Theological Education and Social Responsibility

United Methodist theological schools have traditionally worked within a cultural system that assumed the value, and indeed necessity, of institutional engagement with the larger society both as a form of institutional responsibility and as a critical part of the pedagogy of preparing people for ministry in a socially engaged church. While this commitment remains unchanging, the modes of engagement must change in response to the changing cultural environments in which schools find themselves as well as the changing cultures within the churches their students will serve. 

As I suggested in the previous post, this first requires using the concept of culture as a key framework for analyzing the social situation in which a school finds itself. This doesn't displace other frameworks for social analysis, but it can help identify how to most effectively proclaim the gospel in its social context. After all, it is primarily culture that determines how societies understand themselves and adapt to their environment. Particularly in the complex cultural setting of contemporary US and global society understanding underlying cultural values and modes of influence will be critical to the faithful exercise of social responsibility. 

One aspect of this is grasping the complexity of US culture, particularly as it affects political values and affiliations. The work of Woodard in America's Nations is only one example of important contemporary efforts to map the complexity of the social terrain in which Christians bear witness. 

Another example is the rapid change and diminution in the role of traditional media in shaping the conscience of society, as well as the fragmentation of social consciousness abetted by the rise of new social media. Traditional means of shaping pubic opinion toward political decisions that accomplish social goals have greatly diminished in effectiveness, leaving institutions committed to these means without their traditional influence. In the case of the theological school this not only impacts the witness of the school, it impacts the effectiveness of the leaders they are training. 

We have seen this is the 2016 elections. In the period prior to the elections in my home state, Texas, there were an unprecedented number of political rallies opposing the election of Donald Trump and the implementation of his policies. The traditional media were flooded with messaging from churches and advocacy groups opposed to the policies of now president Trump. Yet in the end there was little evidence of impact on the final voting. Instead, as has been thoroughly analyzed, it was social media and non-traditional news that seemed to have been most effective in engaging president Trump's base and demotivating his opponents. Neither marches nor rallies, nor mainstream media blitzes seem to have been effective. 

By contrast the campaign of Beto O'Rourke for senate only two years later in 2018 used social media in combination with traditional block-walking to great effect in a near-defeat of Ted Cruz, who had been considered untouchable. This was at least in part because Cruz' campaign did not understand the emerging cultures of Texas and thus he continued to rely heavily on both the traditional media and messaging of his previous successful campaign.  

This is relevant to socially engaged theological education because schools have a responsibility to influence the emerging society of the 21st century toward Christian values, and because students need to learn how they and their ministries can be effective as change agents in society. This latter is in part an issue of ecclesiology, and thus a realm of contestation among theologians. But it is equally a matter of understanding effective communication in the wider cultural environment: a primarily missiological question that requires an understanding of how various forms of media function in different cultural settings. 

As an example: One important example of changing roles of media is a shift from messaging to conversation as a means of influencing individuals and groups. Traditional media place static messages in the public realm, repeating them almost endlessly to maintain and widen their influence. Social media allow and encourage conversation and engagement with a message. The most effective messages are not those broadcast most widely, but those which spread virally as individuals repeat them and draw their own social network into conversation. 

We have begun to understand that social media are ineffective when used as a megaphone to announce events or promulgate political ideas. They are most effective when those who seek to influence society can both initiate and shape an ongoing conversation that spreads organically through interlocking social networks. 

This is, of course, only the most basic description of how an emerging cultures influence institutional commitments to social engagement. The reality is both more complex and demands its own theological analysis. In the 19th century the debate over the "use of means" in evangelism was effectively short-circuited as Christians rapidly accepted the emerging cultural values. After all, they arose within a presumed Christian culture. Now, even as institutions and leaders must learn how to use social media effectively, the question of whether social media by its very nature promulgates values antithetical to the gospel must be considered. Again, this is a fundamentally missiological question with its own tradition of inquiry.

While the current cultural landscape can seem daunting the basic questions that need to be ask are familiar to Christians engaged in witness in new and complex cultural settings. Where in emerging or newly encountered cultures do we see the work of God in manifestations of God's Reign? Where do we find hostility to that reign that must be transformed by love? Such questions must not only be addressed to contemporary society, but to the means by which society engages in its own transformation. Only as we answer these questions can theological schools become effective agents of change.