Why are some people fearful of engaging with the media?
Well, you only have to know anyone who’s fallen foul of them to know why keeping your distance might be a wise tactic. So, given that I know plenty of people who would include themselves in that category, why do some of us keep getting stuck in?
Last Sunday I was asked to address a hundred or so theological students (St Milletus College) on the theme ‘Old message, new media’ – a theme that got me asking questions about language, content and confidence. Having commended engaging with old media and new social networking media (in a disciplined way, of course), I emphasised three points:
- we need to be confident about the message we hope to communicate via various media
- attention needs to be paid to learning the languages that people speak/hear in order that we can ensure good communication
- new media offer great new possibilities for (a) giving people access to people (like me – a bishop) whose life and preoccupations might otherwise belong to a remote and mysterious hidden world, (b) engaging outside and beyond the safe and comfortable territory of those who ‘belong’ to the communities in which we live and work, (c) being present in a space where a different sort of conversation can be had, and (d) allowing connectivity between people, groups and ideas that in a previous generation might not have been possible, even if desirable.
Then, today I went to Cambridge for the first day of an Apologetics Conference at Westcott House. The theme was ‘How Does Today’s Church Engage with Today’s World?’. The first speaker up was Professor Alister McGrath who seems to write a new book every week. He stressed the need for clergy to help their congregations to grapple honestly with tough questions and grow in confidence in the competence of a Christian world view to account for the way the world is (and could become). Critiquing the New Atheists, he made the point that simply making assertions is not the same as rationally arguing a point (something Christians need to note also).
I followed Alister with a ramble through my apologetic method and illustrated what it looks like in my own experience. Key to this approach are the following:
- objections to religious belief must be taken with the utmost seriousness
- interlocutors are people with histories, contexts and contingent lives: they are not projects upon whom we work our philosophical or theological games
- the way Christians speak to and about each other is sometimes so scandalous that many observers get nowhere near hearing the ‘good news’ behind the sheer bad news of how some Christians behave (parodied as ‘They’ll know we are Christians by the intensity of our mutual loathing…’)
- Christians need to model the ‘ministry of reconciliation’ and change the rumour about God and the church
- we must start on other people’s territory and learn their languages – primarily in order to listen and understand before questioning coherence or consistency.
Underlying all this, however, is the conviction that unless Christians are prepared to open themselves to the possibility of changing their mind, they have no right to expect anyone else to do so. Conversation must be respectful and genuinely dialectical.
This was followed by Dr Andrew Davison, Tutor in Doctrine at Westcott House, who looked briefly at such matters as creation, God, christology, eschatology and pneumatology in their apologetic connection. And he was followed by Ruth Gledhill, Times Religion Correspondent who reflected on journalism, journalists, the Church and media.
Two points need further thinking through on my part.
First is Ruth’s statement that the erection of the Times paywall has (a) vastly reduced the number of screaming nasties on her blog, (b) improved the quality and courtesy of the discourse between those who do engage with her and each other, and (c) led to a recovery of clearer (less distracted) journalism.
Now, I am opposed to the paywall, but I know other news agencies are keen for it to work. A new and effective business (financial) model for journalism is needed if quality journalism is not only to survive, but thrive in the complex new media age. Despite my prejudices about the effects of the paywall model on universal access to news, I hadn’t thought about the potential for the paywall to change/improve the quality of the discourse between those who do engage behind it.
Second was a question posed to me about mad or dangerous Christians – a question to which I did not respond adequately. Having asserted that Christians need to stop bitching about each other and work out their inherent unity as disciples of the Jesus who calls them, how should we then deal with the crazies and horrible nasties who claim the Christian label? Or, put more simply, when is it legitimate to disown and firmly distance ourselves from the loonies?
On initial reflection I think we can say that (a) Christians who, for example, espouse violence should be disowned and distanced, and (b) this should be done in language that still bears the hallmarks of grace and generosity, not arrogance and self-righteousness. More reflection needed on this one.
So, the last few days have exposed me to a wide range of people who are taking really seriously the need for Christians to engage with the wider world on the wider world’s terms, bringing a confident and gracious critique to the world’s presenting agenda, and offering an apologetic for Christian faith that is rationally coherent, emotionally powerful, existentially consistent and makes sense of human experience (which is more than purely rational).
In last Sunday’s Observer Victoria Coren invited theists to own up confidently to their faith:
Come on; let’s make this a fair fight, at least. Identify yourselves, thinking believers! Don’t be cowed into silence by the idea that faith is the weakness of a halfwit, like buying your goldfish Christmas presents or watching ITV2. It isn’t. I’ll start: I believe in God and I’m perfectly intelligent and rational.
