GodBlogCon: The Hangover

A bloggin buddy of mine, Mark (Runalong with Pastor Mark - the world's only ultrarunning pastor!) has some questions and a bit of a hangover after attending the first God Blog Convention. Let's interact a bit with his perspective. Mark raises the issues (copied here) at this post.

It's always good to be skeptical of group-think. This isn't meant to be critical of anyone, I'm just asking myself some hard questions before I drink the kool-aid:

1. Is blogging really going to be "the next big thing"? Are comparisons to Guttenberg or television valid? Or is it a temporary blip that will be surpassed by new technologies before it ever really takes off? You can guess what the party line at GBC was, and they may well be right. But someone needs to at least ask these questions.

I wasnt' there, and am not an expert (although I play one onTVline. But I wonder the same thing. Can we truly evaluate the impact of some technological advance within a few years of it's origination? Better let the facts and history validate the cause rather than trumpet our prognostications and end up looking foolish.

2. Even if blogging becomes a mighty force, will it ever prove to be a significant force for the kingdom of God? Will all these blogs really have much effect on the fulfillment of the Great Commission? Is this a medium suitable to the task or will it turn out to be a diabolical (literally) distraction; thousands of Christians pouring time and effort into something that ultimately has little impact on God's work, but which meanwhile keeps all those gifted people and their time and energy away from more effective ministry? Again, I am not assuming a negative answer, I'm just questioning those who automatically assume a positive answer.

This question is worthy of an extended answer.

First, speaking personally, blogging is an addiction. There, I said it. (Hello, Garth.) That is, I believe that for most people, writing, acting, singing, performing, etc is simply an expression of their creativity - and that they must express themselves whether or not anyone is listening. This is a good thing. It is how we are wired up. In fact, we are all seeking an audience. As Christians, the applause of the Audience is our driving force. And I believe that all of our hearts are restless until they find their approval in God (to paraphrase some 4th century theoblogian).

Now the trap of every addiction (maybe too strong a word) is immediate feedback. Comments and trackbacks are to die for! And it becomes a matter of self-deception that we are having a major impact beyond the immediate circle of close friends and blogs of a feather. Again, not saying we shouldn't seek to have an impact, but let's be realistic. A true witness involves our conversation (deportment) not just our words. So do we retreat behind a computer screen for a couple of hours (like I'm doing now?) or do we go about witnessing kneecap to kneecap? Personal relationships are harder, messier, more time-consuming, and ultimately more satisfying, fulfilling, and effective in bringing darkness to light.

My conclusion. Blog for pleasure and profit, but not to proselytize. (Like my alliteration?) Blogs may open a door, and engage the mind, but the Spirit through the personal touch of a friend is what (most often) unlocks the heart.

3. Will the close relationship between Christian blogging and politically conservative blogging end up doing more harm than good? Have we looked at the unintended consequences? For example: When Christian bloggers vehemently argue for lower taxes, or less gun control or less environmental regulation or in favor of military intervention in Iraq (all positions I agree with, btw), will they create confusion between Christian absolutes and positions based on human wisdom? There is no biblical case that taxes must ALWAYS be lower or that ALL environmental regulations are bad so these arguments must be made on pragmatic, not biblical grounds. But the case is often stated with the same certainty and demand for orthodoxy as a case made (in the adjoining item) for salvation by faith. Call it the World Magazine Syndrome. At GBC my fellow conservatives seemed very defensive when these types of issues were raised.

The "politicalization" of evangelical belief disturbs me. So many believers have a list of causes tied to an "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality. This is not healthy for the unity of our witness. And for that reason, blogs are often simply expressions of our diversity (not necessarily a bad thing) rather than our unity. As such, are they truly tools of outreach or should they be seen as "in house" discussions? Again, Mark raises some great questions.

For example, (and I'm going to get myself in trouble here, but that's the point) I am not pro-Israel. I'm not anti-Israel either. It's a secular state like the US and needs to abide by the agreed-upon rules of human dignity and honor state sovereignty issues. These topics can be debated. But so many Christians are automatically pro-Israel and are offended that you might have a different view. This is not a test of orthodoxy. But blogging can enourage such tests, which is unfortunate.

4. Can blogging be an effective tool for evangelism and why is this being treated as a minor side-issue of little importance?

5. Is it healthier to encourage Christian bloggers to respectfully debate these issues or to try to avoid or repress them? OK, this one is rhetorical! After getting to know them, I'm convinced that the leaders of GBC would all encourage this discussion.

Again, since I wasn't there, I can't address the rationale of the conference. But I do understand that evangelism will become a major discussion at future conventions. It needs to. The heart of the gospel is at stake. And yes, discussion is of utmost importance. But it's also true that too much discussion can become a distraction from the work at hand.

Case in point, (sorry to get off-topic, but it proves a point) our denomination has been "discussing" the homosexuality issue forever and all it has done is prove that those in leadership are weak on biblical authority and are avoiding taking a stand. As a result, churches are leaving in droves. The purpose of a discussion is resolution. The purpose of an open mind is to close it on something solid.

How long should the discussion last? I'm sure the answer varies according to topic. But it's probably safe to say that "years" is a bit too long to wait on this bloggin phenomenon. One, technology will pass us by. And two, the souls of those who are dying without Christ demand it.

Reflecting on Colossians 4:4-6
GT

Posted by Garth at October 21, 2005 07:48 AM