RSSChristian Ethics and the New Media – The Local Church and the New Media
May 10
Essays Church, Ethics, Local Church, Morality, New Media, Scripture No Comments
Christian Ethics and the New Media: Introduction and Media Defined
Christian Ethics and the New Media: Scripture and Communication
Christian Ethics and the New Media: The Christian and the New Media
The Local Church and the New Media
Just as the individual Christian has responsibility for right, ethical living in the realm of social networking and the New Media, local churches also play pivotal roles of responsibility in such a plethora of media.
Over her history, the Church has been fairly consistent in her adoption of various new technologies and media. Whether it was the use of scrolls, codexes, books, magazines, newspapers, radio or television, the Church has generally done a fair job of keeping up with societal and technological changes and paradigm shifts in the forms and mediums of communication.
According to the Barna Group,
“People within the Christian community are just as immersed in (and dependent upon) digital technologies and social networks as are those outside of it. Both evangelical Christians and other born again Christians emerged as statistically on par with national norms when it came to each of the 15 different areas that were studied. In other words, matters of faith played very little role in differentiating people’s technological habits.”[1]
In a world that is increasingly connected and compartmentalized, the Church is left with a pressing problem. On the one hand, according to David Kinnaman, “Church leaders have to strike the delicate balance between the spiritual and cultural potential of tech tools without surrendering to the false promise of these tools. Having the means of reaching the masses – for instance, through podcasting – is a good thing.”[2] The New Media, as a paradigm-shifting, conversation changing form of information communication, is precisely poised to be used in powerfully productive ways. “Yet, nothing matches the potency of life-on-life discipleship. In this respect, social networking and blogs can be effective tools to intimately connect with a small, natural network of relationships. The key is using the technology in a way that is consistent with your calling and purpose, not just an addictive self-indulgence.” [3]
This statement by Kinnaman reveals both the weakness and the power of the New Media. On the one hand, for its ability to quickly, effectively, efficiently and economically communicate information, the New Media is unmatched and unparalleled in human history. Yet, this strength is also the New Media’s greatest weakness, for in providing such volumes of information, facades of familiarity and community can be erected and these facades can in fact impede any real attempts at valid, human relationship-building interaction. For the Church, this means quite simply that there is no replacement for face-to-face, human, organic relationship growth. Humans are communal creatures.[4] The New Media does not, and cannot satisfy this basic need.
Furthermore, the Church has a moral and ethical responsibility to work through the issues that these New Media present. Kinnaman goes on to say
“One recent study we completed among teenagers showed that just 9% of church-going teens had learned something helpful about technology in their church during the past year. As each new generation becomes increasingly enmeshed with technology, these discussions and choices cannot be left to chance. Control, image, relevance, immediacy, transparency, purity, truth, stewardship, and escapism are some of the many issues that technology brings to the surface, not always with benign consequences.”[5]
Finally, the Church must understand and engage with the reality of the New Media, namely that it is a two-way conversation:
“Young people, for instance, think of themselves as creators of content, not merely consumers of it. Technology, in essence, gives them a voice and fuels their search for calling. Whether or not you welcome it, technology creates an entirely new calculus of influence and independence. The stewardship of technology as a force for good in culture is an important role for technologists, entrepreneurs, educators, and Christian leaders.”[6]
Local Churches must be equipped to deal with the ethical issues that the New Media bring. While Media are amoral, they do not exist in a vacuum. The medium, the agent of transference, not only conveys the message, but it works to shape it. Ideas are nameless, substance less notions until they are given shape and definition by language. Language in some sense is modified by the medium through which it is expressed. The Church, as Christ’s Bride and Witness must be wary of her message being unnecessarily warped by the media she uses to express it. Just because media are amoral does not mean that they are always necessarily right to use. Likewise, just because various media are used in terrible, awful and sinful ways does not mean it is wrong to use those same media in right ways. But one thing is certain: the Church is most assuredly called to remove herself from any naïveté regarding the New Media. She is called by Her Lord to communicate in a way that honors Him and brings Him renown. Her use (or misuse) of media will directly affect her ability to do that.