Time to stand up. And new media make this possible in new ways. (The Apologetics Conference continues tomorrow, but I won’t be there…)
December 8, 2010 at 7:36 am
Thank you for this – it is the most interesting blog post on the interface between new media and apologetics that I have read for a while. I would be particularly interested to know more of your thoughts on how to make conversation respectful and genuinely dialectical, and on how the actual majority of us who are not mad or dangerous can say so firmly but with grace and generosity.
December 8, 2010 at 9:26 am
Thank you Bishop for this. My talk was based on a chapter I am writing for a new book on religion and the news, being published by Cumberland Lodge in Windsor. But I will post an extract on my blog today, inspired by you, and for those not willing to go beyond the wall, they should either have come to the conference or must wait for the book!
December 8, 2010 at 12:49 pm
I wonder if searching for a polite and respectful discourse is simply working against the grain of human nature. Two interesting psychology research projects seem to imply that: “Negative emotions accelerating users activity in BBC Forum” [http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.5459] and “Quantitative Analysis of Bloggers Collective Behavior Powered by Emotions” [http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.6268]. In short long conversation threads always start with negative comments, are emotionally negative, with logarithmically decreasing “happiness” according to the the number of messages.
So, (wanting to up your traffic!)…
THIS BLOG POST IS THE WIRST THING IVE READ THIS YAER!
December 8, 2010 at 3:01 pm
I agree that this is a very encouraging, and tolerant response from a church leader. I guess my problem with organized religion is that, being a seeker of truth, rather than a worshipper, I want to engage in an open-minded debate with other people who are still seeking, rather than being presented with the same old non-answers to my genuine questions, from believers who seem convinced they have found the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As for SOME self-styled christians I have met, all I can say is that worhipping a god of love has simply filled them with a bigoted hatred for anything that deviates, even slightly, from their conception of right and wrong. Not a hint of compassion or, heaven forbid, forgiveness is on offer.
December 8, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Ruth Gledhill, I wasn’t invited to the conference. I’ll wait for the review copy of the book!
December 8, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Justin, thanks for the links – and you might be right about the grain of human nature (which some people call ‘sin’…). However, my experience is that some threads on this blog start aggressively and then become more reasonable the longer the conversation continues.
Please do ‘up my traffic’!
December 8, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Hi, Nick,
An interesting blog, as ever.
“Language that bears the hallmarks of grace and generosity”…..I have to be careful of the “log” or “speck” in the eye of my brother here….but I think you might have to start with the use of the words “mad, dangerous and loonies”. If it’s any consolation, I would tend to use the same descriptive terms at times. As Christians, we are constantly asked to reflect on our own attitudes, looking to Christ to transform them and not expecting God to change our opponents attitudes first. Sorry, Elder teaching Bishop to suck eggs.
On a further point of language….I’ll need to go and look up “pneumatology” and remind myself of “eschatology” while I’m at the dictionary.
Last point, the root of our verbal visciousness towards anyone is fear. Perfect love casts out fear. God is love. How I long to be full of God’s love, unafraid so I can be open, honest and vulnerable as Christ is to us!
December 8, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Mary, thanks for your comment. I think there are many, many Christians who want to engage openly, starting where people are and only going as far as they want to go. One of the points I made in my lecture in Cambridge is that Jesus met people on their territory (not his), responded to their questions (not his statements) and took people so seriously that he let them go. In other words, he treated people as responsible adults. I think we should do the same. I have never understood how some Christians think that ‘good news’ will be heard when presented in a ‘bad news’ way.
I take what you say about some Christians – they probably say it of me. But I think this is also a ‘human’ issue. I don’t write off humanism or atheism simply because I have encountered some very unpleasant atheists and humanists. However, Christians should be different, if they take seriously the Jesus they say they follow.
December 8, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Heather, you are right! But, I used the words advisedly and I think in the context they are justified. Of course, I might be wrong!
December 8, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Nick: Please excuse an irrelevance but couldn’t resist. Out and about today I spotted an appeal from a charitable group who were making up Christmas parcels to go to India and ……………….. Liverpool?
Suppose there is a similarity. They’re both quite big and have dirty rivers running through them.
December 8, 2010 at 6:57 pm
I was interested to see Victoria Corren “outing herself as a believer and today saw Tom Hollander in the Telegraph acknowledging that his role in the splendid “Rev” has made him more reflective on faith.
This raises an interesting question.
Neither are “obvious” Christians ( I know few of us are and I am not being judgemental but go with me on this)
When he first started in Rev, Tom was clearly saying he was rather agnostic. Victoria is not only the compere of a rather elitist quiz show ( to which my wife is probably addicted) but is also a serious poker champion and has authored inter alia a gonzo journalist style book about incompetent efforts to make a porn movie. None of this is in the normal ballpark for evangelisation material.
It is stretching things to ask if our “post modern world” requires almost anti- Christian role models to get people to consider whether Christianity has anything to say to them?
