Did Archbishop Welby say "Twitter kills thoughtful reflection?"

(Ahead of the church's "Social Media Sunday", I'd thought it good to reprint my piece in The Episcopal Cafe)

John Stevens' headline and bullet points in Daily Mail sure are provocative:

Twitter kills thoughtful reflection, says Welby: Archbishop insists big questions cannot be answered in '140 characters' 

---Most Reverend Justin Welby made comments in major Westminster speech---He warned politicians including Cameron and Miliband of social media---'Instant reaction' has replaced 'reflective comment', he said

John Bingham said similar things in his writeup in The Telegraph:

The rise of Twitter and other social media sites is threatening to kill off quiet reflection, the Archbishop of Canterbury has warned. 

Instant reaction has rapidly replaced “reflective comment” in an era in which angry remarks can be spread to “the far corners of the Earth” within seconds, the Most Rev Justin Welby said. 

The need to compress arguments into the 140-character limit for Twitter messages can distort discussion on complex subjects, he told an audience including David Cameron and the Labour leader Ed Miliband.

My first reaction, as a regular user of Twitter, was that perhaps he is unaware that each of The Beatitudes are 140 characters or less...

But upon investigation (thanks to 21st-century technology), I believe Archbishop Welby did NOT say any such thing about Twitter. In fact, I mostly agree what he did say in this section of his address at the National Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast (with my bolding text):

"A 21st-century global Church, with all Christians irrevocably belonging to each other through the action of God, seeking to discern truth in many thousand cultures, is a church with fuzzy edges; because in a world in which cultures overlap constantly, and are communicated instantly – and, judging from what I get, often with some friction – you need space to adapt and to meet with one another, and you have to trust the sovereign grace of God for the consequences. He (unclear if Bishop Welby means Pope Francis or Cardinal Vincent Nichols) comments that even 20 years ago took months to reach the far corners of the earth now, as we know, take seconds. Instant reaction has replaced reflective comment. That is a reality that you deal with in politics, and it demands a new reality of ways in which we accept one another, love each other, pray for each other. The best answer to a complex issue on which one has heard a soundbite from a sophisticated argument is not always given in 140 characters. 

"The Church of this century must be a generous church, because of that communications revolution, because of technology, because we are face-to-face with everyone, everywhere, always, in a way we never have been in history. The Church is a generous church which loves truth and loves people with the overwhelming love of God in Christ. As Christians we believe that God reaches out to us unconditionally and we are to do the same for others. God has no preferences, except a preference of love for the poor, the weak and the vulnerable; the widow and the orphan, the alien and the stranger. The Church is the most effective church when it demonstrates that love. And with that love comes the obligation of holiness: of being ourselves, but not turned inwards but living in holy lives that draw people to the blessing of which Isaiah spoke.

The Archbishop certainly did not say "kill Twitter", or even that Twitter has no purpose (although, ironically, that's the instant reaction expressed in these stories). Noting that technology makes instant reaction the norm does not mean it is inherently bad, just different from the past. He even makes clear that "a sophisticated argument is not always given in 140 characters". That's certainly true, and leaves plenty of room for meaningful Twitter dialogue. His valuing reflective and extended dialogue should not preclude using the tools of social media.

What I think (and hope) he's also saying is that the church should be aware and engaged in the age of instant reaction, AND lift up the value of reflective and nuanced conversation, all in a spirit of generosity.

That's worthwhile, when it does and doesn't fit in a Tweet.

The misogynist extremism of the Santa Barbara rampage

Stories of the Santa Barbara man who killed his roommate and then went out shooting sorority women is dominating social media.  He left a video about why he did it:  blaming women for denying him what he wanted (sexual response).

Yes, there are issues concerning mental illness and gun control, but the realities of misogynist culture must not be downplayed in this story.

Here are just two of the many voices that need to be heard (with short excerpts from their articles so worth reading):

The Rev. Dr. Victoria Weinstein, "Rape Culture and The Myth of the Random Psycho" on her blog, PeaceBang:

The term “rape culture,” which has been in use for some time among younger feminists – particularly in the context of the sexual entitlement and sexual violence-soaked climate of American college campuses — makes many people uncomfortable. But it is a term that I want to use here in order to stand in solidarity with the younger and more outspoken generation that coined it, and in order to support the work of confronting the sick sexual culture in which Elliot Rodger’s mental illness progressed. Rodger left a manifesto that makes it absolutely clear that his actions were developed, pre-meditated and carried out because women he lusted after did not respond to him. For this “crime,” he murdered them.