Conclusion
In the world of the Information Age, where communication and the New Media are kings, ethical issues abound. Questions of privacy, idolatry, predation, stewardship, slander and libel are daily conundrums for millions of bloggers, Facebookers and Twitterers every day. In a world of rapid change, where a massive paradigm shift has occurred in the way people communicate with one another and process information, confusion and fear can often rule the day.
Yet, God has not left the Christian in the dark. The light of Scriptural truth shines and the Christian is provided with clear teachings and encouragements for how to rightly, morally and ethically communicate to other Christians and to the world around. Whether it’s in the local church or on in the world of tweets and posts, blogs and vlogs, the Christian is called to rightly live and communicate, making the best use of the time, for the good of all men and for the glory of God.
[1] Barna Group, May 26, 2008, “Barna Technology Study: Social Networking, Online Entertainment And Church Podcasts,” http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/14-media/36-barna-technology-study-social-networking-online-entertainment-and-church-podcasts/ (accessed April 27, 2010).
[2] Barna Group, May 26, 2008, “Barna Technology Study: Social Networking, Online Entertainment And Church Podcasts,” http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/14-media/36-barna-technology-study-social-networking-online-entertainment-and-church-podcasts/ (accessed April 27, 2010).
[3] Barna Group, May 26, 2008, “Barna Technology Study: Social Networking, Online Entertainment And Church Podcasts,” http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/14-media/36-barna-technology-study-social-networking-online-entertainment-and-church-podcasts/ (accessed April 27, 2010).
[4] M.K. Smith, “Community,” in the encyclopedia of informal education, ed, http://www.infed.org/community/community.htm. (accessed April 27, 2010).
[5] Barna Group, May 26, 2008, “Barna Technology Study: Social Networking, Online Entertainment And Church Podcasts,” http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/14-media/36-barna-technology-study-social-networking-online-entertainment-and-church-podcasts/ (accessed April 27, 2010).
[6] Barna Group, May 26, 2008, “Barna Technology Study: Social Networking, Online Entertainment And Church Podcasts,” http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/14-media/36-barna-technology-study-social-networking-online-entertainment-and-church-podcasts/ (accessed April 27, 2010).
There is a scene in Pixar’s “A Bug’s Life” where the evil villains, the Grasshoppers, are chilling under their sombrero hangout when Hopper, the gang’s ringleader, hears grumbling about going back to Ant Island to gather “The Offering” from the puny ants. Hopper jumps over to the bar in typical grasshopper fashion, grabs a seed from their large seed dispenser at the Grasshopper bar and throws it at the complaining party. He asks the guilty one if it hurt (it did not), throws another seed (“are you kidding” being the response) and then releases the whole bunch of heavy seeds onto the whiner, crushing him. The moral of this story? “There was that ant who stood up to me … if one ant stands up, they all might stand up”.
Just as unity is vital for ants, strings, voters and warriors, it is so for followers of Jesus as well. We are one body, in Christ. The Church, Jesus’ Bride, is not made up of a bunch of self-autonomous parts. We are joined and knit together, a unified, redeemed Body. Yet, “unity” can be, and in our pluralisticly philosophical and cultural milieu, often is, misleading. Believers in Christ cannot be unified with those who deny the insanely radical and thoroughly exclusive nature of Christ and the Cross. Believers in Jesus cannot be unified with those who call Jesus a god but who do not ultimately bow their collective knee in abject submission to the Lamb. Believers in the very Son of God cannot be united with those who deny the everlasting Love of Jesus and Grace of God. Yet, with true believers and followers of Jesus, the Christian IS unified and this unity finds it strength not in the collective might of those unified but in the One who is the Great Unifier. This unity and strength is for His Glory and for our Good. It is not just strong, it is everlasting.
