Interesting point - the alignment problem mention caught my attention at the beginning.
I did want to add a few nuances/caveats to some technical descriptions in your piece, and a comment about the ecclesial and theopraxy dimension:
- An algorithm is not necessarily a "model that predicts future outcomes based on past ones".
At its base, an algorithm is a set of steps or process based in mathematical rules, that achieves a specific goal, solves a problem, or produces an output from a given set of inputs. This can be as simple as a recipe or a basic algebra function, or complex as in neural reinforcement learning or the concept of "learning" from data occurrences to estimate future "events".
- Advertising optimizations do not necessarily need large language computing models; statistical machine learning in advertising has been used for years before the recent advances and market debuts that have pushed LLMs into mainstream use.
Regarding deconstruction and the church, I think you're getting at important realities of mimesis, social constructions of reality, and bourgeoisie discourses being mediated and reinforced by social dynamics and network effects vs. being completely organic. However, I don't think it's best to understand such a phenomenon by merely reducing it to one specific explanation or facet.
I'm concerned by any conclusion, including yours, that generalizes the problem with an explanation that places the onus on individuals in an individualistic ( one could invoke the "buffered self") society, because it seems like an easy out for churches and ministries to blame broader cultural and society "trends" vs. looking retrospectively at how ministry practices don't work, fail to form people or in some cases even simply get them on the path to a real understanding of Jesus, and lack a firm charism that should organically develop people into a Christ follower.
One of the issues that I observe particularly in a lot of reformed, "cultural engagement" focused, Tim Keller-adjacent churches and ministry leaders, as well as, frankly, perhaps more academically inclined "pastor theologians", and many swathes of churches such as the ACNA, is they seem to think that it's important to analyze, understand and respond (or react) to every such trend such as this, vs. spending the energy and organizational leadership (not merely "management") to simply build the foundations of a robust charism, spiritual practices, and the church as a means of grace.
I don't actually think it's super helpful to constantly analyze and try to understand or conclusively attribute things such as deconstruction; there will continue to be other phenomenon and similar "syncretist" or de-centering movements like this, but it's better for church and ministry leaders to build a robust foundation and focus on core of the faith + nurturing a robust "charism", and then let the chips fall where they may. There will likely continue to be a shuffling and people will "leave" the faith and/or involvement in a church (whether permanently or for a season), but ministry leaders shouldn't exert all their energy reacting to or trying to analyze these moves and trends, as if you have to completely or properly understand them in order to have a response. There is already a robust foundation found in scripture, the tradition of multiple different church bodies and expressions, and the movement of the Holy Spirit in the church and the world at large.
Thanks for this thoughtful engagement. I actually agree with you- this sort of analysis is not the work of the church or pastors, and people in those vocations who spend a lot of their energy doing "cultural analysis"; well, it betrays a whole series of missteps, imo.
So articulately reasoned and argued. Much food for thought. That eschewing this norm of pursuing “wisdom/life” in online “communities/spaces” would necessitate actual human community and shared pursuit of wisdom in the real world is reason enough to pull the plug on the machine that is arguably the biggest contributing factor to the explosion of mental health issues at present. Can we do it? Will our children? There is much to think about here, and your view of what faith could/should be is a hopeful anecdote to the, may I say, dirty word, “religion.” Thank you.
I’m going to be thinking about this all day (week?). You have put into words so much unease I’ve felt with where the “deconstruction movement” has ended up and a hunger to see us renew our institutions, not discard them.
These are such interesting points to think about. Especially how algorithms limit our "deconstructions" to a result that we have imagined, whereas God calls us into a new life beyond anything we could predict or envision. A faith reconstructed online is a faith that we have built for ourselves, with the help of a machine.
I have recently been mulling over the idea that "God can speak through the internet/social media/AI etc." I've no doubt that he can and does draw people to Himself using those means, but I wonder how the scales would balance out if we also include the number of people who are drawn away from Him online - a much harder thing to quantify.
This is important on many levels and following on Wes H is probably in defense of preaching. During more 25 years in the “pulpit” the tendency to want to have one’s beliefs reinforced, rather than challenged was obvious. But the narrowing Evangelical media echo-chamber existed long before the internet.