I know that we have always had the Magdelene’s and the St Francises although our narrative rather requires us to say that they were role models after imperfect lives had been cleaned up.
Few today would be moved by a ascetic saints like Simon Stylites who was for a time a superstar )though given Derren Brown you might argue that?!?). However the sinner/christian “just like us” whether it be a Johnny Cash or a soccer icon like Kaka or Huerelio Gomes who takes his faith seriously is a major asset to the faith.
So are we into new territory or was it always like this?
December 8, 2010 at 7:39 pm
An excellent post – thank-you. I think engagement with both the Press and Social Networking is very productive if we are to offer our message. I love the way you have put it so articulately.
December 8, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Lesley, you are a good exponent of the stuff I am talking about.
December 9, 2010 at 8:57 am
I’ve just read your blog on Mixing with media and I remembered an interesting point that relates to the question of paywalls and enhanced quality of feedback. In Germany a couple of newspapers and magazines start putting their articles on facebook, instead of having their own websites. They’ve found out that the rules of facebook (for example, only real names are allowed) enhance the quality of feedback and commentary in a similar way like the paywall seems to do. So at least one magazine uses facebook only, some others allow feedback only via facebook. It seems like manners and civilized behaviour is another interesting topic in regard to new media/new networks…
December 9, 2010 at 9:40 am
Interesting post. I’m left with some questions and thoughts. The key concern is the assertion that we find a way of distancing ourselves from ‘the loonies’ and those who ‘espouse violence’. Who are they? They seem to be more visible in the comments sections of blogs than elsewhere. They are certainly present in groups like the BNP and the English Defence hooligans. I doubt many of them would claim to be Christian – at least in the sense of regular churchgoing. They seem to stand for some bizarre and invented version ‘Christian ‘white’ Britain’).
Outside this kind of extremism, there is a danger that certain groups of Pentecostals, charismatics, ultra-montane RCs and conservative evangelicals could be tarred with the ‘loony’ tag, when in many ways they stand within mainstream Christianity. Furthermore, how should Christians model disagreement. In my experience you’d be the last one to say that we should brush our differences under the carpet. Yet we need to have places where we can disagree very strongly and yet still acknowledge each other as fellow Christians. Your blog is a good place for that.
December 9, 2010 at 10:39 am
Andrew: Well said. The reason I keep returning [even when I've decided it's time to get a life] is because this blog space appears to contain a truly eclectic community of firm believers, infirm/unfirm? novices, old-hand faithful doubters, cynics, atheists etc etc of the sort that would rarely/ever happen elsewhere and where productive, even quite heated, exchanges can take place, ideas can be sounded out without [too much]damage and certainly no loss of face or friendship.
So, Merry Christmas everyone .. even those who wonder why we should wish each other a Merry Christmas …. oh actually isn’t one of those the Bish .. surely not? Season’s Greetings Nick. Are we all going to share a virtual glass?
December 9, 2010 at 10:54 am
Excellent stuff, hoping your pearls laid before the Mellitus’ may become accessible sometime?
Wondering if you’ve read ‘Flickering Pixels: How Technology Shapes Your Faith’ by Shane Hipps? He takes Marshall McLuhan’s reknown mantra a stage further concluding ‘The Medium changes the Message’. More thought provoking stuff!
December 9, 2010 at 11:21 am
I agree with the others – an excellent post.
But I have two questions.
You say we should be prepared to change our minds if we expect others to change theirs.
Where do you draw the line? Are you genuinely open to being converted away from Christianity?
And when you say that Christians who espouse violence should be opposed and that we should distance ourselves from them, where does that leave parts of our own Anglican Communion?
December 9, 2010 at 1:25 pm
I haven’t read your blog for a while but it seems like you are keeping the standard up. Good stuff Nick. Thought provoking.
I was interested in your comment: “we must start on other people’s territory and learn their languages – primarily in order to listen and understand before questioning coherence or consistency.”
In my experience, ‘other people’s territory’ is often in the field of asking questions of God or about God. I like questions. You can learn a lot with questions. I’m not quite so keen on answers, unless they are real and open rather than knowing and closed.
‘Listening in order to understand’ is a great place to start a conversation. ‘Questioning coherence or consistency’ is also fine if, as Brian Maclaren once said, Christians are primarily interested in conversations not conversions. Otherwise, it’s a short but distorted step to listen if only in order to build a platform from which to challenge and persuade.
If Christians go into conversations with an agenda to change people’s thinking to their own way of thinking, then that’s not really a conversation at all. Sadly, there’s a lot of it about. But if there are two parties engaged in a conversation with both honestly exploring whether the other person might have a point, then that seems a healthy dialogue.
