I know it’s interesting to have a topic like this on a blog, but I wonder about our online relationships and how they impact the Universal Body of Christ. I have developed some great relationships online with people I would have never met otherwise. I have learned a great deal from blogging, reading, writing and sharing online ideas. I think blogging has a lot of validity, but what I want to ask about is community. Is online community authentic? Can we have true fellowship online? Has the invention of the internet created a whole is community?
The most popular social network out there of course is Facebook. I have and use a Facebook page. I have great friends on Facebook; we use it to interact and communicate, keep updated and share pictures. The biggest destroyer of community, in my opinion, is the Facebook status line. We have created the equivalent of the drive by shooting online with the Facebook status. You have seen them, things like “some people need to act like Christians” or “I can’t believe they just did that, they are so bad”. These posts don’t name anyone specifically, they just throw out ideas and create suspicion. It’s on-line gossip at its best. On Facebook, we can create superficial relationships and then destroy them with the click of the mouse. If we are not slandering people in our status, we can write notes about them, we can even click the dreaded “unfriend” button.
Facebook also gives us the chance to address problems without addressing the problem. We have done this for years, but Facebook has make is faster and easier. If someone does something you don’t like, simply post a verse on Facebook addressing the issue, then you are done. Write a note, post a blog, tweet or update our status to address the problem. If it’s really serious, we might post to someone’s wall or send a message to them and take care of the problem. Somehow when Jesus said to “go to the person”, He wasn’t referring to their Facebook page.
All of these online forums have also created an atmosphere in which it’s easy to speak without thinking. We can post things in a safe situation, not face to face interaction. Many of the posts and comments I have seen at SBC Impact I am pretty sure wouldn’t happen in face to face conversation. We have become crass and careless with our words, not focusing on words that build up and edify, but taking cuts, slinging mud and being cruel.
The online relationships we have build are so fragile that it doesn’t take much to break them. If the Facebook and blogging community can really been seen as the Church, we have taken the body of Christ and made it so fragile that it will never be able to stand up in the world. We have created fragile connections, and so often we are not encouraging or supporting each other. We are not iron sharpening iron, we are simply stone chipping away at stone. This should not be so.
So what is the solution? I think much of the issue is when we are on blogs, Facebook or other online communities, we begin to address the person as the problem and not the issue. Instead of saying “I don’t agree with this statement, because”, we just reply with “you’re an idiot”. This is a less than helpful statement when working to build community. We should also take time to get to know our fellow bloggers, after all, aren’t we all here for the same reason? Is not the goal to expand the Kingdom, to Glorify God and to grow in our faith? If we all have that common goal, if we are working together towards the same end, why do we continue to devour each other? I believe because it’s easy to do online, and we have such a fragile structure, that we break it because we can. Never do people become so carnal as they do online. Perhaps the internet has created an outlet for the flesh, can we reform it to be used as a place to bring glory to God? I sure hope so, because I would hate to see the blogs destroy the church.
I promised Dan that in the spirit of “cordial” blogging, I would open this comment stream with an insulting comment. I’m thinking of something really good!
I never did come up with a good insult.
That’s good, I was worried you were going to call me a Yankees Fan or something.
The most shocking moment I’ve had in blogging was mentioning that James 3 about taming the tongue was so badly flaunted, and someone replied “That only applies to what we say!”
Um, what you type counts too. Really, let’s not be excessively literal where it makes no sense. What you write, type, email, text, and twitter is included. It would make a difference if we remember that!
Doug
Liberal!
Brother Dan,
You write the following as a way to have better communication among our Brothers and Sisters.
“We should also take time to get to know our fellow bloggers, after all, aren’t we all here for the same reason? Is not the goal to expand the Kingdom, to Glorify God and to grow in our faith? If we all have that common goal, if we are working together towards the same end, why do we continue to devour each other?”
Great words and challenging questions. However, you seemingly violate your own principles when you state the following:
“Many of the posts and comments I have seen at SBC Impact I am pretty sure wouldn’t happen in face to face conversation.”
Help me see where I am missing your point. You negate your entire post by that one statement. Why? You take a drive by without expressing to the folk over at SBC Impact your concern over some of their posts.
Blessings,
Tim
My guess is, he meant SBC Voices. Dan is a friend of mine (don’t hold that against him) and we’ve talked a lot about sbcIMPACT and SBC Voices.
I’m quite sure he was talking about the comment stream here, not at IMPACT.
I may edit his post if he indicates that my supposition is right.
Evidently, by the way, the rumors that all you BI guys had disappeared into the Bermuda Triangle is false?
I am not sure how you think that negates my point Tim. I did put Impact and not Voices because I began at Impact and saw many negative comments there. My only point is that it’s easy to say something on a blog or other electronic means, but most of us wouldn’t have the resolve or guts or gall to say that to someone’s face. In face to face conversation, we tend to me more cordial, we act as if we are speaking to another living, breathing person. Online, we just throw out insults and make blind assumptions. How does that negate my entire post, please clarify.
Hi Dan,
You wrote a reference to the “Universal Body of Christ”.
Would you mind describing your definition of that term, please.
The Universal Church encompasses all those who have genuinely trusted Christ around the world (and, in fact, since the establishment of the church at Pentecost).
Thanks for responding, DAVID.
I agree with you, in that membership goes back to the time of Christ. A lot of people are not aware of that.
Would you equate the ‘Universal Body of Christ’ to the ‘Communion of Saints’ ? Or do you see a difference?
Well, the “Communion of the Saints” is more of a Catholic concept. I’m speaking of those who have been saved by God’s grace, not those who have joined a visible human institution like the Catholic Church.
David, I think we ‘cross-posted’ at the same time. But thank you for responding.
