How social media corrodes understanding
Dear Reader, please exist warned that what follows is going to be a full-on Grumpy Onetime Man rant. But stay with it; at that place is something really important here.
On the fashion back from an academic conference on the understanding of evil in early on Christianity, I was checking Twitter and found a blog post recommended past Rachel Held-Evans, the well-known US blogger and vox of 'progressive evangelicalism'. She commended it as a 'skillful post on tomorrow's [lectionary] gospel reading.'
I don't want to pick out an individual, so I am not linking to the mail itself. (I guess if yous are drastic yous could track it down). It includes a strong biographical element where the writer laments the constraints he feels as a legacy of his conservative /fundamentalist Christian (Southern Baptist) upbringing and how this inhibits his ability to read things like John 14.15, where Jesus says 'If you beloved me, [you will] keep my command[ment]s'. Because he was brought up with the idea that to be a Christian essentially ways conforming exactly to a set of rules, he struggles with the idea of 'commands' of Jesus. The post thus has the merit of honest articulation of this person'due south calendar as he approaches the text; none of us comes to Scripture agenda-free, and office of mature reading is a level of self-awareness so nosotros can see how nosotros might be reading into the text instead of reading out of it.
But his conclusion is an odd mixture of insight and ignorance. After a brief meander, he decides that Jesus does not have many commands—what he teaches is more like a couple of key principles. And since the mention of the Spirit is in John xiv intertwined with the mention of commands, conspicuously we need the Spirit to help the states work out these principles. (Jesus could non have left whatsoever commands, or rules, since you exercise not need the Spirit to proceed rules.)
He reaches this conclusion by means of ii breathtaking assumptions.
The first is that 'Jesus was speaking to His disciples while He was notwithstanding on Earth. Most of them were illiterate and barely knew the Old Testament.' Now, I cannot mutter here that this writer is ignorant of all the enquiry on literacy in the first century, or on the nature of Jewish engagement with the Hebrew Bible. His is not an academic blog. And I tin see where he gets the idea from: In Acts iv.13, the Jewish leaders are surprised by Peter and John's courage.
When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.
Information technology's not uncommon to hear sermons on this, suggesting that it means they were illiterate (hence God tin apply anyone). Only it is much better to understand this as expressing the fact that Peter was not a member of the scribal elite. Worse than that, this web log author goes on to deduce that the disciples knew nothing of the OT, and therefore that Jesus did not wait them to keep OT commands—something rather contradicted by the Sermon on the Mount, much of Jesus' other teaching, non to mention Jesus' ain exercise. Besides,one Peter is a highly sophisticated piece of writing which includes possibly the most extended reflection on the importance of Is 53 in the NT. Who did he call up wrote information technology? OK—many scholars say it cannot be Peter precisely because of the (false) supposition that he was nothing more than an ignorant fisherman. Only what about Matthew? John? Jude? James? A sweeping, popular assumption based on little reflection is informing a cardinal issue here. (In fact, there is a adept, historical argument about the literacy of Jesus and the disciples—and hope to blog on this subsequently in the week.)
The second assumption is even more baroque. The blog writer has seen lots of lists of Jesus commands. But how many commands did Jesus actually outcome? To detect out, he did a quick search, in English, of the give-and-take 'command'—and found really but two. Love God; honey neighbor. So these are the but things Jesus commanded. Never listen that he uses the part of speech chosen an 'imperative' at but nearly every point in his teaching ministry! I doubtable y'all would find several hundred just in the Sermon on the Mount! Here, this blogger is demonstrating ignorance of the most basic issues in how yous read a text.
And so, you might be wondering, why am I picking on this poor individual? After all, there must be hundreds—thousands—like him! Yep, indeed—and that'south the bespeak! The world of the internet is brimful with people who have a view, based on not very much, but presented every bit something of value. James is wise to warn us not to presume to be teachers (James iii.1), and this is easily extended to blogging. And become this: Rachel Held Evans, a leading influencer, particular for younger 'progressives', has just recommended this equally insightful to her 43,647 Twitter followers! By at present, a good number of sermons volition have been preached based on this. Ignorance is permeating the pews thank you to social media.
