Not Many of You Should Presume to Be Bloggers
Editor's note: Our earlier coverage of Rob Bell's Love Wins book included a look at the early responses and the historical context of his views on unbelievers' eternal destiny. Monday, the day Bell unveils the book in New York City, we will post our review of the book. In the meantime, in this guest column John Dyer revisits a topic Christianity Today examined a decade ago: how the internet is shaping theological debate.
Do you think it is wrong for Rob Bell to question traditional views of heaven and hell?
Answer: I don't care.
Do you think it is wrong for traditionalist writers to label Rob Bell a universalist?
Answer: I don't care.
Do you think it is wrong for every Christian with an iPhone to tweet their answers to the above questions from restaurant bathrooms and then go home and blog about it?
Answer: Now there's an interesting question.
Of course, I certainly do care about the doctrines of heaven and hell because, as Bell reminds us, what we think about them informs what we believe about God and how we understand major Christian themes like love, justice, and holiness.
So why do I say, "I don't care"? First, because this particular debate is a very old one going back to the earliest days of the church. But second, and more importantly, because theological debate in general is nothing new.
While it may appear as though theological debate today is more polarized than ever, in fact it is perhaps as civil as it's ever been. There are still charges of heresy here and there, but at least we're no longer burning each other at the stake. There is occasional name-calling, but as Luther famously pointed out even Jesus and Paul were fond of coming up with clever names for false teachers.
I'm not attempting to defend mean-spirited, polemical debate. I'm just saying that it's old news. The debates are still important, but what is even more important is how social media has changed the way those debates take place among everyday Christians.
Theology Before Facebook, Theology After Facebook
Throughout the history of public theological debate, there was one constant—those debates only took place between a few select people—Moses, Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, and so on—who gained respect through a lifetime of scholarship.
But the invention of social media, like blogs, Twitter, and Facebook, created a radical departure in communication. In pre-2004 Christianity (that is, Christianity before Facebook was invented), only a small group of Christian leaders and teachers had access to the printing press—but today everyone has WordPress. In pre-2004 Christianity it was difficult to become a published author, but today everyone is surrounded by dozens of "Publish" buttons.
Every time we log into Facebook it asks us, "What's on your mind?" Twitter wants to know, "What's happening?" When controversies large and small erupt, there are devices in every direction begging us to not just take a side, but to declare our position on the largest publishing platform ever constructed by humanity.
Not Many of You Should Presume to Be Bloggers
What few of us realize is that when we press those "Publish," "Post," "Comment," and "Send" buttons, we are making the shift away from merely "believing" truth and stepping into the arena of publishing that belief. In doing so we are effectively assuming a position of leadership and teaching that prior to 2004 was not available to us.
James warned us, "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly" (James 3:1, NIV1984). James goes on to graphically portray the incredible power that our tongues have both to praise and to curse especially in the context of teaching. He then says, "Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life." (James 3:13). Solomon echoes similar wisdom, "Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent" (Prov. 17:28).

Grieving with the Good Friday God
La complejidad hispana: Todo cambió en el 2012

(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).













Comments
Displaying 13 of 81 comments
See all comments
Bernie Persson
You completely miss a major point, which is that yes we can all go and write a blog about these questions, but still most of us only really listen to the answers from the selfsame leaders who have always had the power. It's true that there's a lot of hot air on the internet, and anyone can get their opinion out there, but often it's hardly heard. A few bloggers do rise to the top, but that's either because what they write is well-thought out, well-argued and is wise, or because what they say is populist in some way, in much the same way that different church leaders rise to the top, not always because they are the wisest, but because they possess skills to capture an audience from the pulpit (or across the web). Anyone can start a church, online or not, and all kinds of preachers of arisen, teaching all kinds of truth and falsehood. Blogging does not change this, despite the fact that more voices can be heard. This is simply the same thing that happened with the invention of printing.
Keith Sherman
Lots of heat but not much light. Yes, social-network posting on important matters of faith poses its own special collection of potential wrong-moves. But anything that can be used can be misused. Mr. Dyer crams many carelessly-worded premises and rash conclusions into this short piece. Social media push us into impetuousness, is one claim. His bangs his drum loudly: "You must publish. You must publish now." And so on. These pressures are, I think, in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I often write something only to sense that I may think better of my stand, or tone, in a little while; and delete it. Often I realize I'm reacting to a writer's overheated tone, and leave off. That's not what I want to be responding to--unless, in a way, overheated tone is the overt or submerged key to the piece. Every form presents its own special challenges and opps. Blogging = conversing, more than teaching, and isn't for self-elected few. It *is* for the responsible.
Bill Ross
Dyer has given us all a priceless example of "do as I say, not as I do." If he believes what he says, rather than expecting others to admire his command of ethics, we will not have to hear his drivel any more, because he will quit bloggging. That would be a good thing, IMHO. Long live public discourse.