If it helps, my reference to ‘Communion of Saints’ here would be in this context:
Ephesians 2:19-20 “fellow citizens with the saints, and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.”
A “saint” in the Bible is anyone who has been made holy in Christ – basically a synonym for believer/born again/Christian. I know that word is used differently than the biblical use within the Catholic system.
DAVID, ‘made holy in Christ’ is a very good way to describe a saint, I think.
There is an Episcopal saint (recognized offically) that might surprise you, with her own saint’s day of remembrance:
December 22
Charlotte Digges (Lottie) Moon, Missionary in China
I heartily concur with their recognition of her as one who was ‘made holy in Christ’.
Lottie Moon is a saint Christiane not because of her works in the mission field, which were great and something I don’t think anyone has duplicated yet, but because of her faith in Christ Jesus as her Lord and Savior. She knew Christ at an early age and followed his call on her life to go to the mission field.
God says the way to have life is only to have his Son. Lottie had Christ, she had his Son. That is why she was a saint. Anyone who has God’s Son is a saint.
And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son of God has not life. 1 John 5:11&12
What Debbie said.
The worse is people who tell you what you believe even after you say “no that’s not what I believe.” It’s entirely disrespectful and implying I’m a complete idiot who hasn’t thought out what I actually believe. And my husband said to tell you “no Bess pretty much mouths off like that in real life too. Amazingly people still love her.” It’s cuz I really am a very nice person. 🙂 See just put the smiley and all is well.
Ya, what Dave said.
Your real personality will eventually come out online or in real life. It’s just a matter of time and the level of embarrassment you’re able to live with.
Jim, I think that is very true, very inciteful and pretty funny.
Because this strikes a chord with me, here are IMO the top 5 temptations for blogging or commenting Christians:
5. Ambition – when the blog is all about me and I’m never wrong, won’t apologize or correct, slash those who agree, and tend to post provocative stuff to increase pageviews, get linked, get noticed, etc.
4. Grievous spirit – failure to listen and quickness to anger, unkindness, lack of grace, mockery, scoffing, etc.
3. Gossip/speculation/assumptions/unsupported opinions and conclusions, sometimes slander.
2. Partiality.
1. Deceit. No one thinks they would deceive. But many bloggers post (or repost or link) without any particular attempt at fact-checking, it amounts to deceit. It is sad to read the factually, legally incorrect stuff that people post, then embroider, then speculate, then conclude. This is deceit of the public; it is making us all dumber. I’m sorry to say that after reading Baptist blogs for several years, I never believe much of anything that purports to be fact unless I fact-check it. I will call the source if I think it’s important. That’s how I know these “facts” and conclusions are utterly false. I’ve called conventions, seminaries, organizations, authors, professors, politicians, and government offices; I’ve checked websites, original sources, read court opinions (e.g. Prop. 8 case), etc.
Errors and mistakes will happen but patterns of neglectful deceit are everywhere. You would be very surprised.
That is a very insightful, interesting comment.
Might make a good blog post.
Sadly, I see fiction — embroidered, changed or outright fabricated “facts” and quotes — imbedded in some Baptist blogging on the Tuscon shooting.
We should never be afraid to ask “Do you have a cite for that?” or “What is the source?”
Unfortuantly, those 5 things are often on display on stages in evangelical churches across America. Blogging equalized the situation. I think many pastors don’t like that…esp the mega church ones and the celebrity Christians.
Blogging has helped to issue warnings about certain charlatans who make merchandise of the Gospel.
Not a popular opinion on a “pastors” blog, I know. :o)
That would be interesting coming from bloggers’ perspectives.
While deception is surprising and grievous spirits can be unsurprising, the blog-temptation which “hides in plain sight” is partiality: both bias and prejudice, often based on politics, associations, class, education or lack thereof. It is so very hard — countercultural! — to be Christlike in this respect. A fresh look at the sin of partiality would make a great blogpost….
Online interaction is a tool like most anything else. There are opportunities to use it both in beneficial ways and in hurtful ways. Since we have examples of bad usage, I’ll offer a couple of examples of good usage:
Example 1: I’m in contact with a few Christians who are somewhat isolated. They live in areas that don’t have a strong Christian presence and have similarly weak churches, where there’s more than one. It’s an opportunity to encourage brothers and sisters in this situation to improve the fellowship at their local churches through exposure to stronger fellowships.
Example 2: I’ve also been able to use online interaction to encourage people in churches that I know from mission travels around the world through the use of email and social networking sites. My wife was involved in the wedding of a dear brother and sister we minister with in Venezuela. She took our video camera and one of the church members got some decent footage of the wedding. As soon as we get back together with them, they will have a good DVD of it. In the mean time, the video is available as a playlist on YouTube. We also can get quick updates from people like these. One Christian minister in a difficult area has recently been taken for interrogation by local authorities and we have been able to respond quickly with focused prayer.
As with any tool, online interaction must be subject to accountability. We need someone close to us who has the power to correct us on sinful use. Many married couples in my church have combined their Facebook accounts for this reason, so that there can be no secret interaction with “friends” who would tempt them away from their marriages.
And for some, there is a fine line between unfruitful debates and polemics. The way we handle intramural disagreements in so public a setting is every bit a testimony of the God we serve. If people don’t see the true God in the way we disagree, then we don’t serve the God we think we do. We need wise brothers and sisters who know us personally to call us on the carpet if we cross the line in a public disagreement.
Bro. Tim,
Are you really Dr. Adrian Rogers’ son? If so, can I have some outlines?
David Rogers, who writes at sbcIMPACT is the son of Dr. Adrian Rogers. To the best of my knowledge, Tim is not related.