At present I am well aware that the idea that the internet is stunting our thinking is not new, nor confined to Christian conventionalities. Nicholas Carr'southward The Shallowsfrom 2011 offered an extended argument on this. Merely this phenomenon is now spilling over from social media and into the world of print publishing. On theFirst Things site, Andrew Walker and Owen Strachan lament the reception of Matthew Vines' bookGod and the Gay Christian—not merely because they do not agree, but because the arguments are based on ignorance and lack of awareness of widely-best-selling facts near the texts and the ancient world. (You tin observe Walker'south more detailed review on the Canon and Culture website.) And Vines came to prominence through his widely-shared YouTube broadcast.
The real danger here is a lack of critical thinking, a lack of interest in the question: 'Yes, it might be entertaining, or engaging, or say what I desire to hear—merely is it true?'. There is a caricature which says that business concern for the truth is the preserve of anally-retentive, bad-mannered, conservative/fundamentalist Christians. Just it is not. It should be the concern for all Christians. The fashion many people, and in item Christian influencers, are using social media is corroding this concern for asking fifty-fifty bones questions of truth. And in turn this is corroding understanding of faith, the reading of Scripture, and even Christian discipleship. We will all be the poorer for it.
Rant over…for the moment.
Additional note
In that location'due south a fantastic article on The Federalist (thanks Steve West!) which explores the 'decease of the skillful.'
I fearfulness we are witnessing the "expiry of expertise": a Google-fueled, Wikipedia-based, blog-sodden collapse of any sectionalization between professionals and laymen, students and teachers, knowers and wonderers – in other words, betwixt those of whatever achievement in an area and those with none at all. By this, I do not hateful the death of actual expertise, the knowledge of specific things that sets some people apart from others in diverse areas. At that place volition always be doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other specialists in various fields. Rather, what I fear has died is any acknowledgement of expertise as anything that should alter our thoughts or alter the way nosotros live.
The author (Tom Nichols) does only lament this nostalgically—he sees the implications for homo knowledge.
This is a very bad matter…Worse, information technology's dangerous. The decease of expertise is a rejection not only of cognition, simply of the ways in which nosotros gain knowledge and learn nigh things. Fundamentally, it's a rejection of science and rationality, which are the foundations of Western civilisation itself.
Critics might dismiss all this by saying that everyone has a right to participate in the public sphere. That's true. Merely every word must take identify within limits and above a certain baseline of competence. And competence is sorely lacking in the public loonshit. People with strong views on going to war in other countries can barely find their own nation on a map; people who want to punish Congress for this or that law can't proper name their own fellow member of the House…None of this ignorance stops people from arguing as though they are research scientists.
Particularly pertinent for electric current discussions about ideals and theology, he sees the way that this new openness actually destroys our ability to hold reasonable conversations.
This subverts any real hope of a chat, because it is merely exhausting — at to the lowest degree speaking from my perspective as the policy skillful in virtually of these discussions — to take to starting time from the very commencement of every argument and establish the merest baseline of knowledge, and then constantly to have to negotiate the rules of logical argument. (Nearly people I encounter, for instance, have no idea what a not-sequitur is, or when they're using one; nor do they sympathize the departure between generalizations and stereotypes.) Well-nigh people are already huffy and offended before ever encountering the substance of the issue at hand.
This last judgement seems to sum up the tone of many online conversations nigh theology—and the more then the more controversial the issue.
Much of my work is done on a freelance ground. If you accept valued this postal service, would you lot consideraltruistic £1.twenty a month to support the production of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my folio on Facebook.
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, yous can make a unmarried or repeat donation through PayPal:
For other means to support this ministry, visit my Support folio.
Comments policy: Skilful comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful contend, tin add real value. Seek offset to sympathize, then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a disharmonize to win; accost the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/how-social-media-corrodes-understanding/
0 Response to "How social media corrodes understanding"
Postar um comentário