Why are some Christians afraid of the possibility that they might have to develop what they currently believe or understand? In order to do that, they will have to question their beliefs and their thinking.
Jesus asked lots of questions and often answered people’s questions with another question. He liked questions. He challenged people to change and keep changing. So why not change our way of thinking?
There’s a lot more to understand than any of us currently know. Dizzee Rascal talks about ‘overstanding’ (as in once you really understand something, then you can stand over or ‘overstand’ it). I like that concept. And let’s be honest, no one really overstands this stuff. So let’s keep engaging and talking and listening and trying to understand each other and maybe people can be trusted to form their own conclusions. Love is not assuming that we have all the answers.
December 10, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Picking up on Martin Sewell’s post (no.11), I basically think he’s right.
I think there’s a parallel with – now, hold on before you go mental – Tony Blair, here.
In his memoir, he’s very interesting about being Labour, but also needing to look unlike Labour in order to appeal beyond Labour (and get them to win an election). Not denying Labour (though some would say this is what he did do), but making non-Labour voters comfortable with considering voting Labour.
I kept thinking of “in the world, but not of the world”, and also how key that is for us as a Church. People come with expectations of what THEY (Christians) are like.
It’s of the essence that we ‘wrong foot’ people by defeating their expectations before the real conversation can begin.
Otherwise, we just stand in different corners and don’t get great engagement.
I haven’t put all that very well, and it’s not very profound, but I hope you know what I mean.
December 11, 2010 at 4:28 pm
As an analagous point: when York Minster erected a ‘paywall’ (ie charged for admission) in 2003 we found that we had fewer people into the building (inevitably). But…those who came stayed for 50% longer, three times as many took a guided tour (which was free anyway before), more of them bought guidebooks, and they spent more per head in the shop. A literal investment in their experience meant a greater quality of interaction.
But I still wanted it to be free…
December 12, 2010 at 2:25 pm
I have some hard criticisms of the Apologetics Conference and also of some of the assertions about the Times paywall being a good thing as they are reported here; I’m also more than a bit pissed the Apologetics Conference wasn’t advertised more widely beforehand. Had it actually been more widely advertised, I would have attended it.
I will blog my criticisms (and many thanks to Bishop Nick Baines for taking the time to report on some of it); one criticism just straight off, and relating back to Nick Baines’ point about theology of reconciliation:
it strikes me as being somewhat counter-productive that us unbleievers don’t get a look in on these things as they happen. Having a unbeliever ast such a conference might be a way of concentrating minds; no doubt McGrath can speak much from his experience, but there’s value in pointing out why McGrath’s arguments don’t work for many unbelievers. Let alone the more simplistic usual run of apologetics.
There’s value to be had in considering why (only on two days, admittedly) Victoria Coren makes much more impact than McGrath (which I think is true to some degree), and why so many anti-atheist arguments simply go so astray. There seems from my viewpoint a great deal of wishful thinking going on among Christians about why us unbelievers are or become atheists, and therefore the counter-arguments from Christians too often miss the mark.
There’s far too much simple tribalism, and also too much Karl-Barth-type arrogance, of the type of simply preaching at the heathen, something which us heathen often take exception to, naturally enough. But as said, will blog about this.
December 12, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Gurdur, the conference was about trying to get Christians and theologians to take the apologetic task seriously. It wasn’t about refining arguments to be used in apologetics against what you call ‘the heathen’. A major theme was that preaching at people is both undesirable and doesn’t work anyway. So, the target audience was quite specific and you can rest assured that the thrust of speakers was precisely to encourage the sort of apologetic conversations that you are asking for anyway. Hope that helps.
Nick
December 13, 2010 at 3:42 pm
[...] Bonus: Maggi Dawn is blogging again, and Bishop Nick Baines has an interesting blog post up on the Church of England and modern media, a post which incidentally irks me quite a lot, but hey. Comments are welcome! Please keep in [...]
December 18, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Of course, the conversation will be more agreeable behind a paywall. The vast majority of people who pay for a newspaper buy the one they agree with politically. I expect that, unless she is getting softer as she gets older, Our Ruth is finding her solitude quite pleasant and extremely boring.
Secondly, the “crazies and horrible nasties” are no problem as people aren’t as stupid as the powerful think they are and can recognise a Phelps type very quickly. Moves to shut them up by those in authority or in the old school media is, I believe, a move to shut up ordinary Christians who disagree with those in authority and challenge the monopoly previously enjoyed by the old school media. Extremists rarely damage the kingdom of God, but reasonable, middle of the road, third way, peaceable, don’t upset the cart and do respect those in authority types often do.
October 29, 2011 at 6:30 pm
[...] lest our national Church actually become a subject of conversation. We've worked very hard at keeping ourselves to ourselves, and we prefer it that way". When asked about the existence of dissident priests [...]