The world of blogging is certainly an amazing realm, one in which the average Joe can leap onto the world’s stage and have a voice. Instantly. And free. Newbies form a clever name, add a picture header and an avatar when leaving posts on other people’s blogs. Networks are made on the basis of shared opinions and similar interests. And soon the writer is flung into the fray, finding a voice that can be read from any desktop, laptop or PDA in the world (save for maybe those nations that are still bound by Communistic censorship).
With the advent of personal websites, their popularity growing in the late 90′s, many people began to realize that static hubs on the internet would soon fade, never disappearing, but certainly not the draw they used to be. Soon after, profile based online communities began to sprout up, and people began “connecting”: while I’m an avid fan of developing technologies, the fact that people think they have legitimate, lasting “friends” via a finger smudged screen is a tragic reality worthy of genuine pity. No wonder they call us the “Screen Generation.”
Regardless, the new found vehicle to divulge one’s thoughts online was born. Adventurers used it to log their travels while statisticians used it follow trends. Those in marketing formed clever cliques to exchange ideas while authors co-wrote ongoing group novels. And the general public grabbed hold of the concept to talk, chat, or simply to convey what they were feeling. To log their thoughts. To journal. Even to share the secrets of their hearts.
The same problem I was afraid of initially with online writing is the same problem I see maturing into a larger problem today.
I still remember the first time I read someone’s blog where they said something that made me blush. Not because it was to me, or even about me. But because it was something I felt, in my opinion, shouldn’t have been disclosed in a public forum. It was personal. Beyond embarrassment for them, however, I wondered as to why they would ever divulge such sensitive information on, of all places, the internet. The answer, I believe, is simple.
Anonymity has no accountability.
Now in 2008, I think a majority of people understand that anything posted online is subject to a billion set of eyes. For some, they just don’t care; for others, they should care. Regardless of their personal feelings, the fact remains that sharing thoughts via a screen, and not face-to-face, removes one of the fundamental human safe guards: Personal accountability and consequence.
You could say that the realm of internet blogging lets mankind get away with expressing views we could never get away with in person. Some would argue that this is a perfect example of what freedoms technology has afforded us; even the Apostle Paul himself noted the difference between his bold writings and his more meek appearance when in person. And while I certainly would agree that we should utilize the forward progress of technology to advance thinking and shared, proactive development, I will always maintain that such pushes must be accompanied by the same values we would institute on any other form of human contact.
Particularly in the area of Christian blogging, I have noticed, and am myself guilty of, a trend which I wish to help curb, at least as far as I have the power. And that is of ranting without edification.
While I have been delighted to see the Christian voice step forward, addressing everything from political and moral debates to spiritual and theological issues, I have noticed a strong, and I mean strong leaning to the pessimistic, cynical and accusatory. And here’s the real rub: While some of what they are addressing is accurate, and even note worthy, there is a lack of the uplifting, especially when directed at other Christians or the Body of Christ in general.
Please do not misunderstand me. I refuse for any reader who’s made it this far to say, “So you expect us to make light of every situation all the time?” Hardly. But we have a requirement to be Christlike in not only our assessment, but our conclusions for actions, which is another element lost.
Anyone can criticize. We know that. But to give a specific suggestion, even a lousy one, is at least something. I heard Sylvester Stallone interviewed this week about his new Rambo film. He had an interesting comment when asked what he thought about all the negative reviews. (And I’m paraphrasing): “I don’t care if they give me one star. But at least tell me what you’d change. Give some advice to balance out your commentary.”
Face-to-face conversation brings with it a built in consequence policy. It always has and it always will–unless we raise an entire generation of pansies. If I go off on some rant face-to-face, I have surrounded myself with people that will pop me in the arm (or the head) for un-Christlike attitudes, behavior and conduct–my 5’1″ Irish-Dutch wife chief among them. And while we could certainly write comments in response to posts, making the author aware of our disagreement, the written word has far less impact than the spoken word (why God left us the written scriptures but would much rather have a personal relationship). This is namely because, in person, we’re instantly prone to observation and challenge from another tangible human being as opposed to a distant representation of someone on the other side.
I would like to make myself accountable to those of you who read my work, whether you’re just surfing by or whether you have an RSS feed to my site and by my books and music. If I ever critique, point a finger at, or drill a person, issue or doctrine without so much as a constructive remedy that edifies the Body of Christ as a whole, call me on it. I humbly welcome it. And I would encourage you to do the same. Anyone of us can point out where the Church is blowing it, where “the system” is falling apart. Anyone of us can say we have to “do better.” But one thing I believe about Jesus from scripture was that he had a constant attitude of encouragement, and when rebuke came, it was always followed by reconciliation (thus the Biblical word “reprove”). And he was specific.
