If the medium affects the message, how will the Christian message be affected by the new media?

Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost has invited bloggers to respond to the question posed in the title of this post, and so respond I shall:  I’ll explore various characteristics of new media, and then expound on how I think old-time religion will be shaped by new-time outlets.

“Pull” media, as opposed to the “push” media of television, radio, etc., provides users a large menu from which to choose items to their individual taste; no longer are those on this side of the digital divide (more on this later) relegated to the dictates of the anointed media conglomerates.  This encourages the development of a dynamic, varied and extremely competitive media landscape.  Such an environment tends to reinforce strong individuality, as the many actors in this drama must amplify their voices and views to be effective; it’s no coincidence that Dr. Ron Paul’s strong libertarian ideals tickled the fancy of Netizens across the U.S.  

The gospel can be very fruitful in these conditions.  If Christians refuse to dull the tang of their message with watery concessions to secular culture, the naturally radical nature of faithfully following Jesus will be a boat of signal in a sea of noise.  Speaking intelligently, loudly and unswervingly about timeless truths will be refreshing in a time of mushy thoughts and half-hearted positions.  I believe the Christian message will grow bolder due to these strongly individualizing conditions.

The anonymity afforded by new media often combines with intense individuality to create a volatile brew.  Discourses which would be fairly civil in the flesh become furious, flailing pwnage fests on the hills of our many digital fiefdoms: “How dare you interrupt my individualized comfort with your alternate views, I believe I will craft a Hitler reference or two…”.  I’m afraid the days of respectful dissent may be behind us.  Christians will have to develop thick new media armor to sustain an engaging minority presence in this majority secular world.  Effective presenters of the good news will truly have the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness; especially self control.  Nothing will weaken the Christian message quite like its deliverers getting down into the mud with anonymous God bashers.

The new environment is also marked by speed, speed SPEED, like a gazelle set on fire and pointed toward a lake. The oft lamented tiny attention spans encouraged by schizophrenic MTV editing seem downright glacial in comparison to the furious link leaping made possible with our T5,000,000 lines.  The Christian message will feel great pressure to display in many forms, in many places in order to catch the passing eye or ear of a possibly open minded media surfer.  We’ll need our presentation of the Message to be as attention grabbing as a peacock in heat if we hope to make it vital; expect to see creativity abound in effective Christian communications.  Please note: there’s always a danger in thoughts like these that people may interpret them, wrongly, as a dumbing-down of the gospel.  Engaging presentation and spiritually nutritious content needn’t be mutually exclusive; we’ll need to be careful to maintain the integrity of the Christian message while we tap dance, juggle and write in Latin and Greek simultaneously.  Christians have been notoriously poor at this task, so I think we’ll probably see a few more missteps of oversimplification in the name of “seeker-sensitivity”.

Ever since Internet, Inc. pushed out Web 2.0 onto shelves, we’ve also been encouraged to be interactive with new media.  It’s not enough to just collect all the RSS feeds and bookmarks that we find stimulating, we must enter the fray ourselves and add our ever-so-important contribution to the glut by blogging, uploading media, spreading viruses and belly-bashing the sumo wrestler for a “free” iPod.  We also connect with our fellow travelers; birds across the globe can discover they are of a feather and virtually flock together.  The isolation of earlier new media wanderings has given way to billions of mouse-clicking cliques.

The Christian community is thus given a great opportunity to add their perspectives to the idea marketplace, and to invite newbs into encouraging relationships.  I think we’ll see more apologetics-oriented bloggers, more online sermon audio archives, more digital Christian community in general.  This can have the effect of strengthening believers who know other Christians only virtually, which can in turn help the gospel spread even in areas of persecution.  In all this, though, we must be careful to not “forsake the assembling together of ourselves as some do”, lest we lose the real offline interaction so important to our humanity, our families and our faith. 

Finally, as hinted at early on in this post, new media intensifies generational and socio-economic divides.  I’d love to see my parents talk to their grandchildren via webcam, but as they never became particularly computer savvy and live in a rural area snubbed by internet providers, this probably won’t happen soon.  We’re likely on the cusp of information-haves gaining ever greater advantages over have-nots, dwarfing the already extreme differential.