Interesting point - the alignment problem mention caught my attention at the beginning.
I did want to add a few nuances/caveats to some technical descriptions in your piece, and a comment about the ecclesial and theopraxy dimension:
- An algorithm is not necessarily a "model that predicts future outcomes based on past ones".
At its base, an algorithm is a set of steps or process based in mathematical rules, that achieves a specific goal, solves a problem, or produces an output from a given set of inputs. This can be as simple as a recipe or a basic algebra function, or complex as in neural reinforcement learning or the concept of "learning" from data occurrences to estimate future "events".
- Advertising optimizations do not necessarily need large language computing models; statistical machine learning in advertising has been used for years before the recent advances and market debuts that have pushed LLMs into mainstream use.
Regarding deconstruction and the church, I think you're getting at important realities of mimesis, social constructions of reality, and bourgeoisie discourses being mediated and reinforced by social dynamics and network effects vs. being completely organic. However, I don't think it's best to understand such a phenomenon by merely reducing it to one specific explanation or facet.
I'm concerned by any conclusion, including yours, that generalizes the problem with an explanation that places the onus on individuals in an individualistic ( one could invoke the "buffered self") society, because it seems like an easy out for churches and ministries to blame broader cultural and society "trends" vs. looking retrospectively at how ministry practices don't work, fail to form people or in some cases even simply get them on the path to a real understanding of Jesus, and lack a firm charism that should organically develop people into a Christ follower.
One of the issues that I observe particularly in a lot of reformed, "cultural engagement" focused, Tim Keller-adjacent churches and ministry leaders, as well as, frankly, perhaps more academically inclined "pastor theologians", and many swathes of churches such as the ACNA, is they seem to think that it's important to analyze, understand and respond (or react) to every such trend such as this, vs. spending the energy and organizational leadership (not merely "management") to simply build the foundations of a robust charism, spiritual practices, and the church as a means of grace.
I don't actually think it's super helpful to constantly analyze and try to understand or conclusively attribute things such as deconstruction; there will continue to be other phenomenon and similar "syncretist" or de-centering movements like this, but it's better for church and ministry leaders to build a robust foundation and focus on core of the faith + nurturing a robust "charism", and then let the chips fall where they may. There will likely continue to be a shuffling and people will "leave" the faith and/or involvement in a church (whether permanently or for a season), but ministry leaders shouldn't exert all their energy reacting to or trying to analyze these moves and trends, as if you have to completely or properly understand them in order to have a response. There is already a robust foundation found in scripture, the tradition of multiple different church bodies and expressions, and the movement of the Holy Spirit in the church and the world at large.
Thanks for this thoughtful engagement. I actually agree with you- this sort of analysis is not the work of the church or pastors, and people in those vocations who spend a lot of their energy doing "cultural analysis"; well, it betrays a whole series of missteps, imo.
So articulately reasoned and argued. Much food for thought. That eschewing this norm of pursuing “wisdom/life” in online “communities/spaces” would necessitate actual human community and shared pursuit of wisdom in the real world is reason enough to pull the plug on the machine that is arguably the biggest contributing factor to the explosion of mental health issues at present. Can we do it? Will our children? There is much to think about here, and your view of what faith could/should be is a hopeful anecdote to the, may I say, dirty word, “religion.” Thank you.
I’m going to be thinking about this all day (week?). You have put into words so much unease I’ve felt with where the “deconstruction movement” has ended up and a hunger to see us renew our institutions, not discard them.
This is excellent. So much to think on. Thank you.
These are such interesting points to think about. Especially how algorithms limit our "deconstructions" to a result that we have imagined, whereas God calls us into a new life beyond anything we could predict or envision. A faith reconstructed online is a faith that we have built for ourselves, with the help of a machine.
I have recently been mulling over the idea that "God can speak through the internet/social media/AI etc." I've no doubt that he can and does draw people to Himself using those means, but I wonder how the scales would balance out if we also include the number of people who are drawn away from Him online - a much harder thing to quantify.
This is important on many levels and following on Wes H is probably in defense of preaching. During more 25 years in the “pulpit” the tendency to want to have one’s beliefs reinforced, rather than challenged was obvious. But the narrowing Evangelical media echo-chamber existed long before the internet.