Soukup (2003: 104) says that the method of communication plays a role along with the content of any communication. He goes on to say that the structure of communication has influenced how the Church does its thinking. Communication patterns help to shape what people know, or at least how people express and think about what they know (:105).
Soukop argues 'that the form of theology influences the subject matter of theology' (1996: 55).
If communications form affects the way society thinks then it seems clear that theology will be affected. Soukop (2003: 108-109) points out that theology has been affected by the gradual shift from orality to literacy. In New Testament times proclamation was important and the collection of this proclamation in written form soon followed. The theology of the early Church was in part oral and in part written - St. Augustine delivered sermons but also wrote books which resembled these sermons or speeches. Thomas Aquinas uses text much more in an oral manner - questions and answers - but theology after this slowly becomes much more analytic and abstract. Books reach a wider audience but statements and doctrine start to take the form of not easily memorable formulae which are reasoned and lengthy and require a written text. Theology, therefore, moved from proclamation in a large assembly to the quiet, private reading and study of books.
Soukop says that another shift has taken place in communications structures which can be described in several ways (: 109). First, written scripts have become orally performed
14 Paul Soukop is a theologian working as Associate-Professor in the Department of Communications at the University of Santa Clara in California. He has written extensively on the role of the communications media (form) and how this sets the agenda for the direction and shift in doing and understanding theology today.
in things like film and television (referred to as 'secondary oral cultures' ) and hence there is a development, i.e. film, but also reverting back to an older style - that of orality.
Second, there is a mixture of oral and written cultures. The second orality of the television and film culture mixes with the primary orality of an oral culture, but lacks the full characteristics of the primary oral culture; for example memory was important in the primary but is not as important in the secondary. Third, he says that secondary orality makes use of images along the lines of a literate model - they are, unlike the primary oral cultures, shown in a certain sequence which is guided by the flow of text. Hence, the concerns and methods of theology will change with the change in communicative structures. This does not deny the importance of the content of the Church's tradition, but it does tell us how the Church thinks and is thinking within the broader context of society. He says that the form of theology can be its danger, especially for those who do not know or understand the form (1996: 65). He then gives a short analysis, by way of example, of what the impact might be and what this could mean for theology and pastoral ministry today (:65-66).
He highlights the fact that contemporary communications forms have moved away from logic and analysis and that symbol, emotion and perspective have become more important. Theology, however, is still taught very much in the form of logic and analysis and therefore can be alienated from people's lives, because the form in which it is presented does not resonate with their daily life experience, and people struggle to integrate and understand how God is working in their daily lives and not merely just in abstract formulas and dogmas. This is not to say, he suggests, that our theological heritage is obsolete, but that serious reflection is needed so that we can come to an appreciation of the tradition and therefore be able to translate the tradition into new forms that can be understood better. He also says that we can expect theological content and method to change as communicative forms change. This can lead to a deepening of theological thought and a more effective theology in culture; he cites the power with which liberation theology transformed the lives of many people 'on the ground' because
15 Soukop borrows this term and uses it to describe the emergence of television and film from Walter Ong, Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. (London, New York: Methuen, 1982).
they were able to make the connection between theological content and their daily life experience.
Soukop sees a number of directions theology needs to take in light of the development of theological form. He suggests that theology ought to recover its sensitivity to the analogical character of language. Theology has become more like linear scientific thought and by coming more analogical in character it takes advantage of our contemporary sensitivity to symbols. He says that scripture is a good starting point for this as it allows for 'multiple senses' i.e. an analytic and analogical reflection (:65). This is particularly interesting, and as I will try and show later, Ignatius of Loyola very much wants retreatants doing the Spiritual Exercises to use their imaginations and imagery in their treatment of the scriptures, in the light of their own life experiences.
Soukop also suggests that contemporary liturgy must be integrated with a congregation that has, due to the mode of communicative form in society, become an audience rather than a community which participates. Liturgists have, he admits, tried to bring in more action in the form of symbols, dance, music and drama, but we have to move beyond this into a form which will communicate with people today.