Enter Christians opening internet access centers for the poor, providing computer training, supporting community WiFi efforts; just as a warm meal encourages gospel receptivity in a hungry person and acts as a great object lesson, so too can bridging the digital divide engender positive associations and reflect Jesus’ standing in the gap for us.  The Christian message will need to reach the un-wired, too, if it is to stay compelling.

Christianity has a remarkable track record of maintaining its core through social and technological upheavals, and I’m sure the new media phenomenon will not erode this foundation.  Built on the Rock itself, the message will remain as critical as ever, though carried as it is by human messengers, I’m sure we’ll see the new tools at our disposal misused from time to time.  Despite the frailties of man, though, I’m excited to see how Christianity will find its voice in this latest technological epoch, and to stand witness to God in the machine.

Disappointed with the Poison

I’m so disappointed at how ad hominem discussions between theists and atheists often become. Maybe it’s a result of the so-called “New Atheism”, or perhaps it’s due to the sense of theism slipping out of a place of cultural influence, but so many conversations I see and participate in become deluged by thoughtless attacks, dehumanization of the opposition, etc. Theists are just as guilty of this as atheists.

I certainly hope that culture starts turning away from this sort of poisonous discourse; whether atheism or theism is true, we’ll never live to find out if we keep swallowing these bitter pills.

The Purpose-Driven Strife

I’ve been thinking much lately about how Naturalism could possibly account for humanity’s well-documented desire for purpose. I think this topic is pretty central to the tension between Naturalists and Theists, so it makes sense that discussion about meaning between the two camps tends to get ugly fast. I’ll try to make this post as open as possible considering it comes from a Theist.

I assume most Naturalists would begin their argument from the point of view of evolutionary adaptation, perhaps even describing this desire for purpose as a spandrel. In trying to imagine what environmental factors could cause a species to develop an overwhelming desire for a meaningful existence, though, I’m pretty lost.

Perhaps this desire for meaning could possibly be related to an instinctual drive to continue humanity’s gene pool, in a “selfish gene” (Richard Dawkins) sort of way. In seeking meaning, humans desire their everyday efforts to contribute to something greater than and outside of themselves, which may be an expression of their genes attempting to gain maximum reproduction. This doesn’t seem quite resonant with experience, though, in that there are manifold instances of human desire for purpose being satisfied by situations not only quite harmful to gene replication, i.e. war, setting records in extreme sports, etc., but even utterly neutral to said replication, i.e. Dawkins himself saying he finds meaning in feeling “privileged to be allowed to understand why the world exists”.

There are some who say it’s futile to seek purpose in life since there really is none beyond self-created existential purpose. However, this flies in the face of the beliefs and actions of such a great majority of history that it seems to me ignorant or prejudiced. Meaning seems to be one of the major driving forces of human history, and this doesn’t make much sense in a Naturalistic world.

Theists, however, can speak of purpose quite comfortably. It’s a cornerstone of their beliefs, and is woven throughout much of their arguments.

The question comes down to, as usual, to what does the available evidence point? And as usual, I’m pretty convinced the experiential arrow points to Theism, but I’m open to other ideas.

Keep them coming!

James Cameron, Christ’s Body, and Gullibility

James Cameron is coming out with a new documentary in which he claims the body of Jesus Christ has been discovered in an ancient tomb. I find the claim ridiculous. Please note that I critique his claim not because of it’s content, but because of it’s intellectual lameness. If someone presented credible evidence that Jesus Christ did not raise from the dead, that would pretty much cause me to leave the Christian faith. Such has never been presented, though. Anyway:

Cameron claims he has DNA evidence to backup his description of the body as that of Jesus Christ. Pretty obvious problem here: DNA only works as evidence if one has a credible sample with which to compare. Since no sample of Jesus’ DNA was preserved from his time on Earth, what could Cameron possibly be thinking? Probably something along the lines of “people are wowed by science, so I’ll appear more credible if I say I have DNA evidence”.

