What stands out to me is how the protestors encounter the congregation - not as an assortment of complex individuals - but as props in a political performance. Not mere background to the theatrics, mind you, but as a comprehensively guilty, shameful, hypocritical mass who are each complicit in the state actions the protestors ostensibly seek to upend. Their media amplified certainty regarding heroes and villains necessarily denying any opportunity for actual understanding (much less persuasion).
But does this not precisely enact the same deficit of curiosity and discernment they lament in immigration enforcement? That broad strokes portrayals of any group in stark moral terms inevitably fails to capture the quality of specific individuals and dehumanizes them in the process? Put more simply, it seems obviously nonsensical to fight fear and injustice with unjust fear.
These sort of intense contradictions highlight, for me, a fundamental lack of values - where the function of the actions are purely instrumental (and often superficially so) rather than guided by any consistent ethical pulse.
Big fan of your wordsmithing, Marc. Maybe I'm misremembering Samuel's Digital Liturgies as it has been a minute since I read, but doesn't he make the point that technology is not morally neutral but rather is forming us in subtle (and not so subtle) ways? Similar to McLuhan's "the medium is the message".
Hey Brandon, perhaps "morally neutral" is misleading--obviously, the whole point of this article is how the technology of algorithms and social media make acts like this plausible. Samuel's work underlines the pedagogical structure of the Internet, shaping and incentivizing a particular (extreme) response from us. My comment in technology being neutral wasn't to minimize from that, but to underline that we who use the technology are still responsible for what we do.
The algorithmic cocoon point nails it. When activism becomes preformance art optimized for engagement metrics, it stops being about changing minds and becomes about maximizing virality. The disconnect is wild - posting evidence of what most people would see as intimidating behavior, then celebratng it. At some point, the feedback loop inside these online spaces gets so intense that basic social calibration just breaks down. Seen this pattern alot in different contexts.
“Raw display of power” is what ICE is doing every day: if you are an immigrant, we will hunt you down. The terrified child in the church is the same as the terrified children in the daycare whose caregiver was dragged out by ICE agents. I agree with you about almost everything you say here - but you come off as pro- ICE: a supporter of lousy goons who make people cry.
First off, I said nothing about supporting ICE in the essay.
Second, it is possible to say "I don't support everything that ICE does" and "what happened in Cities Church was wrong."
Third, there is a big difference between a branch of the government exercising force and a mob exercising force. One is morally legitimate as an expression of the sword of the state given by God, the other is morally illegitimate--even if the State sometimes wields the sword incorrectly. Paul wrote Romans 13 while Caesar was killing Christians.
What stands out to me is how the protestors encounter the congregation - not as an assortment of complex individuals - but as props in a political performance. Not mere background to the theatrics, mind you, but as a comprehensively guilty, shameful, hypocritical mass who are each complicit in the state actions the protestors ostensibly seek to upend. Their media amplified certainty regarding heroes and villains necessarily denying any opportunity for actual understanding (much less persuasion).
But does this not precisely enact the same deficit of curiosity and discernment they lament in immigration enforcement? That broad strokes portrayals of any group in stark moral terms inevitably fails to capture the quality of specific individuals and dehumanizes them in the process? Put more simply, it seems obviously nonsensical to fight fear and injustice with unjust fear.
These sort of intense contradictions highlight, for me, a fundamental lack of values - where the function of the actions are purely instrumental (and often superficially so) rather than guided by any consistent ethical pulse.
That is a really perceptive insight, Tommy
Well said, Marc. I haven't found the right words yet for this whole charade, so thanks for sharing yours.
Big fan of your wordsmithing, Marc. Maybe I'm misremembering Samuel's Digital Liturgies as it has been a minute since I read, but doesn't he make the point that technology is not morally neutral but rather is forming us in subtle (and not so subtle) ways? Similar to McLuhan's "the medium is the message".
Hey Brandon, perhaps "morally neutral" is misleading--obviously, the whole point of this article is how the technology of algorithms and social media make acts like this plausible. Samuel's work underlines the pedagogical structure of the Internet, shaping and incentivizing a particular (extreme) response from us. My comment in technology being neutral wasn't to minimize from that, but to underline that we who use the technology are still responsible for what we do.
The algorithmic cocoon point nails it. When activism becomes preformance art optimized for engagement metrics, it stops being about changing minds and becomes about maximizing virality. The disconnect is wild - posting evidence of what most people would see as intimidating behavior, then celebratng it. At some point, the feedback loop inside these online spaces gets so intense that basic social calibration just breaks down. Seen this pattern alot in different contexts.
“Raw display of power” is what ICE is doing every day: if you are an immigrant, we will hunt you down. The terrified child in the church is the same as the terrified children in the daycare whose caregiver was dragged out by ICE agents. I agree with you about almost everything you say here - but you come off as pro- ICE: a supporter of lousy goons who make people cry.
Hey Tanya, thanks for your comment.
First off, I said nothing about supporting ICE in the essay.
Second, it is possible to say "I don't support everything that ICE does" and "what happened in Cities Church was wrong."
Third, there is a big difference between a branch of the government exercising force and a mob exercising force. One is morally legitimate as an expression of the sword of the state given by God, the other is morally illegitimate--even if the State sometimes wields the sword incorrectly. Paul wrote Romans 13 while Caesar was killing Christians.
What they won’t say:
Yeah, I suppose SOME illegal immigrants should be deported, but I’m opposed to any conceivable way of finding them.
This is a really good perspective. I’m still sifting my way through all this too. Thanks for sharing!