The Rev. Dr. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, "Yes, There Is a War On Women and #YesAllWomen

The hashtag #YesAllWomen started trending on Twitter soon after the shootings, giving testimony to the widespread culture of violence against women and to how it is becoming almost acceptable. The #YesAllWomen is a furious rebuttal to the familiar 'not all men' argument that deflects analysis of rape culture and redirects it to individual male behaviors. 

If you read the Twitter feed, you will scroll through fear, rage, heartbreak, courage, lament, insightful analysis of rape culture, as the tweet above demonstrates, and more. It is a virtual tour of the battlefield of the war on women. You can, for a time, actually witness to the fact that all day long, all night long, every day and every night, the bodies of women and girls are turned into a battlefield. Their bodies are penetrated against their will; they are burned, maimed, bruised, slapped, kicked, threatened with a weapon, confined, beaten with fists or objects, shot, knifed; their bones are broken, they lose limbs, sight, hearing, pregnancies, and their sense of personal and physical integrity. They are terrorized and they are killed.

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D./H.Y.D.R.A.: prediction on top of predictions

SPOILER ALERT:  if you aren't current as of April 11th, don't read this.

I saw Captain America:  The Winter Solider, and immediately came home and watched episode 17 of Agents of SHIELD, "Turn, Turn, Turn".

I felt really good about myself and all of my predictions:  until the last minutes of the episode.

Yes, patting my own back, I was right about Agent Garrett.  I was right that Victoria Hand was certain that Coulson was HYDRA, and that explained her closing dialogue, and she was not HYDRA.  I was right that May was reporting directly to Nick Fury.

But Ward???  STUNNED!!!

It completely makes sense:  every action of Ward's throughout the series could reasonably be seen to be an agent of HYDRA.  He weaves himself unquestionably into the team:  jumping out of the plane to save Simmons, bedding Agent May, and of course, his overprotective XO actions towards Skye (things producers Jeph Loeb and Jeffrey Bell have been saying a lot lately here and here...they've suddenly become very chatty???!!!)

It makes sense that someone on the team would be HYDRA, and revealing Ward gives two options:  he always was HYDRA, or has decided to side with his former XO because of everything that has happened.  His dialogue with Skye just before reveals either regret, or resignation that he would betraying her.  Garrett's words to Skye on how Ward has changed could be either deceptive, or probing.

I would not be that surprised if a major part of the rest of this series involves the team dealing with this betrayal.

However...I think we're being tricked again.

While I find Ward's betrayal believable (this is not Snape killing Dumbledore...I KNEW there was more to that), I am going to double down on the idea that Agents of SHIELD is duping us again.

Many have mentioned the look that Coulson gives Ward before he leaves with Garrett and Hand.  Is it possible something is set up?  No way, you might say:  HE PUT THREE BULLETS IN AGENT HAND.  Yes, he did:  but I don't believe that is exactly as it seems, because there could be more to it.

Victoria Hand chooses to blow Garrett out of the sky and commandeer the bus because she SUSPECTS Garrett and Coulston, not because she has proof.  She is overly cautious, and she trusts almost no one, because she knows HYDRA hides out in the open.  Her speech to Simmons is persuasive in selling that point.

We are supposed to believe that Hand then makes herself vulnerable, giving Ward a gun because she suddenly decides Garrett has to die?  Remember that Ward "let his emotions get the best of him" in shooting who he thought (but wasn't) the Clairvoyant:  a major reason she suspected Coulson in the first place?!!!

Hand seems to be one who calculates, not someone who on a whim decides to let Ward take care of things, giving him the opportunity to betray them all.

I think that Hand has prepared for this moment, to a certain extent.  Marvel's universe is known for having clones, and this is where it happens.  Ward killed a clone of Victoria Hand, in order to infiltrate HYDRA.

It's the perfect cover:  Ward was already facing a inquiry for killing the "Clairvoyant", he is close to Garrett, and now has killed Hand in cold blood.  He is a triple agent:  and still Coulson's man.  

Or he's not, and I'm wrong.