"The internet, and blogging in particular, unite those discontented with the problems of Christian fundamentalism"

I thought it was a great observation — that Luther used the latest in “social media” or, at least, the latest in media technology, to change the world at his time. The powers that were hated the fact that Luther could influence people as broadly as they could.

Today, there is something similar going on. The big difference is the new social media are unfiltered, unedited, ultra-democratic. They are media unmediated. Instead of a few friends seeing the value of Luther’s work and publishing it, today’s social media are a clamor of voices, most without value — a few priceless.

The problem of Luther’s time was to figure out who was right among the few options. Today’s problem is how to sort the minuscule amounts of gold from the large vats of dross. As the cost of a printed word goes down, the availability of publishing goes up, and the value of the words printed becomes more dubious.

The powers that be tremble like the powers that were — but for broader reasons. They not only fear that they can be questioned by a brilliant mind that sees their error. They now must also fear ignorance, rumor, innuendo, libel, and hatred.

Mike, although it’s true that the internet allows literally anyone to publish anything, I don’t know that that means as much as many people seem to think. Out of all the sites on the internet, how many do you personally visit: .000000001%? I bet that over 99% of internet traffic is hoarded by 1% of the sites. So, in order to find something, you either have to go looking for it or it has to come to you through your usual channels, which are still guarded by all sorts of filters. People interested in the effects of the internet really need to study the idea of cultural capital. By sheer volume, the internet actually intensifies the multiplier effect of cultural capital.

Just because something is written doesn’t mean anyone will read it. If people do read it, there’s usually a reason.

Re: Luther, I was more struck by 1) his use of “social media” and 2) the scenario where different pockets of discontent were made aware that others felt the same way by means of social media.

In my experience with the “reforming fundamentalism” type bloggers, the awareness that others are in your shoes and have come to similar conclusions and have not 1) abandoned the faith or 2) become hopelessly lost in a sea of church choices — is one of the most important roles that the internet and blogging has played.

As to Mike’s point about there being worries about rumor, libel, and hatred, I think he has a point. But the internet gives an opportunity to respond as well. We obviously need to exercise discernment in who we listen to and how we communicate via social media. But the ability to influence people for good, and to impact the world with the Gospel is enhanced through the existence of social media. It’s a positive gain in my opinion.

To those who are leaders in fundamentalism, I would say don’t spend your time criticizing the media and lambasting those who use it. Instead develop a positive social media presence and speak out into the social media world. People will listen and respect that more, and you may just influence and help people for good.

I think there is some definite validity in both what Bob has said and what Mike has written in reply.

I don’t have a lot of time for comments, but I do want to add some things to consider in regards to this statement:

[Bob Hayton] As to Mike’s point about there being worries about rumor, libel, and hatred, I think he has a point. But the internet gives an opportunity to respond as well. We obviously need to exercise discernment in who we listen to and how we communicate via social media. But the ability to influence people for good, and to impact the world with the Gospel is enhanced through the existence of social media. It’s a positive gain in my opinion.

To those who are leaders in fundamentalism, I would say don’t spend your time criticizing the media and lambasting those who use it. Instead develop a positive social media presence and speak out into the social media world. People will listen and respect that more, and you may just influence and help people for good.

While the internet does give the opportunity to respond, the reality is that the “playing field” is vastly different in the internet age. Especially in the areas of attacks by critics, the typical (and perhaps even the extraordinary) organizational leader does not the ability to fight off attacks -even if the attacks are unwarranted. If your attacker has superior know-how (e.g. internet and social media awareness) and is sufficiently motivated, you are generally fighting a losing battle. For example, the attacks of the homosexual activists against Rick Santorum that have made it so that you cannot even Google his last name - and he can do little about it. (WARNING: If you do not know what I am talking about, DO NOT Google his last name, just trust me that it is not good.)

In the past, when unreasonable critics wished to attack (I realize not every critic is unreasonable) the critic’s ability to spread the attacks were often limited by a number of factors - for example - the fear of a lawsuit kept publishers away from many unreasonable and libelous screeds, for some of the critics themselves the real possibility of lawsuits that actually had a chance to succeed served as a buffer, the costs of self-publishing would generally become prohibitive at some point, and the means and costs of distribution were eventually become a consideration. The internet has generally made each of those limitations non-existent.

As such, it is easy for critics to just attack one thing after another in such a way that the person or organization spends more time addressing attacks rather than trying to move on with what they are actually supposed to be doing. So, while there is an opportunity to respond, that opportunity can be and often is muted. (Kind of like the “corrections” in the New York Times after the Grey Lady has done some hit piece on a conservative. The “correction” is there, but not nearly as many people are going to read it as read the original article.)

Anyway, just my thoughts,

Frank

[Bob Hayton]

To those who are leaders in fundamentalism, I would say don’t spend your time criticizing the media and lambasting those who use it. Instead develop a positive social media presence and speak out into the social media world. People will listen and respect that more, and you may just influence and help people for good.

You give advice to those who are “leaders in fundamentalism” as if they are repeatedly and widely guilty of “criticizing the media” and “lambasting those who use it”. But before I respond to this, it seems that your uncharitable characterization of these guilty leaders is a form of lambasting yourself.

But to the point. Your advice is directed toward some examples I am sure. It would be a matter of integrity that you show such advise and characterization is warranted with ample examples.

I hate to think that the good people who attend the church where I pastor should ever feel the need to “fact check” me doing a “quick google search.” My hope is that they are taking the tools that I’ve been teaching as to how to interpret the Bible and using them to “fact check” me with the facts themselves.

As for the comparisons between the uprisings in the Middle East and those discontent with fundamentalism…that comparison had me laughing for quite a while. :)

Matt

Matt,

Keep in mind that I hail from somewhat of a hyper-fundy background. Another one from that sector of fundamentalism has made similar comments:
http://reformingbaptist.blogspot.com/2011/08/internet-will-cripple-hyst…