Thread: Considering reading Chris Bail's, Breaking the Social Media Prism, (Princeton, 2021). He starts with the problem of social and political polarization and asks how social media contributes to it. amzn.to/2SaJX77 1/7
The common thesis is that algorithms keep us in ‘echo chambers’ where we hear only our own side. Research shows that-on the contrary, daily exposure to the other political/cultural side (and not just to the nasty caustic versions of it) only made people stronger in their view 2/7
...or even more extreme. Why? Further research revealed that for a significant number-especially for those who do the most posting (rather than just reading) social media has become a place where people increasingly disembedded from face to face community curate an identity. 3/7
We are irreducibly relational and get our identity mainly from what people see in us and say of us. We need outside validation. Bail argues that social media has become the place those of us with fragile selves or ‘spoiled identities’ (Goffman) go to for a few things: 4/7
(1) to get far more control over the presentation of our selves [you don’t have to live face to face with them] (2) to get feedback about the presentation with unprecedented scale and speed (3) & then to constantly calibrate and curate our identities in order to get affirmation
with our chosen (and as large as possible) community for social status and a sense of belonging. Chris Bail shows that Social Media is not primarily a place of public discussion—it is a means of forging individual identity, status-seeking, & social bonding in a culture that 6/7
has eroded older ways of doing so. I recommend his book. amzn.to/2SaJX77 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Part 2 🧵: Social media drives extremism and mutes moderation. (1) 6% of all Twitter users generate 20% of all tweets. But 70% of all tweets they mention are about national politics. These 6% are mostly extremists. (p. 76)
(2) Research has shown that those taking extreme cultural/political positions “often lack status in their off-line lives” and have experienced marginalization. (3) Also their on-line personas are often far different more aggressive) than are their personalities off-line. (p.56)
(4) They are usually strongly opposed to being identified as extremist (tho they are, objectively) and therefore prefer to attack moderates on their own side. Why? (5) By attacking moderates as being unprincipled compromisers or “really” stealth members of the other side—
The dangers of Christian nationalism include a) idolatry of one’s American culture, b) looking to the state’s political power to enforce Christianity (the European mistake), c) and undermining the Christian witness. 1/5
See Newbigin, “Activating the Christian Vision” in his book Faith and Power. Also, see the end of my article. quarterly.gospelinlife.com/book-review-on… The dangers for opponents of Christian nationalism include a) the banishing of religious discourse from the public square, and 2/5
b) the illusion that State’s laws can be religiously neutral. All laws assume beliefs about human nature and purpose and about moral norms that are not empirically verifiable and thus are matters of faith. 3/5
Some critique my account of Christian forgiveness saying that, based on my race, I shouldn’t speak to what other races should do. Here's the same view of forgiveness—from Miroslav Volf, a Croatian, against the background of the ‘ethnic cleansings’—the violence and genocide...1/6
...in the Balkans in the early 90s. Many say forgiving exploiters is unjust—but Volf says without forgiveness “both victim and perpetrator are imprisoned in the automatism of mutual exclusion” and 2/6 amazon.com/gp/product/B07…
"only those who forgive and who are willing to forgive will be capable of relentlessly pursuing justice without falling into the temptation to pervert it into injustice.” Some say you must not forgive until the exploiter repents, but Bible says otherwise (Mark 11:25) and 3/6
Thread: Forgiveness does not preclude justice. On the contrary, without forgiveness, you may pursue something less like justice for all and more like revenge for you- two eyes for an eye and two teeth for a tooth. Forgiveness and justice go together--our culture separates them. 1
If God wanted to forgive us without doing justice there would have been no need for the Cross. If God wanted to pursue justice without forgiving us there also would have been no need for the Cross. The Cross testifies that, with God, these two only exist together. 2/6
True forgiveness and justice exist together because (see Augustine) both are forms of love. A failure to do justice fails to love the human community and God. A failure to forgive fails to love your enemy and God. So forgiveness and justice can and must proceed together. 3/6
Thread: The early church was marked by a deep concern for the poor and for racial equality (Gal 2:10; 3:28). At the very same time, it taught that sex was only for within a mutually self-giving life-long covenant of marriage (1 Thess 4:3-8; 1 Cor 6:12-20). 1/7
To our modern ears, this sounds like a contradictory mishmash of liberalism and conservatism. And today the church is being fragmented by progressives and conservatives who want it to only serve one of these commitments and discard the other. 2/7
But to the church, the sex ethic & the justice ethic are a whole cloth. Sexual immorality and injustice go hand in hand because there is a unifying principle that unites them. In Jesus, we see one who had ultimate power and privilege sacrificing it in order to love and save us. 3
Thread: One common complaint made about Christians is that they believe in eternal consequences to our actions. Christians believe souls live on, therefore, they believe that moral errors affect us eternally. Secular persons also believe that there are terrible moral errors 1/4
...like exploitation and oppression. But since they don’t believe in an afterlife--they don’t think the consequences of wrongdoing go on into eternity. Does that mean secular people are more open-minded and Christians more narrow and coercive? I don’t think so. 2/4
Imagine arguing over a cookie. Jack thinks the cookie is poison, and Jill thinks it's not. Jack thinks Jill’s mistaken view of the cookie will send her to the hospital or worse. Jill thinks Jack’s mistaken view will merely keep him from having a fine dessert. 3/4