Can Election-Campaign Technology Inspire Churches To Be More Interactive?
By Frances Forde Plude
In the Obama hi-tech presidential campaigns, there was widespread involvement and ownership, especially by youth. That was an election campaign empowered by newer communication technologies. And there have been even more recent global power shifts due to global and local networks.
Now, focusing especially on global interactive, dialogic, cultural movements, we can ask:
How should churches respond to the widespread desire for participatory involvement and expression, especially among young people?
How do interactive communication technologies facilitate this participation for all people of faith?
Here we will explore, first, some principles from two prominent Roman Catholic theologians. Then we will refer to the author’s writings and experiences. And, finally, we will refer to an important study by Ineke de Feijter, a European scholar and pastor, who has analyzed many social communication documents of various Christian church bodies.
A practical accountability test will be to see if the theories expressed by theologians, scholars, and church documents are, in fact, being implemented by religious institutions. Perhaps there are practical on-the-ground lessons contained within the Obama campaign and other election models. Our primary case study will be focused on the Roman Catholic Church since that is the denomination most familiar to me. In the 1960s Pope John XXIII convened a global council of bishops to review the Catholic Church viewpoints. Theologians accompanied these bishops so there was a fresh analysis of “the signs of the times.” This consultation is known as Vatican II.
Hermann Pottmeyer is one of the Catholic Church’s leading theologians. In the past, Pottmeyer reviewed dialogue as a model for communication and community in the Catholic Church. (Granfield, 1994, 97). He noted this word “dialogue” was new as a description of communication within the Church. Before the Second Vatican Council the terms used were “jurisdiction” and “obedience” when speaking of internal communication flows in the Catholic Church. Referring to the idea that the Church is a community in which all members have joint responsibility, Pottmeyer noted the early Church accepted the secular Roman legal maxim: “What concerns all must be discussed and approved by all.” Quoting a Vatican II document, Pottmeyer notes: “… in order for the Church to show itself ‘the sign of [community] which allows honest dialogue’ among all human beings, it will be necessary ‘to foster within the Church itself … dialogue with … abounding fruitfulness” (Gaudium et spes, 92).
Another leading Catholic theologian, Ladislas Örsy, studied civil law at Oxford and is a scholar of church law. Örsy has published an analysis of how faithfully the Catholic Church has instituted legal structures to implement (or not!) the Vatican II documented statements, including the above goal of ‘honest dialogue’ (Orsy, 2009).
Örsy applauds the “energy” of the Vatican II discussions and final documents. He concludes perhaps the apparent chaos in the Church since the Council is, in fact, a continuation of this energy as the Catholic community faces the challenges of integrating centuries-old traditions with contemporary-world realities. Örsy uses the term “reception” to refer to the dynamic process of receiving or accepting doctrines and laws promulgated by the Church. In a global talk-back or interactive communication culture, there is almost inevitably some ‘static’ introduced into this reception. Örsy further notes there is a serious lack of consultation embedded in the new Code of Church Law circulated after the Council. Non-ordained persons are not allowed active involvement in the construction of church law. Thus, Örsy claims, “unlike civil communities, we have no means built into the system for the renewal of our laws.” He later notes this closes out a lot of creativity, for truly creative individuals will not be attracted to such a closed legal task.
I have been studying interactive communications for almost three decades (Plude, 1981, 1994, 1996, 2001, 2005, 2007), with special reference to the need for dialogue both within the Catholic Church and in terms of the Church’s interaction with global cultures and communication flows. I proposed a model of cooperative interaction in my Harvard doctoral dissertation, under the direction of the MIT scholar Ithiel de Sola Pool (Plude, 1981). I later developed an extensive model or “map” of the development of interactive communication that ranges from the feudal society of oral traditions and monastery scriptoria to today’s world of wireless technology and on-the-spot digital networks (Plude, 2007). Using four grids (see Appendix), this model shows parallel tracks between cultural contexts, media formats and structures of social and religious thought. Reviewing the links shows that the increasing diversity of media channels – especially those media formats that allow ‘talk-back’ – seems to facilitate a number of things: decentralization; economic, political, and religious liberation; and the decline of hierarchical authority structures, for example.
