Cambridge Analytica - Living in the Matrix

I well remember the sense of anticipation in seeing in the New Year at the end of 1983. As I had grown up, the year 1984 had stood as a symbol of a feared future in which, as the author of that book puts it, ‘Big Brother is Watching You’. The book also contains the lines: ‘He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.’ George Orwell wrote his book in 1949, when the year 1984 seemed a long way off. It was a work of fiction, yet a serious comment on the way society was going and a warning about a future in which our society could be under constant surveillance and public manipulation. Lots of interesting things happened in 1984, but in other ways life in 1984 was not unlike 1983. At the time, there was much commentary as to whether anything Orwell had predicted has actually come true.  Fifteen years later, in 1999, the Wachowski Brothers released the highly original film The Matrix. It won four Academy Awards and the story was continued by two further films, which completed the planned trilogy. The story line is confusing at first, which puts us in the same place as the hero, Thomas Anderson, who operates as a computer hacker under the name Neo. What Neo comes to realise (and too so we, the audience) is that the life people are experiencing is a computer generated fantasy. In reality, the biological human life forms are each contained in a water filled pod with their actual bodies plumbed into life support tubes. This is the Matrix, a fantasy world controlled by others, which isolates them from the realities of life. Neo is hailed as ‘The One’ who will lead the way out of this vision of hell. But the system fights back to protect itself, in the form of the many agents called ‘Smith’. The story is the battle for freedom from the Matrix.

Of course (as far as we know), the Matrix is a fantasy, yet it too comments on the society in which we live. It uses a vivid story to question just how real are the things that seem to make up the stuff of our lives and to what extent we are under the control of unseen powers and forces. I have found myself reflecting on these things in the light of the revelations about Cambridge Analytica and their use of some 50 million profiles harvested from Facebook. The interviews with senior executives, secretly filmed by Chanel 4 News, certainly suggest that some deeply worrying things have been going on and that the company (or associated companies) was deeply involved in Trump’s election success in America and (almost certainly) in the UK referendum vote on Brexit. There is a lot of political posturing going on at the moment. For those who dislike Brexit, here is evidence that there was cheating involved and the vote cannot be seen to be valid. For those on the other side, this is all a complete nonsense and the use of such data cannot possibly have had anything to do with the result. I am somewhat bemused by those who think the analysis of data and the resulting custom-building of advertising has no effect. Such companies would not attract such high fees if this were the case. It is estimated that at least 40% of the Leave Campaign’s was spent with these companies. It was the way to win the vote.

It has been suggested that you cannot win elections by putting adverts on Facebook. Yet this is not the point. We are not consumers of Facebook, we are the product, and how the operation worked was not to send us information through Facebook, but to harvest our profiles. This allowed the kind of advertising (immigration, NHS, etc) that would play to our deepest hopes and fears. It was not about winning arguments, but playing emotions. It was also about identifying the half-million or so people, who could swing the vote one way or the other, and feeding them what it would take to vote in the right way. We were certainly played and manipulated. Yet I wonder whether this is really any different to the kind of data-analysis that has been practiced for a long time and by both side in any given contest. Perhaps we are shocked by the scale of the operation and brought to the realisation that we all live out our lives with our hearts on our electronic sleeves. The personal information we put online is wide open to manipulation by individuals and groups. who have the money, power and expertise to do so. My concern is not to suggest that the Brexit vote was a fix, nor to point a finger of blame at one side or the other, but to suggest that something is deeply wrong here. I wanted to remain in Europe, but I came to accept that there could be an argument for reclaiming our sovereignty and our sense of democracy by withdrawing from an increasingly controlling bureaucracy, led by unelected officials at the heart of the EU. Yet I am left with a question. To what extent are we taking back control of our country, if major decisions about our future can be controlled by shadowy figures of power who, it seems, can determine the course of democracy? Maybe what Cambridge Analytica did was not against the law, but after a year-on-year pushing of boundaries of what is possible we are waking up to a chilling world in which others, not we ourselves, seem to be making the decisions that will affect our lives and our future. There are huge questions here as to how we might better build human communities and societies. We might start by asking again what it might mean for the Kingdom of Heaven to be established here on earth, as it is in heaven.

Transfigured in Joy

Like so many of us in the Salisbury Diocese, I have a heart for the people of Sudan. We have collected money for the church in Sudan, enjoyed two-way exchanges, been challenged by their faith and fortitude and engaged in supporting both the diocesan medical link and the specific local link between Poole hospital and the hospital in Wau. So I rejoice that the Spirit has moved Archbishop Daniel Deng Bul to ordain Elizabeth Awut Ngor as a bishop in the diocese of Rumbek. This move has not gone without some adverse comment. Peter Jensen has commented on behalf of GAFCON. He speaks of this consecration as an anomaly and he manages to avoid any mention of her name. She is just ‘a female bishop’. He states that this issue poses a threat to ‘the unity we prize’ and he concludes that further discussions are needed ‘as we seek to find a common mind, looking to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace’.

