Posts Tagged ‘social media’

“Fake News”

November 17, 2018

Pentecost 26 – 2018

Mark 13:1-11

Marian Free

In the name of God who challenges us to be as innocent as doves and as wise as serpents, both trusting and sceptical and always open and expectant. Amen.

Before the 2016 American Presidential election a group of young Macedonians took to Facebook to release sensational ‘news’ stories with headlines such as “Pope Francis Shocks World, Endorses Donald Trump”. Such extraordinary and unlikely “news” went viral which meant that advertisers wanted to cash in. This, apparently, was the goal of the creators of the “news” – not to disrupt the American election but to attract Facebook advertising dollars. As a result of this and similar activity someone coined the expression “fake news”. After the election legitimate news outlets started using the expression and it was not long before Donald Trump and others began to apply the term to any news (or news reporters) whom they did not like, or which threatened their position, their politics or their world view.

Naming something as “fake news” allowed them not only to dismiss information that they found unpalatable, but also to deceive and confuse the consumers of such “news”. Dictators all over the world have adopted the phrase to throw into question reports of their (or their government’s behaviour) – anything that reflects negatively on them – and to discredit the purveyors of such information. 

The advent of social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have given us greater access to events as they occur. We can see for ourselves what has happened and form our own opinions. For example, footage and reports of the recent Burke St attack were posted on Social media as the attack was taking place – well before local news channels had time to get reporters to the scene. Social media has allowed us access to information that oppressive governments might otherwise suppress and has given us an insight into what is really happening around the world. Photos taken by people on the spot do not have to face the hurdles of censorship that journalists might have to face.

Social media can give us direct access to the facts, but these platforms have also made it much easier to spread misinformation. Any one, pushing any agenda, can publish their views – no matter how far from the actual truth and however damaging and divisive such views might be. And, because not many of us go to the trouble of verifying the facts or researching the issues, false information can very quickly become the truth for at least a percentage of the population. 

The internet hasmade it much easier and quicker to spread misinformation but “fake news” did not originate with social media. Over the course of history various leaders and individuals, and in recent times traditional news outlets have not been above presenting information in such a way as to ensure support, increase sales or to influence an election result. The church too is not and has not been exempt from this sort of behaviour. At various points in history, it has promoted one or other interpretation of scripture to ensure compliance, to promote causes or to raise income.  

In chapter 13 of Mark’s gospel, of which today’s gospel is a part, Jesus warns believers not to trust in “fake news”. He is responding to a question from the disciples who are keen to know the timing of future events. Jesus does not give them an answer. In fact, he seems to be cautioning them against the desire to know. Even he, Jesus, does not know when the end will come, only that it will come. In the meantime, he is concerned that the disciples should exercise caution and not be deceived by those who falsely claim to be him or by those who insinuate that they know what lies ahead. 

Jesus’ warning is at least as valid now as it was 2000 years ago. So much time has passed that it is easy for us to be complacent. The apocalyptic language in which Jesus’ warning is cast appears over dramatic and unbelievable in our day and age and, if Jesus hasn’t come in the thousands of generations since he walked the earth, it seems very unlikely that he will come in ours. 

As we approach the end of the church year our gospel readings warn us once again that Jesus will come and that his coming will not be at a time of our choosing. Jesus’ warning is as much for us as it was for his disciples. We, like they, are vulnerable to changing circumstances and to those who make exaggerated claims and who promise us the world.

In the in-between time, in the absence of Jesus, we are challenged to protect ourselves against false information and false teaching. We have to exercise caution so that we will not be misled and so that we will not be swayed by those who falsely claim to be Jesus or to know exactly what he would do or say in any given situation. 

Jesus is warning us, as he does his disciples, not to settle for anything less than the real thing – not to be so blinded by our preconceptions or by the images to which we have grown accustomed to that we are unable to tell the difference between Jesus and those who pretend to be him. He is cautioning us not to become so comfortable with our faith and with our lives that we allow ourselves to believe that we have done and are doing all that we can to be faithful followers.

Whether Jesus is returning tomorrow or in hundreds of years’ time, we are all at risk of being misled, of following false trails or of closing our eyes to the truth. If we are to avoid being deceived – by the times, or by those who would claim to have a monopoly on the truth, we must constantly look beyond the surface, open ourselves to the presence of God and take the risk of truly knowing and being known by the Risen Christ.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Apocalypse, Mark's gospel | Comments Off on “Fake News”

Conviction or blind belief?

April 19, 2014

Easter 2014
Marian Free

In the name of God who raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Amen.

