Pages

Friday, March 04, 2022

Christians Need To Be Far More Active On The Internet

It's common for people to object that Christians are behaving irresponsibly on Twitter, Facebook, and other online settings, especially in political contexts, but occasionally in other contexts as well. And it's popular to make derogatory comments about the internet and how unimportant it supposedly is (e.g., the popular dismissive comments about how it's allegedly ridiculous to be concerned that "somebody is wrong on the internet"). Supposedly, there's a major problem with people being unloving, arguing too much, and so forth, and that problem needs to frequently be addressed. But far less is said about the other end of the spectrum, the people who are much less involved than they should be with controversial issues, especially in religion, where it matters most. Yet, as I've documented many times, the percentage of people who are involved in these matters too little - far too little - vastly outnumbers the percentage who are involved too much or are involved in a way that's unloving, contentious, or some such thing.

So, when something like a small fraction of one percent of the population is highly involved in apologetics, while ninety-some percent are less involved than they should be - typically much less involved than they should be - why does the former group get so much more criticism than the latter? Probably largely because of the popularity of that latter group. Peer pressure, in other words. If you're a pastor or radio host, your audience doesn't want to be criticized for their neglect of apologetics, theology, ethics, politics, or whatever else. It's much easier to flatter the large majority of your audience while criticizing a small minority. It makes you more popular, keeps your paychecks coming, and so on.

A common example of this kind of thing is the handwringing we often see over the political atmosphere on Twitter. But what percentage of the population is involved in some kind of inappropriate behavior in Twitter exchanges? A tiny percentage. How many are involved in political discussions on Twitter in general, including discussions of a better nature? Few. The same Americans who tell pollsters and other people how concerned they are about how negative the political atmosphere of the nation is, how politically divided the nation is, etc. aren't involved much in politics themselves. After they hang up the phone with the pollster, they'll go sit in front of the television to watch some trivial (or worse) program, read a trivial book, do some cooking, go to a family gathering, or whatever, with little or no concern about politics. Americans aren't too political. They're too unpolitical.

Religion is more important than politics, and the level of neglect is worse with religion than with politics. But whether it's religion, politics, ethics, philosophy, the paranormal, or whatever other area of life that tends to be neglected, it's not difficult to figure out which side of the spectrum is more in need of correction. It's not the people who are highly involved or even the subset of those people who truly are unloving, contentious, or wrong in some other way. It's the large majority of the population who are more in need of correction, the large majority who are doing little or none of the relevant work and are so apathetic and contemptuous toward the people who are doing it. The people who should be criticized more are the ones who rarely or never try to persuade others about religious issues, make little or no use of the opportunities they have online, etc. Think of how many significant books on Amazon don't have any reviews from a Christian perspective, how frequently atheists and other groups who are smaller than Christians outnumber Christians in online discussions, how often ninety-some percent of the Christians who watch a good YouTube video won't even click the like button, how many Christians spend years online doing things like emailing relatives and posting family photographs on Facebook while doing little or nothing in contexts like theology and apologetics, etc.

There are billions of people in the world. You won't be interacting with the vast majority of those people face-to-face. The internet is the best tool most people have to reach a much larger audience (and a better audience, in the sense of being more interested, more informed, and so forth). It's good for people to also use television, books, radio, the telephone, and other tools to reach a bigger audience, but the internet is what's most efficient for most individuals. We don't need Christians to be less active online. We need them to be far more active online in the contexts that matter most.

8 comments:

  1. Thank you. I've often let myself feel guilty for "wasting time" on the internet but that "wasting time" is often just trying to have conversations about theology and apologetics in a productive way.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent article. U-tube is an excellent place to dialogue with atheists and cults in their comment sections. Good place to engage them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. How controversial do you think Matthew 20:20–28 is, where Jesus tells his disciples to neither lord it over each other nor exercise authority over each other?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you think that question is relevant to this thread?

      Delete
    2. I was responding to the following:

      > But far less is said about the other end of the spectrum, the people who are much less involved than they should be with controversial issues, especially in religion, where it matters most.

      In my experience, Matthew 20:20–28 is extremely controversial among atheists (one asked me: "Who will then be in charge?"), and not all that well practiced among Christians, based on the number of scandals coming out these days. If Matthew 20:20–28 is actually central to the Way of Jesus, this would appear to be a problem—unless 'apologetics' is only tangentially related to the Way of Jesus.

      I also picked Matthew 20:20–28 because I think it is exceedingly politically relevant. While our political forebears are Hobbes & Locke, I think that Hobbes is now the better model, with his Leviathan. Leviathan is the epitome of "lord it over" and "exercise authority over". Leviathan takes the place of God and in the words of John Milbank, goes perfectly with an 'ontology of violence': at the cores of our imago dei beings, we are in conflict with one another. This deep-rooted assumption shapes our justification for imposing ourselves on other people time and time again. If that is in fact against Jesus, that would seem to be a relevant apologetic point to bring up—and not infrequently. If Christians truly have another way, if they are not actually well-described by Romans 2:1–24, then they should both be putting it on display and describing it. Yes? No?

      Finally, although I wasn't thinking of this at the time, Matthew 20:20–28 empowers the little people, which I think includes many of those you wish would be more active on the internet. Jesus came to a backwater, never traveled to Rome, died in a backwater, thanked God for what he revealed to his unsophisticated disciples, and Paul continued the tradition (1 Cor 1:18f). I think the political and economic powers of today want most people to feel powerless, aside from their votes and their purchases. The Way of Jesus promises to subvert that and I think apologetics could talk about this. However, that would make it a true threat …

      Delete
  4. I've linked this thread on Facebook, and you can go here to read some further discussion of my comments above. Some commenters on Facebook have brought up the role of the local church, how much we should interact with people we don't see face-to-face, and other issues.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I haven't read all the responses, so my apologies if I'm stating anything already stated. I like your case Jason you've made insightful comments. I can't help but wonder what Steve would've said... I suspect he would have agreed with you. If we use Steve as an example, I greatly benefited from his cyber wit and wisdom!

    My concerns...typically in every area.... is balance. I enjoy online banter, but I try desperately to balance that with flesh and blood, trying to make sure those people God has directly put in my path take the priority. Sometimes I've certainly been off balance with my time- especially now when I look back on the loss of so many close friends and relatives. I would trade all my blog articles for one more brief conversation with Mother, Father, my two brothers, my dear mother-law-law, and a host of other people!


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's good to hear from you, James. And thanks for the encouragement!

      Delete