I have to say that all this is a far cry from my understanding of what unity in the Spirit means. Unity that comes by discussion, agreement and finding a common mind is the sort of unity that might be sort in a dysfunctional government, trade union or country club. People are arguing with one another, so a means must be found of reaching a settlement so that, even if some form of compromise is needed, an understanding is agreed, which holds people together, even if it is an uneasy peace that has been achieved. I wonder where the word ‘Spirit’ comes into all of this. The capital S indicates that what is in mind here is nothing less than the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit guide the process, or does she await the human activity of coming to a common mind before putting her stamp of approval on things?

My own adult faith dawned after a prolonged period of contemplative prayer, as I found myself transported to the foot of the cross and I saw the depth of love that had led Jesus to give his life for me. My heart has never been moved by doctrines of atonement. I can only say that at that moment my heart was melted and I found myself, not only blown off my feet by the experience, but my heart set on fire with a love that was all consuming and totally transforming. Nothing in life was ever the same again. It was a new birth. I was filled by the Spirit and brought into a new relationship both with God and with creation. It also totally altered my perception of what it meant to belong to the Church. No longer was it a dusty old institution to which I might belong. To be part of the Church was now to have been swept into a new family of people for whom standing at the foot of the cross and having been transfigured by the Spirit was the shared defining moment in our lives. It is this that is the ‘first order’ issue for me. It is not something to be defended, but rather an exuberant joy to be shared, not least when we are bound together in celebration at the Eucharistic feast.

It follows that everything else is a second order issue. We will profoundly disagree about what seem to be the big issues of our day, but such differences, however irreconcilable they might seem, are somehow diminished in the light of the exuberant joy of the life of the Spirit and the sense of unity that sharing in that life brings. In other words, it is the reality of sharing Spirit filled lives as children of God that we find the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace. It is something given to us by God, which supersedes any earthly differences. That does not excuse us from seeking resolution to whatever issue might predominate in our present time, but we can live with difference and agree-to-disagree, for these issues are not what define us. What defines us is our shared joy that has transported us into the life of the Kingdom.

The Beast from the East - Living on the Edge

As we recover from the clash between the Beast from the East and Storm Emma, I recall what was being said some years ago, that a consequence of global warming could be that overheating at the North Pole would disrupt the Gulf Stream and plunge us into extremely cold weather. This is the basis of what happened this last week. I first heard the term ‘climate change’ in 1969. We had a supply teacher for a term, on our A-level Biology course, who came from a very different background to that of our normal teachers. He was a Marine Biologist, rather than a teacher, and he was in the process of writing up his PhD thesis. At a convenient gap between two parts of the syllabus, we spent a lesson listening to him explaining his research to us. I forget now what he had been studying, but it was some minuscule wee beastie that lived in the sea and he had been looking at the effects of climate change on it. Over time it had survived a steady increase in temperature, so a key question was whether there was any limit to what it could survive and what effect a further increase in temperature would have. How might it adapt? The answer was that it was doing fine at its current temperature, but at a further increase of only 0.5C it would become extinct. It had seemed that things were looking good for it. It was coping with climate change, but what had not been apparent was that it was at the very limit of survivability. We had never heard the term ‘climate change’ before, but he told us that this would become the biggest issue in our lives.

Recently a TV program on the demise of the dinosaurs suggested that most of them were killed off within 24 hours, with the remaining survivors perishing within two weeks of the meteorite strike.  The overall message was of the fragility of life and the fact that, for any species or ecosystem, extinction can arrive very suddenly and very brutally. It is an extraordinary statistic that over 99% of all species that have ever lived on this planet are now extinct. What of humanity? The warnings, so often given, yet ignored by many, are not simply that we are the major contributor to global warming, but that we are destroying the very environment in which we live and are the prime cause of what has been dubbed the ‘sixth extinction’, which is our present age. The history of our planet is often divided into epochs, such as the Jurassic, which ended some 145 million years ago. In our own time it has been suggested that we have brought about a new epoch, which has been called the Anthropocene, because of the significant impact that humanity has had on the planet’s ecosystems. It is not yet decided exactly when to date the start of this new epoch, but a significant number of people opt for 16^th July 1945, which is the date of the detonation of the very first atomic bomb in New Mexico, USA. In geological terms, that event has left its signature in our environment. Future intelligent beings, millions of years from now, will be doing geological digs and finding the tell-tale signature in the rocks which was laid down by the Trinity test on 16^th July 1945. The Anthropocene might well last for millions of years, an epoch shaped by the human race, but humanity itself might well be on the very edge of extinction.