I conclude: “As talk-back forums and technologies develop, it becomes more difficult to control the communication content of inter- and intra-group exchanges. Liberation movements emerge and become stronger, fueled by “people-on-the-streets” power – people who are connected instantly by cell phones and Internet social media. All this represents a huge challenge for centralized, hierarchical religious institutions. However, people in communities of faith just keep on interacting!
In her own research, Ineke de Feijter harks back to dialogue related to genuine community as articulated by Buber (de Feijter, 2007). She suggests this “as a point of departure with respect to (religious) communication. It means another person is respected as a subject, in his or her own right, and is not to be made into an object, as a ‘target’ of communication.” She also notes communication rights cannot be exercised without the existence of a public sphere as one of the pillars of democracy. She later refers to four key principles of communication rights: freedom, inclusiveness, diversity, and participation (271). deFeijter states: “A worldwide, genuine communication society, at all levels, cannot be reached without a broad, society-wide conversation about what future we actually want. … Churches have an important contribution to make in this respect” (322).
After reviewing many church policy statements on their communication goals ((from a variety of denominations), de Feijter notes: “The one-way model of communication and the instrumental view of media are under pressure; however, they prevail in the majority of church documents studied here… Definitions about interactivity are not elaborated nor is [interactivity] analyzed for its implications for the church and its communication” (257-8). In her extensive analysis of church communication documents, Ineke de Feijter presents a valuable and rich perspective. This scholar and practitioner calls attention to the potential for churches to take the lead in personal communication, democratization and empowerment, public presence and participation, grassroots communication - and as a space for dialogue. And she respectfully critiques where they fall short in this role.
Some general recommendations could be added here:
There should be an honest respect for dialogue within, and between, churches; just having a Facebook page does not mean authentic acceptance of feedback.
Respectful theological interaction should occur between various cultures.
Humans, globally, represent a variety of stories. Churches need to respect these individual stories as they proclaim Gospel stories.
The theologian Bernard Häring reflects upon the Ethics of Communication and notes: “A teaching Church that is not, above all, a learning, listening Church, is not on the wave-length of divine communication.” (Free and Faithful in Christ, 155, emphasis added)).
References
De Feijter, Ineke. 2007. The Art of Dialogue: Religion, Communication and Global Media Culture. Berlin, Lit Verlag (distributed in the UK and North America by Global Book Marketing, London, Transaction Publishers, Rutgers University).
Örsy, Ladislas. 2009. Receiving the Council: Theological and Canonical Insights and Debates. Collegeville: Liturgical Press.
Plude, Frances Forde. 1981. Direct Broadcast Satellites in America: Defining Policy Issues Through Cooperative Interaction. Unpublished dissertation. Harvard University.
Plude, Frances Forde. 1994. “Interactive Communications in the Church,” in The Church and Communication, ed. Patrick Granfield. Kansas City: Sheed and Ward.
Plude, Frances Forde. 1996. “Forums for Dialogue: Teleconferencing and the American Catholic Church” in Media, Culture and Catholicism, Paul A. Soukup, ed., Kansas City: Sheed and Ward.
Plude Frances Forde. 2001. “Telecommunication Networks: Impacts on Communication Flows and Organizational Structures (Including Religious Institutions), in Cultura y Medios de Communicación, University of Salamanca.
Plude, Frances Forde. 2005. “L’interactivité de la communication: un signe des temps,” in Temoigner de sa foi dans les médias, aujourd’hui, Guy Marchessault, ed. Les Presses de l’Universite d’Ottawa.
Plude, Frances Forde. 2007. “Religion and Mediated Popular Culture: The Need for Dialogue,” in Communicatio Socialis: Challenge of Theology and Ministry in the Church, Eds Rolfes and Zukowski. Kassel: Kassel University Press.
Pottmeyer, Hermann. 1994. “Dialogue as a Model for Communication in the Church,” in The Church and Communication, ed. Patrick Granfield, 97-103. Kansas City: Sheed and Ward.
Appendix
Figure 1
Centralized Periods
Constructed by Frances Forde Plude
Figure 2: Development of Interactive Communication Systems
Decentralized Phases (1960s To Date)
Constructed by Frances Forde Plude
Figure 3: Development of Interactive Communication Systems
Growth of Dialogic Theory and Structures
Constructed by Frances Forde Plude
Figure 4: Development of Interactive Communication Systems
A Postmodern View
Constructed by Frances Forde Plude