Christology can 'exploit Christ as the symbol of the new humanity in its teaching and proclamation' (:66). This is not to say that the Church's theological efforts and reflection should cease, but that the symbol of who and what Christ is can be used more effectively in a time and communications form that places high emphasis on the symbolic. He argues that the same can be said for the Church's Trinitarian theology. Rooted in the theology of the Trinity we already have the basis for communication as a relationship. He suggests that we use this analogy further, integrating the new knowledge we have about communication today.
In the ecclesiological realm the Church ought to include more specific considerations of dialogue as a communicative style which exhibits the current trend in communicative form. Multi-directional and participatory communication is the communicative form of
our times. This, he says, will also require a reflection on leadership and leadership roles based on communication.16 In an internet world the leaders are those who create and manage the networks, a power shift takes place and hence creates many questions about power and leadership which the Church will be forced to examine.
Theology has also come to an appreciation of the fact that it needs to be embedded in a culture for it to be effective. The addition of communication as part of culture, he argues, adds another dimension to this understanding. He suggests that theology will benefit from reflecting on meditative forms of communication, as the very purpose of theology is to prepare and facilitate the proclamation of the Gospel. Soukop (:66) suggests that our theological treasures should be re-thought in the light of new communicative forms and says that we, like the householder, must bring out of the storeroom things both old and new (Matt 13:52).
1 7
Soukop, commenting on the work of Mark Edwards Jnr, draws four parallel conclusions (based on the consequences of the publications of Luther) which we can see happening in our day through electronic media (2003: 120):
First, through the printing press religious disputes were like a propaganda war depending more on the popularity and skill of the communicator than on the theological principles.
He says that in our day religious reflection takes place in the context of entertainment and news programming. He says that these have more appeal to people than dry documents
16 In connection with leadership and authority issues, Richard Gaillardetz says that a common complaint of the Catholic right is that Catholic theologians see themselves as 'competing with' the college of bishops.
Hence dissenting theologians are perceived as a 'threat'. This is a widely shared and repeated position within Church circles. He says that this is a gross exaggeration. He goes on, however, to explain why he thinks a far greater threat and competition to the magisterium of the Church is, what he calls, an 'e- magisterium'. He says that there is a huge proliferation of self-proclaimed 'Catholic' websites that often dispense, in the name of orthodoxy, highly questionable theological material. He uses the example of Sri- Lankan theologian Tissa Balasuriya who was accused of confusing the faithful, put under investigation and eventually excommunicated (and later readmitted to the Church!). Balasuyria is reported to only have sold about 750 copies of the work that was judged unorthodox when he was put under investigation. Many so- called orthodox and dangerously misleading 'Catholic' websites receive, probably, more 'hits' in a single day! The New E-Magesterium, America, May 6, 2000. Vol. 182 No. 16.
17 Printing, propaganda, and Martin Luther. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994).
and theological statements of belief and equally dry and boring homiletic reflections on the scriptures.
A second parallel he draws on is the separation of texts from a discourse community which allowed people to communicate without having the shared meanings and understandings. Today this becomes even more the case because people have no sense of place online. Soukop says 'The instant and indiscriminate communication media work against any kind of socialization into a community and make theological reflection all the harder'(: 120).
A third parallel is that the printing press had both indirect and direct impact on people.
Citing Edwards, he says that much of the communication of Luther's ideas came to people through what later researchers called 'the two-step flow of communication' - from the media to a leader and eventually to the people. Soukop says that today's media repeatedly demonstrate this process. He gives the example of Oprah Winfrey's daily talk show which recommends a book and the book becomes an instant best-seller. The same shows also address and talk about religious themes and theology, a forum frowned on by some theologians and considered insufficient, but one which is shaping people's opinions and knowledge on these issues much more than any document or homily perhaps could.
Finally Soukop points to the way in which the printing press, for example, undermined the Catholic position on hierarchy and democratised communication. Communications media carry in them an implicit message; today's communications technologies do that also and these messages do not always relate to the intended theological use of a communications medium.