I have some ocean-front property in Montana to sell, and I have ten scientists with DNA expertise who will vouch for what a great deal it is. In fact, they’ll do so in PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS!! (the gold standard of truth)

UPDATE 2.25.07: It seems that Cameron’s DNA claim is not that the body is that of THE Jesus, but that a “Mary” in the tomb is specifically not related by blood to the body labeled “Jesus” (both incredibly common names). In Dan Brown-esque fashion, he’s apprently pushing a marriage between Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ. To put this in perspective, imagine someone 2000 years from now discovered side-by-side burial spots labeled George and Barbara. From this and little else, they inferred they had discovered the final resting place of Bush 41 and his wife. Amazing.

It’s not what I would expect from a holy book!

There’s this popular view going around these days about the Bible which I think has been popularized by Sam Harris (professional atheist extraordinaire). Basically, many people are saying they don’t assign any authority to the Bible because it doesn’t match expectations of what one would find in a truly divine book.

Those who hold this view will claim that the Bible betrays evidence of creation by an ancient culture (partly true) and that it holds many contradictions, immoralities, scientifically disproven claims, etc. (not so true). You see, though it’s detractors would like to claim the intellectual high ground and say their position is obvious and the only reasonable view, the Bible can fairly easily make it through any unbiased analysis. The stories of those who have come to trust in God after reading through the bible critically are numerous. If one comes to scripture with as few preconceptions as possible, it’s very hard to imagine that humans could come up with such a collection.

It seems pretty blatant to me that if the Bible is divine, it’s descriptions of man as fallen and antagonistic towards God, and seeing God’s wisdom as foolishness, can easily explain the work of Bible bashers. Our pagan culture will always try to find some way to dismiss the Bible, because if it is true, we’re accountable to God in ways that are extremely disconcerting. Coating prejudiced diatribes in a veneer of rational criticism and a claim of attempts at clearing away myth and backwards thinking doesn’t make them any easier to swallow.

Having said all this, in an effort to be critical of my own views I’m always on the lookout for evidence of real scriptural contradictions or fallacies. If you feel you know of some, please take the time to search out traditional Christian answers to your proposition (since most “contradictions” have been pretty easily cleared up for centuries), and if you still feel no satisfactory answer exists, comment away, change my mind.

I look forward to the learning.

Separation of Church and State

I’ve thought much about what it means to live in a pluralistic society that is based on theistic ideas (for anyone who doubts America was founded on a theistic basis, read the Declaration of Independence: “endowed by their Creator…”). I am all for restricting goverment from intruding upon religion, and governments given power to compel people religiously tend to be horrific disasters. However, to disallow government to acknowledge the basis for it’s governing philosophies in some attempt at neutrality seems self-defeating.

In a way, I think every form of government is ultimately a theocracy. Most are not a theocracy in the Gleichschaltung sense so feared by liberals everywhere, but every government has a foundational set of principles by which it operates. These principles are necessarily religious in nature, since religion is essentially a way of living. Even the most thoroughly secular government is religious, it just happens to ascribe to the religion of secular humanism.

All this being the case, I think that efforts to strip any religious trappings from government are futile. Those who would like to remove “In God We Trust” from our currency, “One Nation Under God” from our pledge, these are people who are blind to the fact that they’re trying to foist their worldview on others. They typically claim neutrality, and claim they seek only fairness; they probably even truly believe these things. However, ya gotta serve somebody, and it makes the most sense to acknowledge the worldview that guides your governmental practice. Regarding fairness, notice it’s not “In Jesus We Trust”; just acknowledging theism is pretty darn inclusive, since a tremendous majority of Americans believe in a God of some sort.

America is founded on the idea that rights are inherent in the human condition, and not just granted by government. This is a profoundly theistic idea, with many ramifications that have assisted in making America great. We abandon it at our peril.

Horror Movies

We are awash in horror films! There have been so many horror movies over the last few years, it makes me wonder what this strange draw could be. Perhaps our society is just inherently macabre, or perhaps this is our way of dealing with death. In any case, I wonder what it says about the health of our culture when so much of our artistic output is so dark. I always stand for allowing maximum freedom and personal autonomy, so I certainly would never push for managing content through government or group pressure, but I am concerned. Is it harmless, or does the concept of the sanctity of life get slashed when bodies do?