Where is the theology in all of this? The bible is full of challenge and the prophets of old proclaimed doom to those who did not walk the way of the Lord. Yet there was also the looking forward in hope for the Day of the Lord. Jesus, as he started his public ministry, read from a scroll of the Prophet Isaiah and then told his listeners that, today, this prophecy had found its fulfillment. As Christians we believe that God is in Christ reconciling the world to himself. We look forward to the fulfillment of the promised Kingdom, which even now is breaking into our lives. We live in the expectation that Christ will come again. I firmly believe in all these things, that our lives are in God’s hands and that we shall be caught up into the life of God and experience the joys of eternal life. To believe this is to live with hope for a future that we can now only glimpse at. Yet I also believe that we might yet destroy ourselves, as we continue to destroy the environment that sustains us. To think otherwise is highly dangerous, for it leaves us with the idea that our actions have no consequences and that somehow, however we abuse our planet, God will step in to negate what we are doing. The answer must be to hear again the message of scripture and to live with a joyful vibrancy the life of the Kingdom in ways that engage in and challenge the assumptions and vested interests of our world. It is to be the people through whom God is stepping in to point to a better way.  

Brexit - The Third Dimension

One word that can be used to describe different aspects of the same thing is ‘dimension’. Moving from a two dimensional view to a three dimensional one greatly increases our perception. A different word is ‘phase’, yet that separates the different aspects into a sequence in time. When we talk about Brexit, we are very much aware of the sequence of the two phases. First we must negotiate our divorce settlement with Europe, then we can move onto the second phase, which is the trade deal we aspire to achieve with the European Community. It was not the way we wanted to play things. At the outset we had hoped that these two dimensions to our negotiations would be part of the same negotiation, but the Europeans insisted that these two dimensions would in fact be phases. Phase two could only start when the first phase had either been completed, or at least had reached an acceptable stage of completion. I want to suggest that we should think three dimensionally, which is to say that there is a third dimension to this business, one which seems to have been largely ignored until now. I use the word ‘dimension’, because if the first two elements have been separated into phases, this third element is not a phase. It should have been apparent from that outset.

My third dimension is leadership. As someone who has been a parish priest for over three decades, I know something about leadership. To lead a church congregation is to draw together a varied group of people, who may well have deeply divergent views on different subjects. Both the ordination of women and society’s acceptance of same-sex relationships are issues which have divided opinion between Christians. Providing leadership in a church congregation involves listening to people, valuing people and drawing them into a shared future direction which has its basis, not these divisive issues, but the welcoming and proclaiming of the kingdom of God. A church which can be drawn into one (despite such differences) is a church which comes alive with creative possibilities and a buzz of excitement about the future. Seeking to provide such leadership as this has been my aspiration throughout my ministry.

I don’t know much about the political mechanics of leaving the EU or the intricacies of forging a new trade deal with the EU and the wider world. However I do know something about leadership and it is painfully obvious that such leadership is almost completely lacking in our present time. There is nothing controversial in saying this. Our Government seems to be deeply divided and our nation at odds with one another in a way that sharply contrasts with the exuberant days of pride in our country that was seen in the London Olympics of 2012. I do believe that Brexit is like driving off a tall cliff and there are some very sharp rocks below. To deny this is to live in a fantasy world. It is like a tight-rope walker setting off on a rope that is strung across a deep canyon. She achieves this, not by denying the dangers that lie beneath her, but in conquering that fear with a confidence that she has the skills to achieve this feat. Knowledge of what befalls her, if she slips, is a key element in focusing her mind on the task before her. Knowing that Brexit could cripple both our economy and our society is not ‘Project Fear’, but a realism that how we exit the EU and build a new future has to be got right. And it is here, I suggest, that leadership is so important. Driving off the cliff, in the belief that there will lots of wonderful opportunities before us, is utter foolishness. There is a difference between saying that there are opportunities and having the skill to grasp those opportunities. The leadership that we need is one which can enshrine those opportunities in a united vision for the future so that, as a nation, we are drawn together in our desire to drive off the cliff, recognizing the risks, but confident that we can indeed fly. Recently they were interviewing people about Brexit and one man said that he just wanted to get out of the EU so that our country can go back to what it once was. That will never happen. We cannot regain an imagined past. What we need is inspiring, visionary leadership that can draw us together in a journey towards what we can be. It needs to build community, heal division, reform society, bind us together in renewed engagement in the world and create a common sense of purpose. This is the third element in the Brexit process. It is something which seems sadly lacking, yet it is the key to creating a new future in which we will all flourish.