Social media has made a vast difference to the world. It is now possible to broadcast news across the globe in seconds, to announce engagements and births, to share poignant stories and funny or moving video clips, to distribute music and to maintain friendships over time and space. A quick word or photo now and then can keep a person much more connected with their friends than the annual Christmas letter. On a political level, social media can undermine authoritarian governments, gather crowds to protest movements and disseminate film clips of police or army brutality all within a matter of minutes. On an intellectual level, social media can provide people with access to stimulating articles and ideas to which they might not otherwise have access. Of course there is also a lot of rubbish and quite a deal or misleading and even mischievous information, but there is no denying that we are all much closer to each other and to what is happening in the world than we ever were before.

In the last few days for example, I have been able to read a number of interesting articles relating to child slavery and chocolate, Good Friday and Easter. I found two of these sufficiently interesting that I uploaded them on to Twitter. One by John Dickson presented: “Top Ten Tips for Atheists this Easter” and the other by Elizabeth Farrell was entitled: “A Meditation on the Cross.

(http://www.abc.net.au/news/thedrum/; http://www.smh.com.au/comment/meditation-on-the-cross-20140416-zqvdm.html)

Both articles challenge us to consider what it is that we believe, why we believe and how we might try to express that belief.

Dickson writes his article “in the interests of robust debate”. He challenges eight arguments put forward by atheists to discredit Christianity. I want to share with you just two. Atheists criticise Christians for believing things without having any evidence to support that belief. That, he points out, is not the way we use the word “faith”. Faith for a Christian is not blind belief in something for which there is not rational explanation. Rather the word “faith’ is used by Christians in the sense of “have trust in”. Christians do not blindly trust God, but have faith on the basis of a variety philosophical, historical and experiential reasons. We have faith in God, because it seems reasonable to believe that there is something behind the creation of the universe, because for millennia others have trusted this same God and because we experience God in some way in our lives. It is only on the basis of reasoned conviction that we place our trust, have faith in, God, faith in anything less substantial would be easily shaken.

A second related argument is to understand the basis on which people are persuaded. Dickson reminds his readers that Aristotle argued that few people – and that includes Christians – are convinced by purely objective evidence. With regard to a variety of different information, people are persuaded by a combination of intellectual, psychological and social factors. Even if those three factors line up, people are only really convinced if they feel that the person sharing the information with them can really be trusted. (A doctor might present information based on the latest medical research, but it might take a lot more than that to convince a patient to undergo a new and radical procedure.) New information often needs to have a personal relevance or impact before it is accepted. If a person is sure he or she is going to die, they might try to trust the doctor for example. This is as true of objective scientific discoveries as it is with regard to matters of belief. People of faith are no more or less likely to be open to persuasion that any other member of the community.

Farrell’s meditation is a reflection on why, when most of her friends are “lackadaisical or downright opposed to Christianity”, she is “impelled by a craving that the mundane world does not fill – a craving for deep time, old nature and transcendent spirit stuff.” She feels a need for a spiritual dimension not only for her own life, but for that of the world. Farrell confesses that she is “addicted to where the quest for goodness and yearnings of the spirit is accepted currency.” For her, paradox is the core mystic message – the idea that we must lose ourselves in order to win eternal life.” “Paradox”, she says, “and the parable needed to express it, lives at the heart of Christian traditions: darkness in light, poverty in riches, pain in beauty, death in renewal. Paradox is the mystery and the enchantment.”

Every Easter you and I gather to celebrate an event that had no witnesses, that cannot be supported by scientific evidence and that defies all rational explanation. We acknowledge the paradox that victory over death is won by death, and we rejoice that contrary to human logic – the Jesus who suffered a shameful, ignominious and violent death is in fact God incarnate, that what appeared to be a disaster turned our to be a triumph.

It is difficult to explain and to defend the resurrection because it is beyond explanation. Yet, for centuries people like you and I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection is a paradox that can be trusted, that it is a contradiction that somehow makes sense and that it is real because it has the power to change and renew lives. It is possible that we believe without objective evidence, but it is not true that we believe without reason. Our hearts tell us that Christ is present with us, our heads tells us that 2,147 billion people must have some basis for their belief in Jesus’ resurrection and our history books remind us that people have risked their lives and poured themselves out for others, all because they believed that Christ had been raised from the dead.

It doesn’t matter whether we use the more personal language of Farrell to explain ourselves, or whether we apply academic arguments in our discussions with atheists as does Dickson. What does matter is that when millions are elsewhere, we are here because our conviction that Christ is risen cannot be shaken by doubters or critics. We know what we know and that is all there is to it.

Christ is risen.
He is risen indeed!

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Easter | Comments Off on Conviction or blind belief?