If I disciplined my children, only telling them what they “generally” did wrong and never what I desired their behavior to look like, devoid of specific examples which I could emulate as their father, I would be guilty of torture (“Fathers, do not exasperate your children”). Instead, every time I chastise them (since we’re using old words today), it comes in great detail, care and concern. It’s almost methodical, every action I take with them carrying some specific purpose designed for their ultimate success.
May we be delivered of the endless rant, left open-ended because we never were thoughtful enough to close it with a resolution of action. Talk is cheap, and talk without actions is cheaper.
So, why such a deep rooted rant of my own today? If there is any merit to what I’m saying, then let’s save the strongest point for last. I’m slowly learning about a spiritual truth often overlooked by my own understanding: There is only one accuser of the brethren, and his name is Satan. You are either in his camp or you’re not. Satan never gives suggestions on how to be more like Christ, he only points out how you’re not.
In closing, and in response to my own words, I’d like to offer my checklist for responsible blogging. Feel free to add to it as you feel led.
1.) Rant, But With A Pre-Determined Purpose. If you find yourself needing a soap box, by all means, go for it. No one’s denying you that. But make sure that from the outset you have a defined purpose. Defining a purpose for each post will help save you from the roaming deserts of ranting, and will keep your emotions from sidetracking you from what could have been a very thoughtful and helpful entry. Write the purpose down even before you click on “write post.” What do you want your post to accomplish and provoke? Is it for your readers to be better Christ-followers? Is it scriptural? Does it fit with the nature of Christ? When you’re done writing your heart out, review your intention and see if your post finishes along those lines. If not, it should be re-worked.
2.) Don’t Slam, Suggest. As I stated before, it’s easy for us to slam the system: “What’s wrong with the American Church.” But guess what, the Church in Vietnam has problems as does the Church in India and the Church in Holland. We got it. Move past taking pot-shots at God’s Bride, no matter how deserving you may think it is, and suggest real points of action that you are willing to start or are already engaged in. In doing this you’ll prompt your readers further into righteous action, which should be our goal anyway, not condemn them for what they’re already not doing.
3.) Encourage. As Christians we are called to exhort, an old word meaning to edify and build up. And not only that, but Christ said we’d be known as His disciples by one chief characteristic: Our love for one another. If ever we’ve been given a tool to construct and prompt and promote Godly works, it’s the blog! Yes, we all need correction. I’m not sure about you, but I get it, along with attack from the enemy, on every front all the time. And in comparison with the amount of encouragement I receive, it’s far more. Likewise, see your blog as a tool to uplift; people probably need it as much as I do.
4.) Be Specific. Working in vague generalities is normally redundant and non-progressive. Plus, it usually betrays the fact that the writer has done little to no research into the very area they’re trying to so expertly write about. When posting, be as specific as possible to things you’ve witnessed or experienced first hand. Stay away from things you’re not familiar with. And, when suggesting alternatives, beware of broad sweeps like, “Make the movie better,” and try, “The development of the character in the second half of the movie could have been more successful if you spent more time on showing his childhood memories.” It’s the specific means and methods, even the driving principles that have shaped my views on life, not the oversimplified comments of a powerless, self-indulgent few.
May we as Christians continue to surge ahead as the example of what love truly is, and even how it reads on the internet.
CH
Wow! CH this might be the most intense thought provoking right on blog I have EVER read! Ever!
If people would follow this and do what you are writing about, our world and church world would be changed for the better….especially the part about if we are doing it then we have a right to speak – otherwise we have no right or voice.
My prayer is that this becomes real “Policing” and not just another blog read.
I, for one, am tired of the Bride of Christ being spoken against as some cheap or non appreciated Wife. Remember its His Bride and remember He is the Father. I, for one, think He’s very capable of taking care of her. It is His Kingdom after all.
Well done!
I would like to discuss this further… but not on here. Meet me in the parking lot. *rolling up sleeves*
Seriously though… great post!
At first I found myself half-heartedly agreeing with the idea of not “slamming the Bride of Christ” all the time. After during research on church web site, I found a whole lot of “they mostly suck”, which I instantly agreed with and joined in. I may have even left some “griping” comments on here before. I tend to use a “griping” tone a lot online, regarding various topics… movies, music, technology, etc. It’s fun and easy to do.
