"The Christian’s action must be specifically Christian. Christians must never identify themselves with this our that political or economic movement. Rather, they must bring to social movements what they alone can provide." (Ellul, Violence)

Something I've thought about quite a fair amount since shifting to working outside of the church is the question of what role the church might still play in today's social movements. It's something I explored in more detail in this essay looking at how the church can and should support worker's rights. There I suggest that the church needs to first adopt a posture of hospitality (both giving and receiving it) in relation to the rest of society.

We are facing a handful of immense—and interconnected—existential threats. Any hope we have in solving or surviving them requires us working together. They will also call many of us to self-sacrifice on behalf of others and to rely on community. Capitalism will not get us there. It cannot. But within many of our religions, there are truths here we can reclaim. This includes Christianity.

But not a Christianity that is nearly indistinguishable from capitalism. Of that, the church needs to repent.

"In the eyes of many people, love of the poor seems better expressed and incarnated by socialists than by Christians.” (Ellul, Violence)

There was a moment, quite a number of years ago, that signalled a fairly significant change in my life. It was a decision that marked the end of over a decade of working within the structural church. During my time there, I had committed to cultivating a love for others that inspired action—in both myself and those I worked with. Yet I kept bumping up against a tension that I didn't quite know what to do with. It seemed clear that Christianity was well positioned to provide care for individuals suffering from injustice or oppression; but in the face of the economic and social systems that caused that injustice, it felt painfully inadequate.

Now, this is a weighty topic that I'm not about to solve. What I wanted to offer here was a personal reflection around this tension that signalled a change in my life. One that led me from the church into other spaces. It was not a decision that I came to lazily or out of some crisis of faith. If anything, it was driven by idealism. It's also something I am still wrestling with. I claim no definitive answer to these questions.

My goal in reading through Ellul (along with some other authors right now) is to spend some time reflecting on the 21st century (North American) church in light of current events and what seems like a massive betrayal of the faith they claim to hold.

"What troubles me is not that the opinions of Christians change, nor that their opinions are shaped by the problems of the times; on the contrary, that is good. What troubles me is that Christians conform to the trend of the moment without introducing into it anything specifically Christian. Their convictions are determined by their social milieu, not by faith in the revelation; they lack the uniqueness which ought to be the expression of that faith. Thus theologies become mechanical exercises that justify the positions adopted, and justify them on grounds that are absolutely not Christian."

Violence, Jacques Ellul

"The major challenge to neighbourhood, as a demographic-physical construct as well as a viable social network, comes from organizations and institutions (firms and bureaucracies) whose routine functioning reorganizes urban space. The stranger to fear may not be the man of different ethnicity on the street corner, but a bank president or property management executive far from view.”

From Logan and Molotch.

My prof used to say something similar around how the person to fear is not the individual suffering from mental health illness on the corner but the executives in their big shiny buildings. This is why it's always important to be able to read the power dynamics of a community through the lens of who suffers and who benefits.

"When social media users do encounter misinformation, they largely follow accounts with whom they are likely to agree and consume outlets that reflect their perspectives. As a result, digital misinformation generally preaches to the choir, potentially making attitudes or behaviors more extreme but not acting as vectors of mass influence or persuasion. If anything, the causal arrows may face in the opposite directions: beliefs may explain digital misinformation consumption more than the other way around." (Source)

Connected to yesterday's post on one-sided conversations. This is an interesting article exploring the overall failure in how we've handled misinformation. Basically we understand what misinformation is, how it spreads, and who is most susceptible; but attempts to fact check it have been futile. The article suggests that this is due to a failure to fully and properly understand the role of this sort of communication. Rather than thinking of this as a problem between true and false, we need to be understanding how communication more broadly impacts identity, trust, and polarization.

It's a good article that touches on several things I've been thinking about lately, including what the role of helpful communication needs to be moving forward. Check it out.