Living Together

Everyone is shacking up. It’s truly astounding how rampant unmarried couples living together is, especially in light of how much it was discouraged so recently in history. It pains me to see so many people repeating the cycle of moving in with someone, breaking up with them, moving out (or kicking someone out), hooking up with someone else, then lathering, rinsing, and doing the whole thing again. If something doesn’t work, why keep trying it thinking that the outcome will differ?

I suppose people don’t see fault with the concept, and only with the person with whom they tried it. However, for anyone out there contemplating this “lifestyle choice”, consider the following:
- The risk of divorce is increased by 80%(!) for couples who cohabitate before marriage.
- Cohabitation has been statistically linked to an increase in cases of domestic violence.
- The longer a couple lives together, the less likely they are to marry.

Frank Pastore, the awesome radio talk show host, did a riff today about how our liberal culture moves on emotion and not reason. I think this may be, in part, a reaction to prior generations who acted passionlessly with cold logic. To embrace one’s passions yet direct them through one’s intellect is an awesome force for a positive life.

To this end, I beg anyone who is thinking of moving in with their lover to consider the facts, and not give themselves over blindly to their emotions. Christians are often characterized as victorian prudes, and written off accordingly, but a growing pile of relationship carcasses is starting to smell strongly of lies, and Christian relational values are a breath of fresh air.

The American Religion

In a recent post I mentioned “the American religion”. Pondering this a bit, I came to the conclusion that I really think The American Religion is salvation by way of human romantic relationship.

It seems that sometime in the middle ages, relationships based on pragmatism gave way to the idea of Chivalrous Love or Courtly Love (not to be confused with Kurt’s widow). Knights during peacetime quickly became listless, so they would choose an unattainable muse to pursue in a strange cat-and-mouse-style game. This mistress would often be married or engaged, and since standards of decency still hung around, to actually engage in physical sensuality would be frowned upon. Instead, the mistress was to be practically worshiped from afar, showered with gifts and affection, but always with a certain caution lest actual companionship should be contemplated.

This practice seems to echo in modern society, in that our culture highly values charged eroticism that is strangely removed. It’s as if we want the initial rush of romance to last indefinitely, so we flitter all about a relationship without actually engaging in it. To truly know someone deeply can tarnish any gilt image we have created of them, so we choose to skim along the surface.

The American Religion teaches that romantic love is the highest good, and that the emptiness one feels inside which in prior times was described as a “God-shaped hole” can be filled with the right human, your “soul mate”. That’s the catch, however; there is only one “right” person in the whole world for you, and you must find them to be truly fulfilled. If you experience anything but ecstatic freedom in your current relationship, it’s clear your soul mate is still beyond the horizon.

Of course, this all sounds somewhat silly, and most people intellectually see through it. However, many Americans, maybe even most, live as though it were true. We are a fairly self-centered country, indeed, but we find escape from our inner vacuum through the idea of someone outside of ourselves pulling us into really living.

Its interesting how we can’t escape our nature as created beings designed to worship a perfect Lord.

Insensitivity to Violence

I just saw a news report on careworkers caught beating mentally handicapped men on a cell phone video. Apparently the video was taken by one of the offenders, and was discovered when he sold the the phone to a co-worker. That co-worker wisely reported the incident to authorities.

While the report was full of sickening details, the part that resonated most for me was a quote from the video. The “videographer” said to his co-conspiritor, “hit him for me”; they apparently felt these men needed discipline for some perceived offense or trespass (no doubt related to their condition). As someone who’s worked with children, I hate the idea of people in positions of authority taking out their frustrations on the innocents they’re charged with keeping.

If I’m honest with myself, I find I’m quite insensitive to violence. Where does this come from? I haven’t been exposed to all that much actual violence. I find it hard to believe that media violence would cause my insensitivity, because media sexuality hasn’t had a parallel effect. I suspect it could come from the “culture of death” I find myself in. Human life is constantly devalued everywhere I look, and I feel this is something I must guard myself against. While I intellectually place a high value on human life, I know that many of my actionable beliefs are such that I’m only half-conscious of them. I hope to grow self-aware enough to encourage sensitivity about the things I truly want to value.

It’s a dangerous culture we live in, physically and intellectually.