However, the idea of trying to “be Christlike in not only our assessment, but our conclusions for actions” made me second guess many things that I’ve said online. It’s almost like there’s a new set of rules online… none.
I will definitely be giving some more thought before I click the publish button in the future.
As for you Christopher… You are truly leading the way for Christians trying to “surge ahead as the example of what love truly is, and even how it reads on the internet”
You Rock Bro!
Good C. Point well taken. It’s too easy to take liberties with pen or keyboard because of the firewall built therein (non face-to-face communication). It’s like being drunk–you pick fights you’d never pick if sober. We all know we’d tone it down if we had to direct our critiques to the face of the recipients. And I dare say we’d be more constructive in our criticism instead of ripping people to shreds, simply to “get it off my chest.” By the way, this is one of the reasons why people like Billy Graham and William Branham have stood out amongst their contemporaries–they insisted on speaking in a loving way as a rule about people. Thus, their loving corrections had more weight when they needed to be made. And the Lord has highly blessed their ministries. We’ve enough angry people in the Christian community. We certainly don’t need more and I’m quite sure Jesus would like to see the current numbers of angry Christians begin to diminish. Thanks
Great point Chris…about Branham and Billy Graham – they have a voice and say because of how they have said it. Dare I say it? But, Billy Graham found ways to praise Bill Clinton that I have found very few do or even acknowledge in the Christian world……..and guess what it got him? Yes, his love like attitude allowed him to speak into President Clintons life like no other. Think there is a lesson there? I sure do!
One last quick point….and then I’ll leave the words and writing to others. But I really do believe if we all realized Romans 2 and how dark we really are – which is our doctrine and the Bible – we’d rant far less and love mercy far more. This is not negative preaching – its very positive preaching. Because we would look at the world with greater hope, love and care. We realize how great Christ is and how much He himself saves us every day from us and therefore our view of the church and world changes. We cant look down or with self righteous (and dont call it righteousness!) eyes at the people around us – but instead we have such a loving merciful heart and its virtually impossible to “rant”. We all need a Saviour…..and we have one in Christ and Him Alone.
Noble words, my friend. Being an author I really appreciate the concept. I wish it would apply to online book reviews as well. It seems like some people take WAY too much pride slamming a book, forgetting how much energy, effort, and passion a writer puts into a novel. And, sad to say, many of the most scathing reviews of my books have been from Christians.
During a CSFF Book Tour, someone published a heartless review of Sharon Hinck’s fine book, The Restorer. In response, I published some review guidelines, ones that IMHO we Christians should consider before reviewing the work of others in a public forum.
If you want to check it out:
http://enterthedoorwithin.blogspot.com/2007/06/csff-tour-day-2-sharon-hinck-restorer.html
I say…it seems as though you cracked my head open and examined my thoughts over the last few days…
And now, after reading that post, I have to admit that I am guilty of nearly all that you mentioned. things that were “wrong” with the church system and some Christians kept on popping into my head, but I never even tried to think of exactly what we should be doing…and I have actually figured out that there is a lot more wrong with my own faith than what I see in others. I will definitely have to meditate on this.
Thanks for dragging my brain back into the Light! Great post, and may we never forget a word that you said…
wow, 1800 words later . . . that’s more than a rant, more like a short counseling session, especially how fast, er uh slow I read. I thought flogging would be a tad less painful. Anyway. I think i might repost the end with your permission as a few tips to constructive blogging.
Side note: Not sure if you can control your ads, but the blog TV one can be a bit racy.
peace.
Kirk, Jason & Chris: Thanks for your encouragement and for engaging in the discussion, Pastors Kirk and Chris notably. I value both of your opinions greatly and take your words to heart. Great points about Billy Graham and William Branham. I was recently challenged by someone saying how we’re supposed to LOVE our enemies and how, judging by many Christian’s comments about the Clintons, they must be far more than enemies. Phew!–talk about conviction! I had to repent.
Wayne: So true, so true. And I remember that review and when Sharon got it. Thank you so much for your diligence and the link you posted.
Ian: I hope the “head cracking” wasn’t too painful.
But thank you for your genuine response. I covet that kind of honesty and hope we all are as truthful. Well said.
Mooney: 1,800…maybe I should have used that count for my book instead? Nah. That’yll come. Feel free to reprint the tips. And thanks for the heads up on the Google ads; I can’t control everything (because the boundaries for what’s “OK” are so skewed now). BUT I can control what type of add it is and think I’ll change it to a text add instead. (Pardon my trial and error).
CH
What a wonderful rant!
You are such an incredible writer.
