021
Wednesday, January 2, 2019
The United Methodist blogosphere, GC2019, polarization, and confirmation bias
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
As the special called General Conference in February approaches, a crescendo of posts from across the United Methodist blogosphere have addressed the upcoming conference and the two main plans laid before it - the One Church Plan and the Traditional(ist) Plan. The focus on this issue in the United Methodist blogosphere is overwhelming, so much so that I sometimes wonder whether it is worthwhile to write about anything else in the next two months, or whether other conversations will necessarily be overlooked by those taking the clickbait of yet another post for or against one of the two plans.
Certainly, GC2019 is an important upcoming event, and the issues before it deserve serious consideration and discussion, on the internet as in person. However, the United Methodist blogosphere's focus on General Conference 2019 illustrates how the it reflects in many ways the general American media landscape, with its attendant problems of polarization and confirmation bias.
First, a brief description of what is out there in the United Methodist blogosphere. There are three types of United Methodist blogs: those sharing devotional materials, including sermon repostings; those sharing information about specific ministries; and those commenting on general church and cultural issues. In this analysis, I am referring to the third type of blog.
Most general church and culture blogs tend to have an easily identifiable theo-political slant to them - either conservative/traditionalist or liberal/progressive. That's not necessarily a bad thing - people are entitled to their views - but it does affect how blogs go about attracting an audience. Rather than attract readers who are interested in a particular topic (church-state relations, for instance), most general UM blogs attract readers who are interested in a particular viewpoint, regardless of the topic under discussion.
While religious types have a high tolerance for shouting in the wilderness, whether or not anyone is listening, most bloggers do still pay attention to what attracts readers. And when readers come to a blog for its viewpoint, usually what will attract the most readers are posts in which that viewpoint is expressed most strongly. In other words, polarized content is generally more popular content. Moreover, when that polarized view is applied to current hot topics, the page views increase further.
I think this is a major reason why many United Methodist generalist blogs have focused so heavily on GC2019 recently. It is certainly a hot topic, but it is also one which lends itself easily to polarized treatments. Thus, a polarized assessment of some aspect of GC2019 is more likely to be a "successful" post (in terms of page views) than one on, say, how the church should view the ethics of driverless cars (a current topic, but not a terribly hot one, and not a polarized one).
But there is a danger in this approach to content production in the United Methodist blogosphere. As current discussions of secular media in the United States have highlighted, a polarized media environment, especially when content is shared through social media, as most United Methodist blogs are, can fall victim to or even reinforce confirmation bias. In other words, when we seek out polarized media, and when media go along with incentives to produce more polarized content, that system seeks to strengthen people's existing biases and preconceived ideas about issues.
Thus, while much digital ink is being spilled debating the proposals for General Conference 2019, it is quite likely that both sides are overlooking strengths in their opponents' arguments and plans and weaknesses in their own, which could leave either or both unprepared for what actually happens. Moreover, it also means that all those words are making it less likely rather than more likely that opponents in the church will be able to work together in a spirit of prayer and charity to address our collective problems.
Here at UM & Global, we will try to avoid these problems of polarization and confirmation bias by continuing to produce non-polarized assessments of GC2019 and by focusing on other topics as well in the next two months. It may not earn us as many clicks, but I'd rather be less popular and not contribute (as much) to the problem than to go viral with content that will only further separate faithful Christians from one another.
As the special called General Conference in February approaches, a crescendo of posts from across the United Methodist blogosphere have addressed the upcoming conference and the two main plans laid before it - the One Church Plan and the Traditional(ist) Plan. The focus on this issue in the United Methodist blogosphere is overwhelming, so much so that I sometimes wonder whether it is worthwhile to write about anything else in the next two months, or whether other conversations will necessarily be overlooked by those taking the clickbait of yet another post for or against one of the two plans.
Certainly, GC2019 is an important upcoming event, and the issues before it deserve serious consideration and discussion, on the internet as in person. However, the United Methodist blogosphere's focus on General Conference 2019 illustrates how the it reflects in many ways the general American media landscape, with its attendant problems of polarization and confirmation bias.
First, a brief description of what is out there in the United Methodist blogosphere. There are three types of United Methodist blogs: those sharing devotional materials, including sermon repostings; those sharing information about specific ministries; and those commenting on general church and cultural issues. In this analysis, I am referring to the third type of blog.
Most general church and culture blogs tend to have an easily identifiable theo-political slant to them - either conservative/traditionalist or liberal/progressive. That's not necessarily a bad thing - people are entitled to their views - but it does affect how blogs go about attracting an audience. Rather than attract readers who are interested in a particular topic (church-state relations, for instance), most general UM blogs attract readers who are interested in a particular viewpoint, regardless of the topic under discussion.
While religious types have a high tolerance for shouting in the wilderness, whether or not anyone is listening, most bloggers do still pay attention to what attracts readers. And when readers come to a blog for its viewpoint, usually what will attract the most readers are posts in which that viewpoint is expressed most strongly. In other words, polarized content is generally more popular content. Moreover, when that polarized view is applied to current hot topics, the page views increase further.
I think this is a major reason why many United Methodist generalist blogs have focused so heavily on GC2019 recently. It is certainly a hot topic, but it is also one which lends itself easily to polarized treatments. Thus, a polarized assessment of some aspect of GC2019 is more likely to be a "successful" post (in terms of page views) than one on, say, how the church should view the ethics of driverless cars (a current topic, but not a terribly hot one, and not a polarized one).
But there is a danger in this approach to content production in the United Methodist blogosphere. As current discussions of secular media in the United States have highlighted, a polarized media environment, especially when content is shared through social media, as most United Methodist blogs are, can fall victim to or even reinforce confirmation bias. In other words, when we seek out polarized media, and when media go along with incentives to produce more polarized content, that system seeks to strengthen people's existing biases and preconceived ideas about issues.
Thus, while much digital ink is being spilled debating the proposals for General Conference 2019, it is quite likely that both sides are overlooking strengths in their opponents' arguments and plans and weaknesses in their own, which could leave either or both unprepared for what actually happens. Moreover, it also means that all those words are making it less likely rather than more likely that opponents in the church will be able to work together in a spirit of prayer and charity to address our collective problems.
Here at UM & Global, we will try to avoid these problems of polarization and confirmation bias by continuing to produce non-polarized assessments of GC2019 and by focusing on other topics as well in the next two months. It may not earn us as many clicks, but I'd rather be less popular and not contribute (as much) to the problem than to go viral with content that will only further separate faithful Christians from one another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)