I Love You,
your 5’1 Irish-Dutch
(English, Welsh & Scottish Too!!!)
Jenny
Excellent post Christopher!
I must agree, and must admit to being guilty of said crimes during my online “interactions” with folks, whether it be blogging or post on forums… I’ve said things that I really shouldn’t have said, or least not with that tone of voice.
On one message board I am one of the administrators on I have seen how accountability makes things better. Instead of their being just one or even two admins that have absolute authority and power, there are about a dozen or so who are accountable to each other and they are accountable to the users. If an admin were to step out of line the users have every right to tell another admin and that other admin has the right to de-admin or even ban the offending admin. The accountability I think is what keeps the board friendly and the admins from becoming evil overlords ruling like Sauron from the safety of the admin panel.
In the same way, though we don’t really have the power to deal with it, bloggers should be accountable, not only to other bloggers but to their readers.
I think it’s very important to be gracious in our writings. Disagreeing with someone isn’t a license to hurt them, and holding a conviction, even a righteous one doesn’t mean we abandon love, mercy, and grace. Someone else’s wrong should never justify our being un-Christlike.
I’m afraid I’ve stepped up on the soap-box again. *grins sheepishly.*
-Shane
Hey great post, I agree for the most part but I have some questions? Before hand this is not in any way oppositional just a question for thought and discussion. I was thinking about the post and how you said “Jesus always had an attitude of encouragement and offered reconciliation.” My question has to do with his rebuke of the pharisees. Matthew 23:27-
27″Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
29″Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
33″You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
37″O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’[d]”
Now this seems to be a rebuke without much encouragement or reprove it seems pretty harsh. and then in the 24th chapter immediately following it says
1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2″Do you see all these things?” he asked. “I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
With all of this it seems there wasn’t any immediate reprove, encouragement or reconciliation other than in the end they will say blessed is he who comes in the name of the lord. To me it seems that Jesus let the pharisees have it without a whole lot of nice speech. It looks as if he was blatantly protesting against the religious order of the day. Another example would be Christ throwing the money changers out of the temple. It seems that sometimes he used some pretty harsh tactics. If anyone wants to shed some light on this for me that would be great. Again I am not disputing that a writer or a Christian for that matter should hold to good and virtuous standard filled with exhortation. But it looks like sometimes Jesus would just blast the corrupt without such a tender hand.
Searching for truth
Jay
Well…..a few thoughts for you Jay. First, lets remember that Jesus also died the most cruel and inhumane death and looked at those same people He rebuked and said, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do”. So, I suppose first off when we are willing to die for people with that kind of punishment and then show that much love – we may have a voice of reason and truth. Second, I believe what CH is talking about is the idea of how much “mud” is simply thrown around without any kind of rational or real solutions or even action being done. Its way too easy to throw stones without any kind of real action. Way too easy. Let’s also remember that Jesus wept over Jerusalem and so when we are the “weepers” perhaps then we are qualified to be the talkers. It sure seems to me also in the section of Scripture where Jesus did rebuke the Pharisees that He told them what they did not understand was the justice of God AND the mercy of God. I think they had the justice part down…..but didnt understand their own conditions – which is the whole point of Matt 23…..the Pharisees calling eveyone else dark and not realizing how dark they really were…..and that was what ticked Jesus off. One last point – the thing we must always remember is we dont form our doctrine on one or two isolated sections of Scripture – CH’s point (and he can obviously also answer) is that Jesus always walked in encouragemnt – well, lets answer that? Did he with the Pharisees in regards to Matt 23? Of course, if you also look at the constant times He healed and challenged them with who was doing it. The constant times He challenged their doctrine and gave them chance after chance. Him weeping over Jerusalem and His words at the Cross. In other words, take His whole life to receive His message and you will find the Pharisees offered chance after chance and the life of Christ a constant source by view and not just by word of one who loved the Multitudes. My two cents worth…..
Hey Jay
I don’t know if this makes sense but i just had the thought…
Jesus rebuked them to their face, and was ready for them to fire back with accusations or arguments. He was not just saying this to his disciples behind the pharasees backs. He confronted the issue head on and told them what was wrong to their face, instead of taking shots at them from afar or ranting on and on with a blog. He confronted the issue face to face. As far as instruction I think they were supposed to change everything about themselves. He pointed out error in many aspects of their lifes, and their response is to either accept it and change or harden their hearts to the truth.
So those are my immediate thoughts on the subject
-JOhn
Thanks, I agree with you that Jesus lived a life of love and offering people chance upon chance. I also agree with not taking isolated scriptures and forming doctrine. But just as we get our view from his whole life, that was a part of his life so it can’t be ignored. In that instance Christ called out evil for what it was and nothing more. So I just wonder if and when there is a time for that kind of reproach. And I certainly agree that everything Christ did was out of love. I just think that sometimes simply calling wrong, wrong is necessary. Not in a sense that we are being malicious or to bring condemnation but almost as a warning to flee from wickedness. also I realize this is a post on blogging and I agree with a code of conduct for blogging . I was kind of making a segway to the point about Jesus always had an attitude of encouragement and offered reconciliation. It would seem that Jesus was discouraging them from bad behavior. So Christ approached from both angles but not necessarily in the same conversation. Again no harsh thought here, just wondering and enjoying the input.
Hey Jay,
I totally agree we must call wrong wrong – but my point is bigger. What gives us the right? I believe that lies in a few basic issues and points. Are we dying for people? Really dying! Otherwise we perpetuate the same issue spoken against church people for ages – they talk and do not do. Secondly, what heart do we do it with? A weeping heart – knowing our own condition as well – or is it just another self righteous statement? Yes, Jesus called it what it was….and this is part of Christ – but we must know what qualified him and us to do so….my only point.
Lastly, CH’s thoughts is on blogging….and I can’t agree more.
Love ya,
PK
I suppose if we are truly crucified with Christ and we truly identify with him on issues then that’s the qualifier. It’s great having these web conversations and I believe we are in agreement, we must continually die to ourselves and be dieing for people, it is our greatest testimony and the only way to live for Christ.
P.S. I totally agree with the blogging point, just wanted to pull out another area of the original post.
In hearing and doing
Jay
As Bob Dylan once said, “The Sixties were about clothes.”
Clothes and hair……neither of which I care about now…..ha ha….Isnt if funny as you get older you really care about one thing? Comfort!……oh yeah……Jesus, then comfort!
My apology I didn’t mean to deviate from the subject matter.
Wow! Great dialog here, men!
CH
did you know that “sixties” and “clothes” both have seven letter? What were the seventies about?
Oh, and Mr. Hopper, about the head cracking…physically, no it didn’t hurt too much
…but spiritually and mentally, OUCH! yes it hurt. But that’s okay..we grow stronger physically by enduring pain, so that must apply to spirit bodies as well
our minds and souls all need a good flogging once in a while!
Well, I totally agree with the whole blogging aspect of CH’s post. I am going to have to start being very careful with that now, too, since I just started my own blog.
I am going to make it my goal to “accuse” and challenge myself every time I find myself talking about somethign wrong with others…perhaps that will help hold me on the correct path…
Oh, and the seventies were about polka ties.
Hey Jay, Get back to the symbol pile!
Love,
The man who signs the paychecks.
In response to the blog:
Excellent thoughts, and good exchange here. One of the really awful things that blogging has produced is a distinct lack of civility. It is so easy to just rip someone a new one with no fear of reprisal, that people take extreme positions without much (or any) thought. It seems as though there is no filter between the brain and the keyboard. This is at its root cowardly. If you wouldn’t say something to someone’s face, you shouldn’t be saying it at all. I worked as dishwasher in a hospital for 2.5 years. While there, I used to come across Salada tea bags that had “taglines” – little proverbs – on the tag. One of them has challenged me, and I think it is appropriate in this discussion:
“Talk about others as though they are in the same room with you”.
Living by this code would eliminate a great deal of ill-considered editorial spouting.
Here’s another:
“Spoken words are like thrown stones; neither can be recalled”.
“But I tell you that every careless word that people speak , they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.” Matt. 12:36
Hey Tom,
Excellent thoughts and love the teabag quote. You’re the best!
Let me add one other thought here…….can’t we take this out of the “blogging” experience as well? How often are words thrown out behind peoples backs and not to their face that is just as cowardly (as Tom put it) and just as cruel. I can first hand speak that comments that are not made face to face (and this does not negate the need for kindness even face to face – but another discussion) and spoken behind your back (even well intentioned) plain and simple hurt. Let’s remember we are dealing always with flesh and blood. This, perhaps, is the most defining aspect of the life of Christ. He never lost sight of that.
Kirk
Hey!
I loved this post today, well I mean yesterday. I definitely needed this, sometimes when I write Blog posts, I feel I am too negative and a bit on the ranty side. For now on I am not going to write down a huge chunk of meaningless rants and work more on writing a more directed argument that contains the negative but also gives off light with some positive points as well.